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

Stratuscloud Clarification question

Discussion in '[Archived]: N3 Rules' started by Wormy, May 28, 2019.

  1. A Mão Esquerda

    A Mão Esquerda Deputy Hexahedron Officer

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    3,394
    Likes Received:
    4,104
    And looking to avoid those layers of complexity is one of the things that inform CB’s process. Creating a rule set as precise as some seem to want would results in something similar to SFB. Not exactly many folks’ cup of tea. Supposing and using a general ability to extrapolate and interact with the rules and the opponent in a spirit of good will and faith is needed and done.
     
  2. Zewrath

    Zewrath Elitist Jerk

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2017
    Messages:
    2,000
    Likes Received:
    3,484
    [​IMG]
     
    inane.imp and A Mão Esquerda like this.
  3. Section9

    Section9 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    6,148
    Likes Received:
    9,666
    Admittedly, with online rules you can get away with at least putting the interactions into every location, since people are almost never going to print out the entire thing. Bare minimum would be a link to the interaction, but having the entire interaction is better, reduces search time.

    I'd actually recommend doing that with the wiki. It's not like electrons go away after you use them.

    But it does make the overall rules scary-huge when you do that in paper. Probably half the page count of SFB is due to the repeated interactions, maybe 2/3rds.
     
  4. Ginrei

    Ginrei Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    428
    I disagree. I believe making the rules easier to understand and more precise will only shorten their length. Even if they did became longer, so be it. Having a proper set of rules is paramount.

    Players shouldn't need to compromise in the spirit of good will to enjoy a game. Competitive or otherwise. Supporting CB is like supporting a car company who uses hexagon shaped wheels. Sure, it takes me where I want to go, but there's no good reason to persist with those wheels.
    Infinity may not be as complex as SFB in the end, but i'd say it has another layer to consider.

    Winning a game of Infinity can come down to 'who better remembered some obscure ruling, knows where to find it, and hopes the TO doesn't overrule them'. Or who has the weaker personality when compromising on unknown interactions.

    Personally, I prefer a game I lose because someone remembered more than me, not because of someones personal opinion.
     
    xagroth, n21lv and meikyoushisui like this.
  5. Ogid

    Ogid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2018
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    755
    Awesome! It’s not like I have time for them anymore but I do like those kind of overcomplex systems, I’ll check them out just for curiosity.

    I also think that an approach like that in Infinity would be great, not in paper obviously, and not in the “main” rule system, but it would be great as a solid system to back it up. The idea would be keeping a rule system like the one we have now, with enough complexity but "light" enough to not become too overwhelming. That main rule system would be the backbone of the rules and should have everything needed to play.

    And then create a secondary layer, just for interactions and extremely niche situations, that layer would point how to resolve particular confusing scenarios, and will have a ton of examples (without adding extra rules, just showing how they are resolved officially). It could also rule some niche interactions but not too many rules should be added in this layer.

    Doing it that way more casual players won’t face a 1k page rulebook, but if they get stuck in a game and they don’t know how to resolve a particular rules interactions or they are curious about one particular case, then they could go to that link in the “secondary rules” and figure it out. That would be a lot of work for CB though, but it would be amazing!
     
    Ginrei likes this.
  6. solkan

    solkan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2017
    Messages:
    1,335
    Likes Received:
    1,982
    I'm thinking about the Warmachine/Hordes rules with their explicit rules priority statement defining the interactions, and and trying to imagine how many exceptions a person would see to every paragraph of the rules. :eyes:
     
  7. solkan

    solkan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2017
    Messages:
    1,335
    Likes Received:
    1,982
    During 2nd edition, a few different people sat down and did "fan edits" of the rulebooks.

    I think it would be more plausible as an unofficial "fan edit" wiki. If there's sufficient permission from CB to put the material online.
     
    Ogid likes this.
  8. A Mão Esquerda

    A Mão Esquerda Deputy Hexahedron Officer

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    3,394
    Likes Received:
    4,104
    However, the difficulties (let’s leave it at that) with the attempt for an un-official FAQ earlier this year make a fan run wiki highly unlikely. And, again, it depends on whether or not CB wants to get into that level of minutiae.
     
  9. Section9

    Section9 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    6,148
    Likes Received:
    9,666
    The Fan Re-Edit Rulebook was to consolidate the multiple separate PDFs into a single document. It didn't add any text to the rules like this idea would.



    We have an official wiki, might as well get @ijw to do it there, where it makes the most sense.
     
    A Mão Esquerda likes this.
  10. Ogid

    Ogid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2018
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    755
    The fan-run wiki isn’t a bad idea tho, and probably much more viable than one 100% from CB. But that would still need to work in tandem with CB to have curated and trustworthy info there. If the players don’t know if the entries of the wiki are legit info or someone’s wild theory, then that’s worthless.

    Something like some users writing the different examples, in depth entries and interactions. Then when a page is finished, someone from CB would need to review it. When they approve it, then that page would become an “official reviewed content” or something like that, becoming locked so no one could modify it and with a visible timestamp to know the FAQ and rules when that example got approved.

    Without some procedures to quality control what’s in the wiki, it could degenerate pretty fast.

    @ijw would be a great asset in that project but I’d rather a separate wiki for the reasons I stated in the other post. It’s better to keep the core rules short and concise and elaborate in a separate wiki to not clutter the official rules wiki.
     
    ChoTimberwolf likes this.
  11. xagroth

    xagroth Mournful Echo

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    6,420
    Likes Received:
    5,380
    I raise you the Saganami Island Tactical Simulator (now defunct). AVT, but with the ships having 3 different "zones" (top and bottom pure inmunne to all, sides with shields, and the front and back wit only small armor), played on simultaneous turns (define starting, ending and middle position), with inertia and full 3D.

    I saw that game make engineers cry, and it was not of joy XD

    We do not want a fully defined, automated and regulated system. We want one that can be read by four people without reaching more than 20 different ideas on how a given interaction ends...
     
  12. solkan

    solkan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2017
    Messages:
    1,335
    Likes Received:
    1,982
    As far as I'm aware, once a concept gets to 'someone from CB would end to review it', all you're doing is making the problem worse because you're increasing the work load on the people you're trying to help.

    Look at all of the problems that have been caused by minor wording differences between the English and Spanish versions of the rules. Now set a few dozen people loose editing the rules, and ask someone at CB to review the changes to ensure that you haven't introduced any more problems, subtle changes in mechanics, etc.

    And it's inevitable that you change interactions when you go through that sort of editing process. "The rule says X, it was supposed to say Y" is part of what this sort of thing is supposed to fix.

    The official wiki may as well not be a wiki the way it's being used. :(

    When are you expecting CB to reverse its position that the only content that it wants on its official wiki is the official rules text (and FAQs)? I remember the wiki during 2nd edition when we were allowed to add various unofficial notes and clarifications to pages. I don't know if there's a cause-effect connection between the two.
     
    xagroth and Berjiz like this.
  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
    For what it’s worth, unofficial notes and clarifications were never allowed on the wiki, in any edition. People doing that with the N2 wiki and other people having to go through and remove it all again is one of the reasons why the list of editors for the N3 wiki is so restricted.
     
    inane.imp, xagroth, Berjiz and 4 others like this.
  14. Ogid

    Ogid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2018
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    755
    It’s work for them of course, but if after that you get a solid rules system then it’s well worth it. But for it to be useful it has to be done well. Setting loose a few dozen of disorganized average joes it’s a pretty good recipe, for disaster.


    My 2 cents about what I think that would be needed:

    It needs a few steps, the first being fixing all those RAW/RAI differences in the rules, the forum is full of these “well, it’s true that the rules say X but it’s really Y” issues repeating themselves again and again. Also the labels could use some love, it’s a good opportunity to even the wording, to introduce the rules FAQued in the main rules and to remove legacy interactions (like expel hacking program saying that you can mount again in ARO)

    So phase 1, if it’s is supposed to say Y, then write Y in the rules, now we have to go and ask the CB forum oracle so the true meaning of the rules is revealed and then go like prophets and spread the word, that’s ineficient and error prone. The rules are also treated as some kind of given sacred text that cannot be defiled with changes under any circumstance. If there is something wrong, then just edit the thing and fix it. A changelog would be necessary too, that way the people that already know the rules can just check what is being changed. This part is obviously done by CB, you don’t want some random guy messing with the rules.

    Then, with solid rules it’s time to phase 2, in a different wiki, to keep it away from the core rules but also run by CB. With that corrected and up to date, it’s time to elaborate about some topics, going from the most general cases to the most niche and weirds ones, adding as many complex examples as possible. Using tags to being able to find particular examples and interaction fast (the hacking thread sticked in this rules forum is a good example, but it would need to be deeper, with tags to find relevant interaction fast and with more examples). If while writing those some unclear interactions are found (off the top of my head, see Lt2 and XO) then they will be written as the CB employs rule them, that also could give away some unintended mechanics/exploits (Defensive hacking programs or Reset being illegal in some scenarios for example) that may be fixed in the main rules. Being the whole thing run by CB we will be sure that the info in the wiki would be 100% official.

    At this point, if some random guys playing infinity have a doubt about a particular scenario and the core rules are not helping or they just don’t agree, they only have to go to that secondary wiki, use the tags to see if that particular interaction is described (or the relevant in depth articles) and just check them. And only in case that in none of these sources give them the answer they will go to the forum

    After all that, the phase 3 to improve the system further, just keep an eye in the forums to see the rules and interactions that the people still get wrong. Adapt both wikis accordingly. Iterate this phase 3 a few times and you’ll get rock solid rules. Ideally you want that 99/100 question in the rules can be solved saying, check the example nº X or Check this in depth article.

    So the part where the players may help is in pointing the issues with the rules, which have already been done, just check the forums, and in the in depth articles. Instead of CB employees doing that (time is money for them after all), I’m sure that a few experienced players would be more than willing to do it.

    The big advantage of this double wiki system is, you keep a solid and complex but not overloaded core system, with only that you should be able to resolve 19 out of 20 in game situations with no need of official ruling from the forum. In case of some disagreement or some weird rules interactions arise; you have that secondary official layer to solve those rules without having to mess up the core rules. And at the same time the new player have some extra reading to help them to integrate and see how the rules really work in real and complex scenarios, reading Infinity rules and then going to play is like reading a manual of how to drive and sitting in a car just after that.

    Is that work? A lot, and obviously CB has be the main player or it won’t work. But planning it well and doing it over time it would be feasible and would improve the game a lot. The rules are the engine of a game, do it well and care for them and it will run smooth, leave them half done and you will get a lot of bugs, conflicts and frustrated players. And also players that will decide to settle for other games, which is bad for CB and bad for us


    This was longer than I thought… A quick TLDR:
    1. Fix the rules
    2. Add in depth articles, interactions and examples, implement a good search tool. Keep it away from main rules.
    3. Keep an eye and constantly improve both.
    4. Profit?
     
    ChoTimberwolf likes this.
  15. Arkhos94

    Arkhos94 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    1,572
    Likes Received:
    1,502
    @Ogid suggested I add this question to the unsolved question post with the following description :
    How Stratuscloud cancelation clause works (Once this state is cancelled….):
    a) Once the state is cancelled in one of your models, you cannot activate it in any of the other models (RAW)
    b) Once the state is cancelled in one of your models, you cannot activate it that same model (player is a typo, it should say trooper)
    c) If you reload the equipment, you can activate it again. That clause is just clarifying the above bullet point (the phrase is correct but it belong to the bullet point above)

    Do you all agree with this description (I'm lacking time to read the 6 previous pages to be sure)
     
    toadchild likes this.
  16. Ginrei

    Ginrei Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    428
    I'm fine with it, but remove the (RAW) tag please.
     
  17. Ogid

    Ogid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2018
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    755
    Fair enough.

    @Arkhos94 This is another version without personal bias, if everyone agrees please use this for the other thread:

    The las cancelation clause of Stratuscloud (Once this state is cancelled….) is creating doubts about the RAI of this state and the equipment that trigger it. So, how is this equipment and state intended to work:

    State:
    a) Once the state is cancelled in one of your models, you cannot activate it in any of the other models.
    b) Once the state is cancelled in one of your models, you cannot activate it that same model.
    c) You can activate the state any number of times.

    Equipment:
    d) As it has the disposable trait you can reload and use it any number of times. But if a or b are true then the equipment won't activate the state.
    e) As it has the disposable trait you can reload it and it will override the cancelation clause, letting you activate the state.
    e) The cancelation clause of Stratuscloud prevents you to reload the equipment.
     
  18. meikyoushisui

    meikyoushisui Competitor for Most Ignored User

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2017
    Messages:
    1,803
    Likes Received:
    2,804
    Can you change c) to "You can activate the state any number of times (by reloading the StratusCloud equipment)."?
     
  19. Ginrei

    Ginrei Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    428
    I found that one tougher to follow than the original.

    Would it be better to simply ask the question as an in game example?

    Example of Stratuscloud (state)
    A Draal Saboteur, named Ed, chooses to cancel his active Stratuscloud state. The active player then spends their last Order on a Chaksa to use Baggage and reload Ed's Stratuscloud equipment. In the reactive turn, Ed and his Draal Saboteur friend Jo, who hasn't used her Stratuscloud equipment yet this game, both see an enemy trooper moving towards them.

    Can both Ed and Jo ARO Stratuscloud to enter the Stratuscloud state?
    1. Yes.
    2. No, Ed's Stratuscloud state was cancelled. Therefore no other trooper belonging to that player can enter.
    3. No. Ed's Stratuscloud state was cancelled. Therefore Ed cannot enter it again. However Jo can.
    4. Other
     
    ChoTimberwolf likes this.
  20. Ogid

    Ogid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2018
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    755
    I'm fine with any of the options, mine (adding the @meikyoushisui change) states the problems with both the state and the equipment but @Ginrei one is more straight forward while still adress the issue. Your call.
     
  • 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