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. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    4,414
    Likes Received:
    4,287
    OTOH, not talking about it means it will never get fixed. CB seems somewhat flummoxed by the community's desire for a well-written and clear ruleset and only clarifies it grudgingly.
     
    cazboab likes this.
  2. Savnock

    Savnock Nerfherder

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2017
    Messages:
    374
    Likes Received:
    444
    I would ask the same. Clearly, a -9 modifier blows the curve on the math of the game. Your logic that a lack of rules coverage for this issue, which would clearly break the rules, must be intentional, is not at all given. I do see that you're open to both possibilities, but a basic moment of reflection on what a -9 modifier does to the probabilities here should make it clear that this is not the intention.

    I agree with imp: There's no need for this kind of argument when game balance issues resulting from it are so obvious.

    Because people are fallible, and the N3 rules have/had a lot of little holes like this. Some basic common sense papers over them nicely. Insisting on a FAQ for every single one of them sucks resources from development of advances to the game to some extent. You're right when you say:

    ...but you also need to consider that with all the rules fixes we're talking a LOT of rebalancing etc. done by CB. This does need to happen for a lot of the big stuff, but for every single issue, imagine it from their perspective: pointing out the obvious for every single gap is really irritating, and if you get that correction wrong (in any of the several languages they publish in) you have created even more problems.

    I'm in games publication, and this kind of activity is really, really annoying. Big problems deserve fixes. Little ones like this that are obvious are super irritating to fix, requiring it only because some dweeb tried to game an obviously incorrect interpretation to his advantage.
     
    inane.imp likes this.
  3. Savnock

    Savnock Nerfherder

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2017
    Messages:
    374
    Likes Received:
    444
    CB -has- a well-written and clear ruleset, especially compared to any other small-unit minis game I've ever seen. There are a few minor issues that require clearing up, and you're right that they could and should all be handled at once.

    But it's not a small thing to do so, so go easy on them. Consider this: you're talking about 5-7 days or so of writing, meetings, testing, and publication work from 4-5 staff members to fix this (time/effort estimate because I work in games and my company is currently in rework/rewrite crunch-time for a boardgame, with even less moving parts than what CB would have to deal with for a FAQ). The people in CB who would be key to this are also the head narrative guy and one of the execs, the community manager and video producer, the head rules writer and foreign outreach guy, etc. They can't just drop those roles for very long. So that effort would take even longer balanced with other obligations, because when you have a lot of products at different stages there's no such thing as a focused workday when you're not dealing with other stuff for at least 2-3 hours.

    All that considered, a comprehensive FAQ effort can probably only happen when there are not conventions, new releases, etc. in release phase or the crunchy part of the production pipeline. Around Europe that means winter, post-Christmas.

    So while we do need a well-considered and thorough FAQ, we should probably expect it in February or so. And until then, things are not dire enough to be unplayable. So let's go easy on the guys who publish this great game, and just deal with the inconsistencies for one more tournament season until they get fixed.

    [PERSONALGRIPE]And when they do, let's hope they hit symbiomates and Jammers with the nerfbat while they're at it.[/PERSONALGRIPE]
     
  4. CabalTrainee

    CabalTrainee Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    385
    Likes Received:
    565
    Like basic rules like climb you mean?
     
    Hecaton and Ginrei like this.
  5. Ginrei

    Ginrei Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    426
    You may be in game publication and one single issue like this may be annoying to fix, I agree. However, as a player, I deal with these annoyances as a normal part of playing Infinity. Everyone probably has their opinion what rules need to be fixed more than others and this isn't on the top of my list. But the problem is... it's a very very long list.

    CB shouldn't focus on this one issue. They should focus on redoing the entire rule set from the ground up. Creating a clear structure and way to present the rules to players will eliminate issues like this one automatically if done correctly. Of course mistakes will happen and those errors can be fixed. But playing the language card irks me. It's not a language issue when a rule describes itself as an attack without clearly identifying it as such.

    At some point you need to tear the house down and build again. Castles built on quicksand and all that. Of course that's my opinion and others may find the rules perfectly fine as is. We'll just have to disagree.
    I disagree. I play many games that just don't have my opponent and I looking at each other and going, "WTF do we do now?"
     
    Hecaton likes this.
  6. macfergusson

    macfergusson Van Zant is my spirit animal.

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2017
    Messages:
    885
    Likes Received:
    1,303
    It's not obvious to everyone. I literally just encountered this specific problem in the past couple of weeks, hence my post. When I go to answer a rules question and the "obvious answer" isn't actually in the rules, it really negates the solidity of what I'm saying.

    Literally me recently: "Oh yeah, Deflector doesn't stack, it's -3 or -6 if you have L2, no more than that" "But where does it say they don't stack?"
    "... Oh. Shit..."

    When I have to resort to "well the INTENT of the rule... ignore what it actually says, OK?" That's hardly confidence inspiring.

    We've literally been told that they are watching and collecting issues for clarification right now, so I'm raising one such issue for visibility. And I'm being attacked for wanting the "obvious answer" to actually be in the rules somewhere, and not just fuzzy community interpretation. Yay.
     
    Dimswitch, Xeurian, cazboab and 3 others like this.
  7. Savnock

    Savnock Nerfherder

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2017
    Messages:
    374
    Likes Received:
    444
    I would like to know what rulesets those are. Please name those small-unit minis games, as I'd love to read their rules. If they have the detail and balance that Infinity has, I'd love to be impressed by them.

    Sure, a full rewrite (aka new edition) of the rules could be done. That's much, much more work than a FAQ. Would you rather have a decent FAQ say wintertime, or a complete new edition in a couple years, with not much new stuff coming out before then? Because a complete rewrite and new release of the rules would take most of the company many months of work.

    Be reasonable. A decent FAQ will fix most of the issues. We just need to be patient for a couple months while they deal with all the awesome releases we're all drooling over, and the cons, and then get the thing written.

    Sometimes rules aren't utterly explicit, and you do have to figure out a few things from context and consistency. That's because they are written by normal people. I kinda doubt that you or anyone else on this forum could have written and tested a better ruleset.

    This is the way most games have been for a long time (MTG's incredible legalistic rules being a good exception). Even the great chit games that the military used as simulations for decades had flaws that could be gamed, that you would have to ignore to make things simulative.

    One should be ready to deal with that, and more importantly one should -not- use lack of explicit rules to attempt to argue an interpretation that pretty clearly goes against the way that everything else similar in the game works.

    Also it -is- obvious that a -9 would blow the curve and break the math. Do the math. What does a -9 modifier do to the possibilities of hacking something? What does the Deflector L2 cost? There's your answer.

    You're not being attacked. You do have a good point that it's an issue, and should be addressed when the FAQ comes out.

    You are however wrong to encourage RAW people who would use the gap in explicit coverage to argue for interpretations that will break the math of the game. It gives cheesy cornercase abusers traction that they really don't need.
     
    #27 Savnock, Jun 18, 2018
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2018
  8. Savnock

    Savnock Nerfherder

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2017
    Messages:
    374
    Likes Received:
    444
    It's a thing that definitely needs a fix. It's also not super vital. And the rest of the rules are good. So again, not much better out there overall.

    Please point me towards a small-unit miniatures game that has rules better than Infinity's. If you can find one that has even better-tuned basic rules with such granularity, simulation, and consistency I would love to read and play it.
     
  9. macfergusson

    macfergusson Van Zant is my spirit animal.

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2017
    Messages:
    885
    Likes Received:
    1,303
    That is literally what my post is about, and people are trying to argue against it.

    Where am I doing anything like "encouraging cheesy cornercase abuse" and please be specific? I said from the start that I think the obvious intent is X, but the rules say Y, so we have a contradiction that should be corrected in the supposed upcoming big cleanup.

    I really think you and some other people are bringing their own baggage in here and posting about things that aren't at all relevant to my thread.
     
    Hecaton likes this.
  10. CabalTrainee

    CabalTrainee Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    385
    Likes Received:
    565
    Base movement rules are not vital?

    It was an example. There is way more than one single thing. We can also add dodging into TAGs. White noise + NFB. Sixth Sense (Thankfully we got recently an answer for this at least on the forum).


    "Better" rules is subjective. Clearer rules is easy. Like you said before:
    Easy example Malifaux. It is actually hard to find holes in the system there. This does not mean i prefer that game or those rules but they are easily more clear. You usually do not argue rules while playing Malifaux at all.
     
    Hecaton and Ginrei like this.
  11. Ginrei

    Ginrei Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    426
    If it takes ten years to rewrite the rules so be it. I'll be disappointed until then, but the length of time that's needed isn't going to change my mind that it needs to be done.
     
  12. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    3,739
    Likes Received:
    4,216
    Here's how these threads go:

    1. Here's a 'massive' exploit in the rules.
    2. Umm, no that's not how anybody understands that. But sure I can see how you read it that way.
    3. Yes but you're wrong. It's a massive exploit and needs fixing.
    4. Umm, no I'm not wrong, here's where it's been discussed previously and interpreted as I said.
    5. No that doesn't apply because the cases are slightly different or the source is insufficiently official.
    6. No, here's why it applies.
    7. I don't see how you could possibly read it that way. You're wrong; wrong, wrong, wrong.
    8. Ok. You do you.

    Steps 2-7 should be repeated until frustration sets in

    I have no issue with going 'hey this rule could probably do with clarification' but the constant assertions that you're reading of the rule is the only correct one and instransigence in the face of evidence gets old rapidly.

    Also it would be nice if you googled the issue first. "Infinity Forum (keyword) (keyword)" usually gets you to the previous discussion
     
    Savnock likes this.
  13. macfergusson

    macfergusson Van Zant is my spirit animal.

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2017
    Messages:
    885
    Likes Received:
    1,303
    The discussion from over 3 years ago on the old forum hasn't been added to FAQ/errata documents. Hence raising this for clarity during the current period of "we are collecting issues for a major rules cleanup document" that has been discussed.

    I am not looking for help on understanding the rule, or what people think the right house rule is. From the start I was clear that I think it is obviously intended to go how everyone agrees it works.

    A thorough reading of the rules and official FAQ documents should be all you need to resolve questions, and currently that is not the case. I'm sure perfection can never be achieved, but it can certainly be a lot better.
     
    Hecaton likes this.
  14. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    3,739
    Likes Received:
    4,216
    How to avoid getting people's backs up.

    1. You've been around long enough to know that rulings on the old forums are (for the moment) still a thing and forum rulings will be a thing going ahead. Google is your friend.

    2. Back down in the face of a reasonable argument that allows the rules to function. Don't intransigently fight a corner you know is wrong in the face of a functional alternative.

    3. Simply @ your local Warcor and request that it be looked at for more formal clarification down the track.

    I say this - as my meta is well aware - coming from a tendency to interpret the rules 'differently'.
     
    Savnock likes this.
  15. macfergusson

    macfergusson Van Zant is my spirit animal.

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2017
    Messages:
    885
    Likes Received:
    1,303
    Today was the first I heard of Warcors actually being involved in collecting issues for FAQ. That could stand to be spread around rather more effectively. If there were any kind of official process for errata requests, I would have followed it instead of opening this thread in the first place.

    Personally, I am trying to push for a better game for all of us, and the level of fighting back from the community that occurs these days is mind-boggling.
     
    CabalTrainee likes this.
  16. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    4,414
    Likes Received:
    4,287
    Me too.
     
  17. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    4,414
    Likes Received:
    4,287
    Mk 1 Warmachine was much more coherent.

    So it sounds like they have other priorities beyond a tight ruleset. Ok.

    This is going easy. I'm not showing up to their house with a bat, Christ.
     
  18. HellLois

    HellLois What the Hell...Lois?
    CB Staff

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    610
    Likes Received:
    1,880
    No, TinBots are not stackable
     
    RattlerNxt, chromedog and Savnock like this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.