1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Rules bloat?

Discussion in 'Off-Topic English' started by regelridderen, Dec 2, 2018.

  1. Wolf

    Wolf https://youtube.com/@StudioWatchwolf

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2017
    Messages:
    835
    Likes Received:
    969
    Yes, and doubly so because - despite the difficulty we all experience with the typical ambiguity of their rules, the company are peculiarly committed to their printed words as though it were perfect descriptions of their intentions. We know that many of their associates and game testers have found that pretty frustrating, because they've written about it here before.
     
    #21 Wolf, Dec 3, 2018
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2018
    the huanglong likes this.
  2. Wolf

    Wolf https://youtube.com/@StudioWatchwolf

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2017
    Messages:
    835
    Likes Received:
    969
    [edited]

    That's a great summary @n21lv :smile: and I think Wizards and Magic: the Gathering are a good reference for how rules and business models could or should be best managed. I personally regard them with equal parts disdain, disrespect and admiration!

    I disdain the game's unnecessary (undesirable) complexity because of high variability and an absurdly complicated rule set. And I dislike its 'social fragility' - its dependence on play groups somehow mutually agreeing their preferred formats, level of competitiveness and pay-to-play costs.

    And I disrespect the company for their textbook 'How to Fail' attempt to support all the legacy rulesets and formats that have accreted over 25 years, whilst also producing about 1500 new cards every year that inevitably break something somewhere in that mess.

    But then I really admire the way that - given all that unnecessary bullshit, they regularly update their comprehensive rule set document and provide the online Oracle tool, which provides updates and clarifications even before cards are available to the public*.

    Hence I previously suggested that Corvus Belli should implement the same kind of system themselves, and simply amend and clarify their rules through the system as soon as a problem is realised. I thought CB might be amenable because I know they all play MTG.


    * This is an example of rulings for a card from the most recent Standard Format set. Note the deliberately redundant clarifications - repeating what's said elsewhere so that the explanation is still absolutely clear in situ, and that these clarifications were published before the cards were released.
     
    #22 Wolf, Dec 3, 2018
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2018
    jherazob and Abrilete like this.
  3. toadchild

    toadchild Premeasure

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    4,262
    Likes Received:
    8,073
    Is there actually such a general rule? Every rule that I can think of that activates multiple models explicitly spells out that they generate only a single ARO.
     
  4. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    6,040
    Likes Received:
    7,177
    That's my point.

    There should be a single general rule that covers all of that. But instead the ARO rules are written as if you can only activate one Trooper per order. Which means that the individual rules need additional complexity to deal with these situations. This means that there's more chances to write it badly.
     
    Xeurian, Section9, toadchild and 2 others like this.
  5. n21lv

    n21lv SymbioHate

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    592
    Likes Received:
    767
    I must disagree here. Yes, the game is complex, but not because it has a ton of overly complicated rules that you must learn before you're able to play it well enough, but because there are so many possible rule interactions.
    The rule base itself is vast, but it's written in a very clear and structured way with no ambiguities at all. For example, take a look at one of the most complex rules, Bestow.

    Bestow is an ability that lets you play a card that can be played in two different ways: as an aura and as a creature. Creature is fairly simple -- you pay its casting cost, and it goes to the battlefield. Auras can only be attached to existing creatures (usually) to bolster their abilities. Regular Auras just vanish when creature they were affecting gets removed from the battlefield. But Auras granted by Bestow ability don't -- they materialise into creatures instead. So, when you play a card with Bestow, you can decide whether it will be a creature (and pay its regular casting cost) or an Aura. Now, see how it is worded.

    702.102a: Bestow represents two static abilities, one that functions while the card with bestow is on the stack and another that functions both while it's on the stack and while it's on the battlefield. "Bestow [cost]" means "You may cast this card by paying [cost] rather than its mana cost." and "If you chose to pay this spell's bestow cost, it becomes an Aura enchantment and gains enchant creature. These effects last until one of two things happens: this spell has an illegal target as it resolves or the permanent this spell becomes, becomes unattached." Paying a card's bestow cost follows the rules for paying alternative costs in rules 601.2b and 601.2f-h.
    702.102b: If a spell's controller chooses to pay its bestow cost, that player chooses a legal target for that Aura spell as defined by its enchant creature ability and rule 601.2c. See also rule 303.4.
    702.102c: The check for whether a spell can legally be cast happens after its controller has chosen whether to pay its bestow cost; see rule 601.2e.
    Example: Aether Storm is an enchantment with the ability "Creature spells can't be cast." This effect doesn't stop a creature card with bestow from being cast for its bestow cost because the spell is an Aura enchantment spell, not an enchantment creature spell, when the game checks whether the spell is illegal.
    702.102d: As an Aura spell with bestow begins resolving, if its target is illegal, the effect making it an Aura spell ends. It continues resolving as a creature spell and will be put onto the battlefield under the control of the spell's controller. This is an exception to rule 608.3a.
    702.102e: If an Aura with bestow is attached to an illegal object or player, it becomes unattached. This is an exception to rule 704.5m.


    Note how clearly rules state what will be the effect, when its requirements are checked and what happens if it's target is no longer valid when it begins resolving. Note how clearly exceptions to other rules (with references!) are highlighted as such. The rule IS complex, but it's very clear written and there is no way to read it ambiguously.

    Now, read the 'Smoke and Special Dodge' rule (is it even a rule? I mean it's not numbered or defined as a separate entity, it's just placed in a separate section under Smoke Special ammunition rules) and search the forums (both old and new) for endless questions on its interaction with other rules.
     
    Abrilete and Wolf like this.
  6. Wolf

    Wolf https://youtube.com/@StudioWatchwolf

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2017
    Messages:
    835
    Likes Received:
    969
    Yes, I think a bunch of us are on the same page here and would prefer general rules to cover the general case, and then additional rules that describe the exceptions.

    Is the situation you're describing now because we didn't have Fireteams in Infinity N2, maybe, and that the rules weren't properly rewritten from N2 to nicely accommodate the major component in N3 Human Sphere? (Can we blame @ijw for anything to do with Fireteams :smile:)
     
    #26 Wolf, Dec 3, 2018
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2018
  7. Solodice

    Solodice Freshly Squeezed Troll

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2017
    Messages:
    624
    Likes Received:
    1,348
    [​IMG]

    Did you say we didn't have fireteams in N2? We got sectorials which introduced fireteams to Infinity from Human Sphere... which was an N2 expansion. Then we got more in the Campaign: Paradiso which was also an N2 expansion...
     
  8. ijw

    ijw Ian Wood aka the Wargaming Trader. Rules & Wiki
    Infinity Rules Staff Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,331
    Likes Received:
    14,817
    You should probably have waited until you could check the wiki. :-(

    'During the Deployment Phase, before the game begins, players place their troops on the battlefield.' (my emphasis).

    'Infinity games are divided into Game Rounds, or Rounds, during which both players have the chance to take an active role. '.
     
  9. Wolf

    Wolf https://youtube.com/@StudioWatchwolf

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2017
    Messages:
    835
    Likes Received:
    969
    Yeah, but I think your post is actually supportive of my own inasmuch as we agree that Wizards know how their rules are supposed to work; they're prepared to clarify that precisely in their Comprehensive Rules (such as you quoted); and they're also prepared to keep the ramifications for each and every card clarified and updated to manage emerging issues as they develop, and on an ongoing basis.

    But you didn't like my saying this
    because I think you'd like to provide apologetics by means of phrases like 'core mechanisms', or 'evergreen mechanics', and argue about where rules begin and mechanisms end. All of which is largely moot, because my point is that MTG and Infinity are too complicated, because there are too many parts to them both.

    Each and every Magic card has text on it that does something, and whether it does something with reference to an extant rule, or defines new rules, it's another rule. And each an every troop unit has a unique cost and a unique set of weapons and skills - otherwise they'd be the same as another unit.

    So Corvus Belli would seem to be interested in doing exactly the same thing with Infinity that Wizards of the Coast do with Magic: the Gathering - introducing new 'items' (cards/troop units) with new rules, or sets of rules. In the case of CB, it's geared their release of new miniatures, such as the recently revised Raicho model which added a Mine Dispenser to the unit:

    [​IMG]1
    RAICHO MULTI HMG + Heavy Shotgun, Mine Dispenser / . (2 | 94)
    [​IMG] RAICHO PILOT 2 Heavy Pistols, D-Charges, Knife. ()

    2 SWC | 94 Points

    Open in Infinity Army

    And you can argue that 1 Regular Order, 'two-use', Disposable, BS Weapon, Antipersonnel Mine (and Mines), Speculative Fire, 94 Army Points, 2 SWC points, Heavy Pistols, D-Charges, Knife, Heavy Machine Gun, Multi ammunition, Heavy Shotgun (and template weapons) are all just references to extant rules, but in which case you'll have argued my own point very nicely, thank you very much. That's a lot of fracking rules!

    Sure, the Raicho's rules are a good example of encapsulating other rules in a way that's agreeably tidy, but it still represents a unique implementation of a set of rules at a certain cost - otherwise it would be a different unit, after all. So if you have a dozen different units on the table, then you have a dozen times the abilities that are unique to those models and that's a hell of a lot of rules that CB show every sign of wishing to increase.

    I agreed with those guys that were disagreeing with the Director - the game's too darn complicated.

    Now, where's my Christmas shopping list of new units for my third army ... :smile:
     
    #29 Wolf, Dec 3, 2018
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2018
  10. Wolf

    Wolf https://youtube.com/@StudioWatchwolf

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2017
    Messages:
    835
    Likes Received:
    969
    Well, I wouldn't know, because I haven't read anything earlier than N3; but I'd intended my post to invite general speculation about the problems inane.imp was complaining about by suggesting the problem might be copy-pasted legacy rules that predate Fireteam rules in HSN3. Can we presume you don't think that's the case?
     
    #30 Wolf, Dec 3, 2018
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2018
  11. armazingerz

    armazingerz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2017
    Messages:
    258
    Likes Received:
    198
    That makes sense. Reminds me a critical GW statement: "We make the best fantasy miniatures in the world and sell them globally at a profit and we intend to do this forever"

    Maybe both companies experience is: nice models sell no matter the profile, ugly models don't sell no matter the profile, thus the game doesn't matter. Is a secondary thing on their business model. If they have this vision, that would explain why they both seem so often to pay no attention to the players opinions. Imagine their daily work is 75% about sculpt, 15% about fluff, 10% about rules, that would explain a lot.

    Let me add, companies often adapt some of the next positions regarding to their customer opinions (even more if that company has partly a loyal fanbase):
    -"They don't know all the facts, thus they are wrong"
    -"If we are growing we have to be doing things right"
    -"That ain't an immediate problem, we will fix it later"
    -"No matter what we do, somebody will complain, thus stick to the plan"


    All of those go against modern companies policies and dinamics, but those are comfortable excuses to don't abord the titanic task of a ruleset and profiles overhaul. It looks also that there is at least one huge ego at CBs management, and maybe there is a lack of formation on business management and development (thus on handling customer trends), it use to happen that when a few friends start a company, they may lack some key profile at decisionmaking level, as a manager I see that quite often.
     
    #31 armazingerz, Dec 3, 2018
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2018
    jherazob, inane.imp and Wolf like this.
  12. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    6,040
    Likes Received:
    7,177
    Huh, did not realise that Deployment was not part of the game. Interesting.
     
  13. ijw

    ijw Ian Wood aka the Wargaming Trader. Rules & Wiki
    Infinity Rules Staff Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,331
    Likes Received:
    14,817
    To be fair, it does say something about bloat when a rule that goes out of its way to use the terminology correctly gets assumed to be a mistake. :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:
     
  14. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    6,040
    Likes Received:
    7,177
    :P back.

    In all seriousness though:

    Jargon that makes a term mean something other than its commonly understood meaning tends to be misunderstood. So I'd still prefer "during a game round" rather than "during the game". One is obviously using the game's jargon whereas the second is not.

    There's actually two points being made in this thread: one is increased complexity isn't necessarily a good thing and the other is that consistently good rules writing and design can mitigate the first.
     
    n21lv, jherazob and Wolf like this.
  15. ijw

    ijw Ian Wood aka the Wargaming Trader. Rules & Wiki
    Infinity Rules Staff Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,331
    Likes Received:
    14,817
    For what it's worth, off the top of my head I can't think of any tabletop wargame that considers deployment to be 'during the game'.
     
    chromedog and A Mão Esquerda like this.
  16. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    6,040
    Likes Received:
    7,177
    I can't think of any player who does not.
     
    jherazob likes this.
  17. ijw

    ijw Ian Wood aka the Wargaming Trader. Rules & Wiki
    Infinity Rules Staff Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,331
    Likes Received:
    14,817
    I can. Common usage in my experience is that you set up (deployment etc.) then you start the game.
     
  18. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    6,040
    Likes Received:
    7,177
    Interesting. I consider everything after drawing classifieds to be part of 'the game' and my experience is that's true everywhere in Australia.

    So this is a reasonable statement:

    "How long do you allocate to a game in tournaments?

    We allocate 2hrs for a 300pt game."

    That 2hrs would include Deployment.
     
    jherazob likes this.
  19. DukeofEarl

    DukeofEarl Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    1,444
    Likes Received:
    1,385
    Personally I have always seen/heard it as "per round" which does have a little different connotation.
     
    chromedog likes this.
  20. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    6,040
    Likes Received:
    7,177
    Wow, 6 hour matches? ;)

    And that's not including deployment. That seems a little excessive.

    This exchange does illustrate how difficult it is to write good rules. And CB does have a tonne of good rules: we often forget this, but they do.

    But it also illustrates how simple it can be to change wording to provide clarity (Decoy referring to game rounds and @DukeofEarl referring to tournament rounds). In a wiki this is even easier as you can link the game term with where it is fist defined.
     
    #40 inane.imp, Dec 3, 2018
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2018
  • About Us

    We are a company founded in 2001 in Cangas (Spain), and devoted to design and manufacture games and figures. Our main product, Infinity the Game, was born with the ambition to satisfy the most demanding audience, offering the best quality.

     

    Why are we here?

     

    Because we are, first and foremost, players.

  • Quick Navigation

    Open the Quick Navigation