As I said before in this very thread: The fact that most of sane, friendly and reasonable people in a local meta prefer to ignore the rule does not imply that the rule is well done and it is a non-issue. But quite the opposite, specially when it is so easy to fix.
I will agree the conversation should be on topic, how we choose to play some rules locally, in friendly games, ectr, is different from an actual rules discussion.
Well, how local/regional metas read the same text differently (adding things that are not there, putting a cramped and unnatural reading on the text, etc.) seems to bear on it. And that’s the thing, to me, here. Some are seeking to elevate an unnatural reading on the FAQ entry, as well as make IJW’s narrow answer to a narrow example a sweeping answer to the entire issue. The FAQ, to our local/regional meta’s (entirely reasonable) understanding, added additional options to what a Hacker can do, rather that utterly replacing the entire ARO menu and setting what they must do, which is the unnatural reading being foisted.
Except that @ijw said exactly the opposite. It utterly replace the entire ARO menu. As you can find in the very first page of this thread by @ijw. I copy paste it below for your convenience: I find it nice that your local meta decides to go against @ijw ruling and the latest FAQ content regarding hackers, hacking area and what ARO can be performed. In fact, I am sure that doing so creates a better game environment and utterly removes the last ARO Bait of the game still standing. I am doing the same myself, as well as my local meta. But yours and mine meta are homebrew rules, instead of the actual rules as it stands.
And you’ll be correct. The cramped and crabbed reading of the FAQ giving rise to this ‘concern’ is nonsensical.
Damn... Not just them. The Top-players of the hacking game can also easy play the anti-hacker-game. So do I. I mostly ignore things sounding dumb. Mostly. yeaaaaaaah.... if everything would just be that easy. Just don´t do things that everyone agrees to be a d*ck move. Like ARO baiting. And Spotlight/GML. And different sorts of ARO baiting. And the statement "It´s allowed cause it´s not explicitly forbidden". Things everyone dislikes and still everyone uses. Cause imagine you beeing at the reciving end of a d*ck move and cannot payback in the same coin (nukes in a nutshell). but @psychoticstorm is totally right, this should be a discussion for another topic. Fact is: RAW is like @ijw said and @Rabble nicely and constantly requotes over and over again: Hackers are limited to actions in their hacking area like desribed (i.e. through enemy repeater) limited to hacking or Reset and preform, in case of a non-hacker-unit, an idle. You don´t want to do this in your local meta and everyone agrees? Fine. You are TO and want your tournament be without that specific rule-interpretation? Go for it. BUT RaW is how no one seems to like it but how it is. Like inflation.
Well, if you want to be technical about it neither of us have any special mandate to interpret the rules. You saying that the FAQ and IJW makes the game play like this doesn’t mean you are right. As A Māo Esquerda have repeatedly stated, we and many more, read the rules differently. There is no high road here were you can claim you are in the right. You haven’t found the one and only truth. This isn’t the first time that different metas interpret what should have been a simple rules change differently. It won’t be the last. This discussion isn’t about rules anymore. You just cannot accept that there’s another way to read the situation. I doubt neither side can come up with something that hasn’t already been said, repeatedly. Peace out
Indeed, but @ijw is, quite literally, ‘Infinity Rules Staff’. As I said before, in the very beginning of the thread @tox and myself understood the rule exactly in the same way as you do. Until @ijw provided the ruling that we are discussing. Not about what does it mean, which is sadly clear after his intervention. But about how unfortunate the ruling is, and why it should change. Telling part of the rules staff that they don’t know about how to read the rules is something I would never dare to presume, as it is their game, not mine. At most what I can do is to homebrew new rules to better suit the game to my tastes and ‘fair play’, like what you’re doing. Which is something positive and nice. But that doesn’t stop from pleading to CB and the Rules Staff to please consider to change the rule. Specially when it goes against all the latest intent they have introduced in the game. It being: Remove all the ARO baits and other ‘gotcha!’ sheannigans that make the game cumbersome and leaves a sense of unfairness.
Discussion of how core rules can be deeply flawed, and how one can sensibly work around those flaws to make the game playable, is -inside- the scope of this thread and every core rules discussion. We are not discussing house rules on their own: we are discussing the problems in the FAQed or core rules; and then secondarily we are discussing possible fixes, be they official updates (hopefully!) or local workarounds. Attempts to exclude or denigrate that discussion do nothing useful. It doesn’t even make the FAQ ruling look authoritative. Discussion of “rule X is clearly broken, how do we fix and/or play around it?” is how we’ve kept Infinity fun since 2nd ed. Those fixes often anticipate official rules fixes when they do come: so clearly this debate is valuable. As long as we are respectful and argue well (ahem, keep it tight guys), there is no reason to suggest this discussion stop. This is -about- the FAQ/IJW ruling, what is wrong with it, and how it might be changed to work better. Back directly on topic, ARO baiting is cheesy. It: - privileges mechanical manipulation, - breaks the simulation, - favors players who are looking for holes in the rules over those playing the wider and largely-consistent tactical game, - represents yet another barrier used by insiders against anyone with a lack of familiarity with inconsistent and arcane parts of the rules. This sort of inconsistency exploited by insiders is why Infinity had a rep as hard to learn or even follow once learned. It needs a fix. And I say that as a player well familiar with these loopholes, who can use them well when an opponent warrants it (ie is playing the same cheesy stuff super hard, say a tourney setting or another friend with a guilty love for nonsensical rules arcana).
And it also causes old hardcore players that loved Infinity to drop en masse once N4 was deployed. They were used to old loopholes/cheesy things and suffered 'just enough' to still love the game despite them. So when they found that new ARO baits and loopholes were to be learn anew just for the new edition, they just called it 'enough is enough' and leave the local scene altogether to never come back. A little bit of personal story time: I myself feel bad about for this. At the start of N4, and with Starry eyes of my new found hobby, I tried, with good intention, to make the veteran players of my local meta to notice of the most of the ARO baits / loopholes / cheeseness in local message groups. So they were aware of them in case of upcoming tournaments outside of the local meta... but it proved to cause the direct opposite effect. Exposure to all these rules in such message groups caused the majority of my local meta to grow wary of the game in about 6 months to 1 year after N4 release. With several of the players confessing that it was 'partly my fault', linking it directly to my intervetion to share such. And not even after 3 FAQs, and with the game now as healthy rules-wise as possible, they have come back nor they are willing to do so. We are so few playing here now, that it is impossible to even make a league or having a 4 man tournament day... when back in the day there were more than 20 regular players available for these kind of activities regularly.
Frankly when someone’s love of a game is based on exploiting loopholes to own newbs… good riddance when they leave. I’ve been playing Infinity for over a decade. Seen players come and go, including everyone I started the Seattle meta with. I’ve played throughout western Europe and been stomped by Interplanetario winners and had total newbs I demoed for turn out to be Napoleon-level geniuses. The people who truly love the game and are socially adept enough to recognize that using loopholes to whup on newbs is unacceptable- these are the people worth keeping. They tend to stick around, and are gracious and adaptive. Pleased to say the Seattle/northwest players I know now are like this. The jerks left, thank god. Grognards who get off on feeling superior based on gaming mechanical rules advantage from obscure arcana are not really worth mourning or mollifying. Their allegiance is fragile, if it is based on being able to claw advantage through stuff like ARO-baiting, etc.
Also, I have been like you: similar approach to sharing rules loopholes exposing others to grindy unpleasantness that they found distasteful, and which drove a few players away. Learned not to do that. Keep the broken bits where you can discuss them when needed, but don’t make them prominent. Focus on fun and sometimes fudge rules when they suck, to your opponents’ advantage. Consider balancing exposure to rules crunch at tourneys with houserules that make -your- meta a nice oasis of sanity and playability. It makes people stick around.
And if there’s a cheese and non-cheese way to read something, always choose non-cheese. Advise new players of the existence of cheese, and that in the meta it’s frowned upon.
