1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hemos actualizado nuestra Política de Privacidad acorde con la nueva RGPD. +Info // We've updated our Privacy Policy to comply with the GDPR. +Info
    Dismiss Notice

[SOLVED] Deflector Stacking

Discussion in 'Solved Rule Questions' started by macfergusson, Jun 15, 2018.

Tags:
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. macfergusson

    macfergusson Van Zant is my spirit animal.

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2017
    Messages:
    885
    Likes Received:
    1,304
    So, it seems like the obvious intent is for Deflector L2 to grant a -6 MOD to the bearer vs. Hacking Attacks, just by comparing it to other rules that do similar things (adding increasing -3 penalties to attackers, etc).

    However, there is no language present to prevent stacking Level 1 and Level 2 for a total of -9. Camo skills are NFB, so they can't be stacked. Surprise Shot L2 explicitly says not to stack the MOD with L1.

    Deflector has no such language. Which way is it supposed to go?
     
  2. Cartographer

    Cartographer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    675
    Likes Received:
    1,113
    Can anyone even take them both in the same fireteam?
     
  3. Xeurian

    Xeurian Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2017
    Messages:
    533
    Likes Received:
    665
    As with most skills that have levels, anyone with a level of a Deflector L2 also has Deflector L1. However, take a look at the effects section for Surprise Shot L2:

    http://infinitythewiki.com/en/Surprise_Shot
    • This level has the same effects as Surprise Shot L1, but the MOD to the opponent's Attribute is -6.
    • The MOD provided by this Level is not stackable with the MOD provided by the previous Level.
    • Any Special Skill or piece of Equipment which ignores the MOD provided by Surprise Shot L1 will be applied to this Level too.
    Deflector only has the following:

    http://infinitythewiki.com/en/Deflector

     
    nazroth likes this.
  4. macfergusson

    macfergusson Van Zant is my spirit animal.

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2017
    Messages:
    885
    Likes Received:
    1,304
    Yup, it doesn't matter if there's two different Tinbots or not, this applies to anyone that has Deflector L2. By RAW they would also have L1, and nothing explicitly prevents them from adding L1 and L2 together for a total -9 MOD.

    I am contending that this seems like an unintended oversight.
     
    nazroth and Xeurian like this.
  5. Cartographer

    Cartographer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    675
    Likes Received:
    1,113
    Interesting, being equipment we're not specifically told that you posses all lower levels (unless someone can point me to where), just that:

    "Like Special Skills, certain pieces of Equipment are divided into several alphabetic or numeric Levels that represent grades of effectiveness and refinement of the same basic technology."

    i.e. it says different levels exist but is missing the equivalent skills text:

    "Unless otherwise stated, any numerical Level of a Special Skill automatically grants all lower Levels of the same Skill. For example, a Level 3 also grants Levels 1 and 2."

    This creates a problem with holoprojectors though, as L2 doesn't specifically say it grants L1 and we know it does from the examples.
     
  6. macfergusson

    macfergusson Van Zant is my spirit animal.

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2017
    Messages:
    885
    Likes Received:
    1,304
    Yes, some clarification either way would be good.
     
  7. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    3,740
    Likes Received:
    4,221
    I'm fairly certain that a clarification exists that you can't benefit from Deflector twice. I just can't find it, and in any event it's probably on the old forums.
     
  8. Spleen

    Spleen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2017
    Messages:
    251
    Likes Received:
    383
    You can't benefit from deflector twice by nature of the way it's rules are written.

    Any Hacking Attack against the user of a Deflector... must apply a -3 MOD to the Attribute used to perform the Hacking Attack.

    This wording prompts a single check of "does my target have a deflector" and then if the answer is yes, applies a mod, it's a basic boolean logic and is different to the way a lot of other skills are worded

    Whether you are using 1 deflector or 2 deflectors is irrelevant because it's still just an attack against the user of a deflector, similarly, you can't stack L1 and L2 because they are literally triggering off the same clause, you just have to apply whichever one is preferable.

    Some other rules work like this too, ODD is similarly enough worded that you couldn't pull ODD from a panoply with Achilles and try to claim a -12 visual mod.
     
    chromedog, Savnock and inane.imp like this.
  9. macfergusson

    macfergusson Van Zant is my spirit animal.

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2017
    Messages:
    885
    Likes Received:
    1,304
    ODD has the NFB tag. There's nothing in the words you quoted that says you can't use both Level 1 and Level 2 of Deflector.
     
  10. Savnock

    Savnock Nerfherder

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2017
    Messages:
    388
    Likes Received:
    470
    This is clearly an oversight. Anyone trying to claim a -9 for adding the two bonuses together is going to face some serious ill will.

    I hate that that kind of RAW loophole crud is considered by even a sliver of the player base. Stop trying to cheese the game.
     
    bladerunner_35 likes this.
  11. macfergusson

    macfergusson Van Zant is my spirit animal.

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2017
    Messages:
    885
    Likes Received:
    1,304
    As I said in my post, by comparing to other skills written in a similar way it seems like an oversight, however there is nothing in the rules to show that it doesn't stack, hence the need for it to be addressed. Someone who doesn't have any context but reading the rules accurately could think it should be a -9 with absolutely no malicious intent.

    Basically this is another case of "can be quickly and easily cleared up with a one line FAQ entry" so this doesn't need to be a problem. @HellLois
     
  12. Savnock

    Savnock Nerfherder

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2017
    Messages:
    388
    Likes Received:
    470
    You are very forgiving, I envy you that.

    When I see someone exploiting an obvious loophole with the argument that "it's not explicitly covered, so despite everything else working one way I'm going to insist that this poorly-explained bit does not work that way... to my advantage," I consider that malicious. It's a mild flavor of maliciousness that spoils fun and is annoying but is not explicitly cruel or whatever, because we're just playing toy soldiers. But it's still a dickmove, much like most picky RAW arguments that break the consistency and simulation that make the game fun.

    Clearly, the two levels do not stack just like basic camo and TO do not stack. Or any number of other leveled skills/gear.

    I kind of miss when Infinity was so broken that you -had- to play along and apply consistent logic across poorly-explained areas to make the system work at all (N2 skill/ARO sequences especially). N3 is so so sooo good, but that very consistency and quality has lead some RAW loophole-lovers to be even more stubborn when they find a rules problem that they can exploit... usually insisting that it's a feature, not a bug... that they can do something which breaks the simulation and is extremely hard to counter.

    Regardless, that quality and consistency is the main reason I like Infinity so much more than something like 40K. Having decent amounts of simulation and fairly consistent rules tend to push that kind of player away (and are of course fun on their own). Sadly there's always "TFG" around on forums to insist about this kind of thing, but I've had decent luck with avoiding them in person.

    I would suggest that we all not encourage TFGs, even for the sake of argument (which is I assume why you're saying that, not trying to cast any aspersions on you MacFergusson).
     
    #12 Savnock, Jun 18, 2018
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2018
    toadchild likes this.
  13. Spleen

    Spleen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2017
    Messages:
    251
    Likes Received:
    383
    there's nothing that says I can't lean across the table and sock you in the arm too, but that's not how rules work.
     
    Savnock likes this.
  14. macfergusson

    macfergusson Van Zant is my spirit animal.

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2017
    Messages:
    885
    Likes Received:
    1,304
    Are you being purposefully obtuse? Rules work by following how they are written. Number leveled Skills and Equipment stack with their lower levels because the rules say so. They don't stack when the rules say so, like with the NFB tag, or when skills explicitly state that they do not stack with the lower level (see Surprise Shot L2 for an example). If we all agree that Deflector L2 isn't meant to stack with L1, why is it so hard to believe that it should be written down somewhere so it can't be argued? As it stands now, "how everyone does this" is not the same thing as "what the rules say" so it should be fixed. Just like every other place where the rules text has a problem that needs to be cleaned up.
     
  15. solkan

    solkan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2017
    Messages:
    699
    Likes Received:
    1,167
    But you’re making it sound like the position exists to state:
    1. There is a defect, whether it’s a typo, formatting error, or some organizational error in the rule. And game companies don’t have enough editors or proofreaders for the complexity of their products, as a general rule, so there are defects in the rules.
    2. Until the defect is officially corrected, the proper thing is to point out the defect and play as if the defect was corrected.

    If you’re interested in discussing answers to the question “So how is this supposed to work?” that’s useful. Posting five times a day “Why hasn’t CB fixed this yet?” doesn’t free up hours in CB’s work schedule or convince anyone to develop time travel to fix things.
     
    inane.imp likes this.
  16. macfergusson

    macfergusson Van Zant is my spirit animal.

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2017
    Messages:
    885
    Likes Received:
    1,304
    Where is this happening?

    My point is that we have no official statement that this is an error, so it might well be intentional. The community has been wrong before. If it is an error, that should be addressed, but we don't actually know for a fact that it is.
     
  17. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    3,740
    Likes Received:
    4,221
    We do (in as much as 'error' is 'it could be written more clearly') and you should to. Patience with these manufactured 'issues' has worn thin.

    There is literally a thread where you can post them in a 'this is amusing, if you look at this from a certain POV you're allowed to do X. Perhaps the language could be tightened up.' @Sabin76 did a good job starting it (or at least that's mainly how I used that thread).


    Here's what some light googling has to say on it:
    http://infinitytheforums.com/forum/topic/31413-solved-double-deflector-lv1/

    That answer (ie what @Spleen said above) has stood for 3 years.
     
    #17 inane.imp, Jun 18, 2018
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2018
    Savnock likes this.
  18. Spleen

    Spleen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2017
    Messages:
    251
    Likes Received:
    383
    Yes, but it was warranted by your earlier post "the rules don't say I can't" is not a valid argument and you failed to provide any other opinions or information I could engage with.
     
  19. cazboab

    cazboab Member (phrasing)

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2017
    Messages:
    921
    Likes Received:
    1,196
  20. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    3,740
    Likes Received:
    4,221
    The logic is the same: apply a flat MOD for any number of Deflectors. Indeed it's expressed in almost precisely the same manner.

    Functionaly, there is no difference between cumulative MODs from multiple Detectors and cumulative MODs from multiple levels of the one Deflector.
     
    Robock, Savnock and Spleen like this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.