Todd

Members
  • Content count

    6,281
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Time Online

    324d 16h 50m 48s

Community Reputation

6005 Excellent

About Todd

  • Rank
    Pseudo AI
  • Birthday 01/18/1980

Converted

  • Location Charlotte, North Carolina

ITS

  • ITS PIN S4471
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. @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.
  8. 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).
  9. 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?
  10. 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.
  11. I can't cite a source, but I seem to recall it being stated when N3 was released. I mean, they immediately changed stuff in N3 using the army builder. Also, we have to use the army builder to play in any "official" capacity. It would be pretty problematic if it wasn't the default "official" source of profiles.
  12. Infinity Army takes precedence over printed rules (or even the PDFs). They often use it as an opportunity to tweak and adjust things. However, if something seems like it's an obvious mistake, it doesn't hurt to bring it up in the IA sub-forum.
  13. I agree. People will argue it's better this way, but it effectively worked the other way for quite some time without any problems (granted, this was before we had good hacking and shotguns). The current method is more in line with how the resolution mechanics of the game work in other situations, but it's contrary to how we're typically granted AROs. I mean, it takes an errata for it to even work (I don't care if they call it a FAQ), considering it goes against the wording of the ARO mechanic. The rules don't say you can declare an ARO if you think something may be the case. They say you can declare an ARO if something is "true," making determination necessary prior to declaration. So, until CB publishes a better worded version in N4 (because they refuse to actually change the wording of anything currently in print), it's not the more steam lined mechanic they'd like it to be, so much as a situation requiring a FAQ errata to override what many people feel is a more intuitive way of playing.
  14. Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's all it is. I don't think they left the glass in though (dice on glass would be a horrible sound, but maybe the logo sheet is backed with something that dampens the sound). I'd remove the glass and replace with printed out logo of your choice (backed by a piece of mat board to take up any space if necessary, just depends on the design of the frame). You could even just install a cut down piece of mouse pad where the glass would be.
  15. While that's a helpful way to think of it, this is not sufficiently communicated in the current rules.They say that stairs allow models to move along a diagonal surface, without ever saying that we should treat stairs as continuous diagonal surfaces. A stepped horizontal surface is still just that. That being the case, there's also no mention of how this interacts with the "base must be fully supported" rule. Just like the ladders on many Infinity specific products are too narrow to accommodate a base, if someone were to model actual 28mm scale stairs on their terrain, they would not be wide enough to support a 25mm wide model (which as @dlfleetw mentioned, is more like 5'-6' of space). The ladder/stair rule needs to be open ended in order to make the game playable, not just playable on specifically designed terrain. This is why the ill-defined stairs=slope notion is inferior to the previous edition's way of dealing with the issue. These are situations where it's necessary to ignore the entire "base must be supported" stipulation, and not just in relation to one dimension of the base (depth versus width), as long as the base is fully supported when the model stops moving.