Clear rules indicate an absence of depth

>Clear rules indicate an absence of depth

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>single line of greentext indicates lack of intelligence, creativity and heterosexuality
It's confirmed OP, you're a retarded faggot.

Rules being confusing don't mean the game is deep. Even a five year old child can create a game that nobody can understand, doesn't make it deep.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism

Not him, but what is your point here?

If clarity indicates a lack of depth, it does not follow that obscurity indicates depth.

It might, but the second proposition is not entailed by the first proposition.

I disagree that even the first proposition is true. There can be great depth in very defined and clear rules.

Fine, let's try and work this out:

1. Confusing rules are not an indication of depth.
2. Obscure rules are confusing rules.
3. Obscure rules are not an indication of depth.

Now, at a glance, it seems to be a valid syllogism. Would you correct this in any way?

it is a valid syllogism, but a flawed argument. OP proposes that if rules are clear then there is no depth, If P then Q. This does not imply that a lack of clarity leads to a presence of depth, if not P then not Q. to logically refute OP you would have to prove that depth can exist in the presence of clear rules, P and not Q.

Wouldn't we have to decide of P is necessary and/or sufficient for Q to decide the implication? Let's call them R for rules and D for no depth, to make it a little easier to keep things straight.

First, is R a sufficient condition for D? I would say yes. However, I wouldn't say it's a necessary condition like OP claims, so we can have ~R and still get D, ~R -> D. So if that's the case, can't we have ~R and get ~D?

Never change, Veeky Forums.

I'm 99% certain OP is framing the exact opposite of what he believes and laughing at the idiots who try to defend obfuscation for its own sake.

This, the picture is basically smug_anime_girl.photograph

>enter thread to see who the girl is, or see if there are more hot girls reading being posted
>wander into logic argument

>Veeky Forums

You can challenge the veracity of OP's premise, but OP didn't claim necessity, only sufficiency. ~R -> D doesn't disprove OP, it just proves that ~D is impossible. If you can prove that ~R -> D and that any kind of rules have depth then you would disprove OP.

>enter thread to see who the girl is
Carla Bruni.

>to logically refute OP you would have to prove that depth can exist in the presence of clear rules

So Go? Sounds like Go.

Or chess.

A snarky comment and a correct answer. Veeky Forums prides itself on service.

>chess
>clear rules
You take your En Passant and your Castling and you fuck off.

The absence of depth is not the depth of absence.

I love this place.

Reminder that the paint in the 4th panel of that image is of a bunch of Cossack writing a childishly insulting reply to the Ottoman emperor.

I guess that's still valid. But really;
>What the devil kind of knight are you, that can't slay a hedgehog with your naked arse?
Is quite probably as smart as that reply got.

I'd propose Infinity as an answer, but it suffers from translation problems, so the rules, while pretty clear and very defined, are often confusing simply by language problems.

If you were to distill the rules down to a much more simple and defined translation, you would end up with very clear and defined rules with few points of contention, and as I often find, some points of contention simply don't exist in the game because a certain combination of game rules and model rules doesn't exist.

Still, the large volume of rules, number of options for engagement in any given Order, and broad swathe of models to choose from, you get a game of startling depth that's pretty clearcut, though the number of rules involved can be difficult to memorize, causing confusion simply out of memory, though a reference book or PDF on hand can mitigate that immensely.

OP's beef is that he equates him being unable to understand how all rules interact with each other immediately as a lack of clarity.

>childishly insulting reply to the Ottoman emperor.

I taught it was very cleverly well written. Like a parody of the said emperor missive to them.

>You take your En Passant and your Castling and you fuck off.

>En Passant
A pawn cannot use its special 'two-space' starting move to move through a space threatened by a pawn. If it does, it is captured.
Makes sense to me; it's like passing through an opponent's threat range and getting attacked for it.

>Castling
Move the King and a Rook in each others' direction until the King is hidden behind the Rook.
Again, makes sense - the King, sensing personal danger, flees to the most defensible structure he can find to hide behind.

Honestly, I had a harder time grasping the rules for Knight movement than I did for castling.

Isn't Infinity pretty bloated with special rules for everything?
X-Wing is a good example for clear rules with a lot of depth. On the other hand that new tank game from gf9 (which tried to copy the wings of war/x-wing for tanks), has even less rules and basically zero depth.

>So Go? Sounds like Go.

The Ko Rule makes the rules of go less-than-clear.

while having a cute little interpretation for what the mechanics are meant to reflect might be helpful, it does not mean the rules themselves are clear. moreover, when I was very young and first introduced to chess castling was never mentioned (nor promotions, but that is a pretty simple rule) and the first time I saw it I thought my opponent was cheating. also the restriction that you can only do it if neither piece has already moved is already further complication. en passant is more esoteric that hard to grasp, but unknown rules contribute to a lack of clarity as much as complex rules, which I will grant you knights totally are, relatively

>Not using the Oxford comma
.>Accidentally Semi-complimenting OP

"screw your own mother!"

Yeah. Clever. Sure.

No.

>single line of greentext indicates lack of intelligence, creativity and heterosexuality
>lack of intelligence
>lack of creativity
>lack of heterosexuality
Well, at least you tried.

You mistake clarity with simplicity. A clear rule is one with few to no confusions in its application. A simple rule is one with few applications or variations.

Simplicity is the opposite of depth, but clarity is not simplicity. Depth neither precludes nor excludes clarity.

The only comma this thread would be worth is the clinical one.

A simple rule can have many applications and variations.

>Hot girl reading
If that picture was real, we all would be swimming in pusseyh.
Fuck you and your lies, sir.

I'd say bloat refers to rules that are superfluous or add nothing to the game. Infinity's rules pretty much all contribute, and they do a great job of trimming the fat. But, yeah, there's a lot of special rules, though many are rare and appear on only a few units, or even one unit a faction. You really only need memorize and keep track of the core rules plus the special rules of your team. They do provide a free rules wiki and armybuilder for these purposes because the system is pretty complex.

But X-Wing is a much neater example. Very clearcut but huge amounts of gameplay depth.