Todd

Members
  • Content count

    6,286
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Time Online

    339d 14h 53m 56s

Community Reputation

6009 Excellent

About Todd

  • Rank
    Pseudo AI
  • Birthday 01/18/1980

Converted

  • Location Charlotte, North Carolina

ITS

  • ITS PIN S4471
  1. Grampyseer, you've been around long enough to know that CB's rulings aren't always rooted in "common sense." Like that time everyone was arguing about how far towards the enemy, if at all, an impetuous model had to move with it's second skill... ...only to find out that you could actually run back to where you started... Then there was the time we were all blown away by by learning how Biomines were meant to work, and subsequently lost the rule entirely... ...and that funny time we pretty much all realized we were doing climb wrong (even IJW was shocked by the Adam West style)... ...or when we finally learned how guts movement works... Just before N3 there was the case of a lot of common sense veterans of the game playing smoke wrong (requiring that it concealed, not just touched). Just after N3, there was guided shots only needing a small hole somewhere to reach the enemy (even behind them, a lot of people didn't want to believe that). More recently, we had the brief period where you could spend one Combat Group's orders to Coordinate another Combat Group's models. Who would have thought that made "common sense", amirite?
  2. Please keep in mind that this all has to do with an element of the game that CB didn't seem to even consider (i.e.- combat group affiliation as open/secret info, order transparency of order expenditure, and how we even track orders), let alone explain clearly in the rules, until pressed by the community. Check out this thread from 2014: CB have always been bad about taking it for granted that players understand certain unspecified aspects of the game. In this instance, we don't really know whether they're assuming we understand that the Ambush Camo Markers are considered to be part of the CG they're being generated by (i.e.- replicating the marker that represents the troop), or whether they're assuming we understand that all Camo markers CG affiliations are protected by the vague term "contents." As I mentioned in the thread linked above, there are flaws with the notion that every bit of info surrounding a camo marker is protected, especially in relation to orders (generation, expenditure, and yes, maybe CG affiliation). The larger point is that they've had several years and a new addition to clarify this. Personally, I'd rather something were clearly supported by specific rules text, rather than a situational relationship in a sectorial that didn't even exist when N3 was written.
  3. Unwillingness to correct/clarify rules and actually listen to player feedback aside, he actually is. Then again, that's just hearsay and rumors. What do I know.
  4. Sometimes you just need to ramble for rambling's sake. Seriously though, it's the same one Danger Rose made. The point is that many people assume Minelayer is supposed to create subterfuge in the form of an additional camo marker that we know nothing about, but all we can actually be sure it's supposed to do is place a Camo'd mine on the table. We don't actually know how relationships like these are affected by Combat Group affiliation being open info, because CB never bothered to clarify that statement. CB's eventual rulings have often shown that something players take for granted as a benefit was not necessarily intended. The original Minelayer rule was created back before anyone thought to ask if combat groups were open info (including CB apparently). This whole issue is a throwback to CBs old MO of assuming people just understood things that weren't actually written in the rules (i.e.- precisely how to deploy models and the timing of revealing their info), and feeling like they didn't need to clarify them. It's unfortunate that they still don't see the need to clarify certain things, and seem to have returned to their old ways ignoring things and not wanting to edit their rules (which, from what I hear, is attributed to Gutier's ego, and the way he can sometimes perceive legitimate questions as attacks/criticism).
  5. Lol, this is ridiculous. This has been a question since before N3 and still not stated clearly enough anywhere to prevent arguments. Only if you make certain assumptions about what benefits the rule is meant to convey. Players have assumed all kinds of wrong things about this game, for years at a time. For instance; how impetuous movement works, how guts movement works, what it takes to be affected by smoke, etc (all pre-N3 examples). A particularly relevant example is how people used to think you rolled for your across the mid-point infiltration in private, simply because it was a TO camo model using the skill and it maintained the hidden deployment subterfuge (I wouldn't be surprised if there are still players out there who think that's how it works). Want to see how "useful" minelayer is in this capacity, try not answering your opponent when they ask to know the number of deployables a non camo minelayer has left (open info) the moment it and the marker hit the table.
  6. I honestly can't recall any unprovoked situations where posters just decided they needed to disparage non-ITS play, or people who don't like ITS. Everyone I know who enjoys ITS also enjoys playing non-ITS games. I don't think I've ever met a single person who only wanted to play ITS (while I have seen a handful of re-occurring voices that are strongly anti-ITS). Still... Which shows just how much influence ITS has, even on "friendly" games. Acknowledging that doesn't make someone a sheep. I'd also argue that characterizing non-ITS games as "friendly" is a misrepresentation of the ITS packet (not aimed at your post Section 9). You don't have to be at a tournament to use the packet. I mean have you guys not been paying attention to the past couple seasons? Just look at missions like Rescue, which is most definitely not a good tournament mission. There's also all of the themed and narrative stuff they've been including, as well as the expansion of formats. While I personally don't think it was necessary, the addition of things like Limited Insertion plays on the obvious influence ITS has on the Infinity gaming culture, and makes the system more inclusive to those who have issues with it. Like I said, it's not the suggestion that players look beyond ITS that bothers me. It's the fact that people feel the need to supplement comments like "ITS isn't the only way to play the game" with additional commentary about those they perceive to be locked into that mode (with the typical suggestions being that they're boring, uncreative, or power gamers). That kind of thinking creates an ITS versus Non-ITS divide between players which isn't good for the game.
  7. Which, as your post illustrates, is very easy to communicate without the obligatory "this is where I shit on people who enjoy ITS" comment that some people feel the need to make every time the topic of Merc AVA comes up.
  8. It doesn't really matter until CB defines a D-charge's presence on the table in regards to terrain it's placed on. Right now we don't mark or place anything when planting a D-charge, so we don't actually have a target for the purposes as using Deactivator in this manner. Is it the terrain? A specific point on the terrain? Who knows.
  9. Maybe we just don't think "<insert random fan's name here> super fun adventure time scenario system" is that relevant to the question, other than simply acknowledging that outside of ITS you can do it. Oh, were you just taking the opportunity to complain about people enjoying the official tournament format that the game is designed around and you just happen to not care for? Or, are you seriously suggesting we always make sure to reference any and all random home brew formats someone else might have in mind when answering a question about the game's actual rules? ITS provides quite a bit of structure and motivation to play in comparison to undefined formats (being that the three formats are effectively, ITS, kill shit, and do whatever else you want). When you've decided to do what you want, obviously you can do whatever you want. Don't confuse people choosing structure for them not understanding that doing whatever you want is always an option. Focus is not the same thing as lack of creativity.
  10. You'd be surprised, LEDs have come a long way in recent years. I don't think low CRI is an issue any more. Personally, I find 3000k-4000k to be most comfortable. Anything higher/cooler, it feels too blue.
  11. I'm not selling anyone short. Logically, people who don't understand the nuances of the game aren't necessarily able to comprehend the dynamics of the situations that they perceive to be problems. Don't get me wrong, Infinity isn't perfect. However, the majority of things new players perceive as issues fall away as they gain experience. It's no stretch to assume a person with only a few games under their belt who feels the game is too lethal, is biased towards the active turn, thinks AD is too strong, or whatever, may simply need to learn the importance of facing their models more effectively. This is especially true when you consider their background may be rooted in games where it's not nearly as important or even an issue at all. If the majority of experienced players don't see something as an issue, then it shouldn't matter how some new or potential players perceive it. It's unfortunate to lose them, but if those same people are unwilling to take some things on faith, they're not going to get very far with Infinity. By it's very nature, the game rewards experienced players. As existing players who benefit from having more people to play with, it's in our best interest to make that case when we can and as best we can. *Edit- Just wanted to add that we need to distinguish between how something makes a new player feel, versus the player perceiving something as OP. Some people simply dislike the design of some of Infinity's mechanics, and I'm sure they can pinpoint that. For instance, some new players express that they don't like the order mechanic, and that's completely valid. On the other hand, some new players express that they don't like the order mechanic, think ramboing is OP, and the game should be changed. As experienced players, we know that's a conclusion that new players may come to erroneously.
  12. @wuji, you keep talking about things that "should" change next. However, I can't tell from your posts whether you mean "should" as in "I think it ought to be this way" or "I have reason to believe/suspect it will be this way." Could you clarify? In regards to the idea that Fireteams drive away new players, I don't think that's any more the case with Fireteams than it is with anything else. That notion can be applied to most of Infinity, which essentially demands that you be patient with it. If your first six months of playing doesn't consist of a continuous perspective realignment in regards to what's broken, you're not doing it right. The people who keep playing are either those who have blind faith that it's going to even out, or have an experienced player to hold them and tell them everything is going to be okay. In the grand scheme of things, I bet we lose more new players to basic concepts like the importance of facing models properly, without them even realizing what it was that left a bad taste in their mouth.
  13. I don't understand why they don't change the "can be cancelled" to "is cancelled." It makes absolutely no sense that an unconscious model would continue to prevent an enemy next to it from reacting to what's going on around it, if they didn't want it to. To preserve the narrative based ability of using these models as human shields, they could simply add a rule that allows a model targeted by a range attack (that isn't in a null state themselves) to claim the engaged state (if in b2b with a enemy null state model) for the purposes of resolving the attack. The agency should be in the hands of the potentially engaged but conscious target. ToadChild is right, this FAQ is just plain bad. If it does mean what Solkan says, I feel like they were trying to be cute by repeating themselves for emphasis instead of actually clarifying the issue (which is a very GW move).
  14. That is a little ambiguous. I always took it to mean that Infinity Army was the "information available on the official infinity website" that took precedence. Still, I'd maintain that IA must be the default in order for the system to work. Otherwise, what's the point of submitting lists and having TOs use IA to verify their legality, if the only way to truly do this is by looking everything up in the PDF?
  15. Just want to take this opportunity to point out how arbitrary the three millimeter block rule is, especially in conjunction with the mutual awareness rules. LoF ought to be any lines drawn between the two models, and cover should be any portion obscured (assuming b2b). The current rules are a clunky throw back to true LoS, and a poor attempt at making everyone happy.