Slowburner

Members
  • Content count

    74
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Time Online

    387d 17h 57m 59s

Community Reputation

40 Excellent

1 Follower

About Slowburner

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Converted

  • Location Chiba, Japan

Recent Profile Visitors

652 profile views
  1. Good question; well asked, thank you... to say nothing of those smokin' hot graphics skillz (More than adequate for the situation; fear not!) I'd upvote you, but we're all migrating to the new forums; come on over!
  2. There's an assumption behind this (frankly rather tart ) remark that it might be worth my drawing our attention to. That the nature of smoke grenades in Infinity - the packaging of the ammunition; the characteristics of the projectile and their behaviour on impact are probably supposed to be very much like smoke grenades today. Myself, I hadn't actually considered this until reflecting on Mr Trader's remark... Given Infinity's rich setting, I don't think there's any particular reason why we should be expected to make that assumption, but if we do, then a lot of our speculations above - including my own question about surfaces, become rather moot. Consider a familiar 20th Century-type smoke grenade - a canister that can be thrown, and will roll around a bit and take a few seconds to produce a dense cloud of smoke. they'd bounce off walls, and back fall to the ground; so have the rules say you can't target walls even if they do detonate in the air, they'd fall back down again; so have the rules ignore air burst they'd mostly roll off things that aren't horizontal; so have the rules allow only horizontal surfaces as legal targets their smoke eventually forms a cloud around the denotation point; so have the rules define that more clearly as a vertical cylinder So it all gets a whole lot easier to think about if you just make an assumption that an Infinity Smoke Grenade is the same thing as a normal smoke grenade thrown in every TV action/drama that features a SWAT incursion. 'Now why didn't I think of that' he said, whilst painting up some smoke grenade-wielding Daturazi Witch Soldiers, who's elite military history can be traced back to the collapse of the Fourth Morat Age, and who now spearhead's the army's of the Evolved Intelligence ...
  3. Thank you. Is the 'pragmatic point of view' because of your objection to the smoke template laying a horizontal cylinder from the point on the vertical surface ie. once the target surface gets too steep toward vertical, it's increasingly unlikely to provide cover? (If I may say, the rules here just want a simple prohibitive statement added, lest we see desperate players attempting desperate exploits with smoke in the future ... )
  4. The comparison is really interesting, thank you @MASTER_EFIALTES. Myself, I read "... it can be [thrown] to a isolated point , alone or empty of the battleground" as a clarification of being able to target a point that isn't another trooper, unlike other normal BS attacks. But unfortunately, it doesn't much ... illuminate (see how I avoided saying 'throw' there? ) what sort of targets might be prohibited, ie. vertical targets, etc. I'm no linguist, but it does seem to me that Spanish is a lot more permissive than English (or German, in my limited experience thereof).
  5. (Granted that these aren't necessarily your own views, but clarifications of the positions, thank you @Mahtamori) I didn't think "any point on the table" could be taken to mean that at all! So maybe I've missed a few things here. @IJW Wartrader, can you clarify for us exactly what "any point on the table" means again please, making liberal use of restrictive language to explain what sort of targets that are and are not legal, thank you.
  6. I'm sure @Kainsaw just meant 'hold it above above that, erm ... point on the table where the smoke landed, and visualize your column rising upward forever'. But it doesn't really matter if we can't do it, eh? I think the point was that the English is unfortunately misleading, and could indeed use a cross-reference to speculative fire, rather than to suggest a piece of rules-lawyering. (But then I would say that, because I like to think the best of people, and we know where that gets me, eh? )
  7. Well, yes; this is the problem with that language. It ought to mean 'a point on the table' in plain English, but apparently it doesn't. This is where @IJW Wartrader as the Rules Wiki editor and long-time associate of CB provides us good value on the forums (and presumably pays for terrible sins committed in a former life ) by telling us what the game creators actually meant to say. Hence, I very often ask people not to talk about 'rules as written' and 'rules as intended' which tends to imply that we're at liberty to work with one or the other; we're not - the game creators know exactly how to play their own game, and it's just unfortunate that the translation of the English rules leaves us with some vague and uncertain situations. Hence also the suggestion that the Wiki is updated with a series of Rulings whenever something strange comes up. ps. I've moved across to the new forum; come on over - the water's lovely!
  8. I have moved to the new Infinity forums at https://forum.corvusbelli.com

     

  9. I mean obviously, if we were all Spaniards living in Galicia who'd been playing Infimity regularly for the last ten years or so, then such rulings and clarifications would be entirely superfluous...
  10. Thanks, @solkan; it will resignedly go on my ever-growing list of Things That Must Be Learned From My Infinity Elders And Betters <sigh> This sort of thing is very easily fixed by a sentence added here or there to 'living' documentation such as our wiki, or the official FAQs. So it's unclear to me why this does not seem to happen very much for Infinity, leaving so much scope for further confusion and difficulty. To take a well-known case in point, Wizards of the Coast have a long and appalling history of abusing English language and grammar; not using reserved words to simply clarify said abuses, and generally leaving everyone to un-learn English in order to understand how Magic: the Gathering works. (I dare any of you to tell me this isn't so! ) But even WoC have Oracle, which provides official rulings for cards to help clarify what they meant when they wrote the card text. In that linked example, you can see they wrote several hundred words of clarification in the same month as it was published - despite their R&D process, and Beta testing, players still ran into all kinds of difficulites as soon as the card was published. It may not have been their finest wording, but they had a system in place to put it right, and help players out. Now speaking for myself - but no doubt for many here on the forum too, I have greater love for Corvus Belli and their staff than other game companies such as WoC (can I get an 'amen'? and I very much admire their commitment to the game. So could we not have a similar system of simply updating the wiki - or another document with rulings like this? Since it's well within your purview @IJW Wartrader, can you shed light on this fairly obvious omission for us; why is the Wiki not updated with rulings like yours for this question as a matter of course; presumably this forum is ample evidence that whatever the authors think, the rules are very often not obvious. Is there anything in the works?
  11. That seems a credible explanation, thanks @Mahtamori; but a quick whizz through the rules shows that vertical surfaces do get mentioned sometimes, eg. from Speculative Fire, p52 "Place the Template directly on the game table or horizontally over a piece of terrain, and never on a vertical surface or in the air." So CB clearly do know the difference between horizontal and vertical if they wanted to exclude walls in that way, and it still leaves us with @Eciu's question about the flat surfaces of scenery. If they're valid, why are they valid? (And again, I don't particularly mind if this is a case of "CB didn't spell it out, but Wartrader tell us it means this or that", but I'd like to know if we have written references.)
  12. My point exactly, thanks @Eciu.
  13. As usual, I'm happy to accept your answer, but how you reached the answer isn't clear from the rule you provided; can you provide the missing detail, please? I don't know if others share that concern, but it's not clear what 'a point on the table' is supposed to mean for the purpose of this rule, and how it's applied to exclude walls.
  14. Is this a rule about army groups I've missed, or a calculation about distance and Orders I'm not understanding perhaps; why won't a medic in the same group be able to heal, please?
  15. That's a great help, @DaRedOne, thank you. There are a few more units I'm without in your list @Death, but it's also appreciated, thanks. I'm a bit surprised you have the Med-Tech in the secondary group; don't I want to give him access to as many Orders as I might need in a crisis? I do have questions about some of the other units - Sogarat versus your choice of Suryat, for example; and the Raktarak, who seems rather lacklustre to me. Are they better put into a new topic, would we say? (Because my experience beginning the game last year was that when I wanted to look up discussions on things, there were very often buried deep within other topics which was pretty unhelpful. Keeping it tight and on topic seems good form.)