Super Jump and Non-Super Jump interactions

Option 4: allow the Declaration of an Entire Order by one Trooper and Shortskill + Shortskill by the other.

IE Auxbot and Seraph both declare Jump, then only the Seraph declares BS Attack.

 

From my understanding...

Firstly, two assumptions*:

• The g:sync unit does the same order as the parent unit.
• Super Jump makes jump a short movement skill (it does not become the short movement skill "move")

Therefore,

• if the Seraph declares Jump as a short skill, the auxbot can't do anything for the first short skill and must idle.
• if the seraph declares shoot as the second short skill, the auxbot can shoot.
• if the seraph declares jump as a long skill, the auxbot can jump too.

so option #2



*I'm using my memory as i'm being lazy and not checking the actual rules and instead going by memory

 

i also go with option 2.

From the quickref at the end of the rulebook, page 246 (the list of skill per type). There are 3 options the active player can chose for Order Composition. 1 red Entire Order; 2 blue Short Movement Skill; or 1 blue Short Movement Skill + 1 green Short Skill. (or you can do the green short skill followed by blue SMS)

If you go with Entire Order, you pick one from the list to declare and both model will perform it (or perform idle if it can't).

If you go for a blue Short Movement Skill, you pick one to declare, both model will do it. So they can both activate, both idle, both discover or both move. In the case of Seraph he can also make a Jump (because superjump change Jump from Entire Order Skill to Short Movement Skill - and not from Entire Jump to Short skill Move). If doing a short jump, the auxbot will Idle (unable to do a short jump) but cannot decide to declare his own and different short movement skill (like a discover or move).

And for the green Short Skill if you pick a BS Attack, then both model can fire their own different weapons (if they have valid targets) as they all fall under the same BS Attack skill.

Back to Entire Order Skill, if you pick Jump from that list, the auxbot can make a 6" jump while Seraph can make a 10" Jump (as Superjump allows to combine both MOV when making a Entire Order Jump).

 

The problem with Option 2 (which Robocock gives a nice justification for) is that it would seem to contradict the precedence of @ijw 's earlier explanation of hacking coordinated orders, where he stated that if one model in a group that was obliged to declare actions together declared a long skill, those that did not could not declare a second short skill.

I can see some reasons why this might be different between the two. G: Sync is required to "declare the same order" whereas coordinated orders require you to "declare and execute the exact same sequence of Skills.". However coordinated Hacking relieves you of that requirement in respect of hacking programs too, so it seems odd that troops not even obliged to declare the same skills would be restricted from declaring a second short skill by one of them declaring a long skill, but troops obliged to declare the same order would not.

So I'd like a further clarification of this if possible.

 

So the teal question is

Are short skill jump and long skill jump time same skill.

If yes then seraph (short skill) jumping forces auxbot to (long skill) jump and so no further skill can be sspecified.

If no then seraph (short skill) jumping forces auxbot to idle, allowing both to do another skill.

 

Assuming that Entire Order can't be combo'd with Short skill + Short skill.

I see no reason other than existing convention to prevent that.

Edit: that convention was established / confirmed in this discussion, but it's not particularly firm and could easily be resolved differently by say @HellLois or an FAQ overruling it (or even - to a lesser standard - just by @ijw vacating the position he held in that thread).

http://infinitytheforums.com/forum/...w-does-it-work/?do=findComment&comment=971845

 

I thought so too, with unfortunate consequences for the Seraph, since it's fairly clearly the same (altered) skill from the Super-Jump rules
"

• This Special Skill alters the user's Jump Skill from an Entire Order Skill to a Short Movement Skill."

The explanation Robocock gave above (that the order composition changes things), combined with the slightly different wording of G: Sync and Coordinated orders gives a kind of an out if you really try to look at it that way, as would a different interpretation of how Hacking Coordinated orders work with regard to long / short skills than IJWs stated one (as inane imp points out).

 

i'm not sure myself anymore. the text for g.sycnh is same order same short skill. ... why only specify short skill ? another player was saying that he think it would still be able to declare different short movement skill as only short skill are specificaly asked to be the same ones in g.synch. as other pointed out, EVO already allows us to declare different hacking skill and even different hacking skill type (mixing entire order and short order)

 

It's not necessarily operating differently; it's possible that Jump (Entire Order) and Jump (Short Skill) are apparently two different skills.

 

That's more wishful thinking than what the rules say IMHO.

I'm happy to play Auxbot idles and Seraph can declare a second short skill when the Seraph jumps just to make things easier on a number of levels (if only that were accorded on other things at times). TBH I'd even perhaps prefer the Auxbot can jump and the Seraph can Jump-Shoot. But lets not just imagine the rules say things they don't, and I really wish things could get clarified sensibly.

Resting on whether IJW liked a post on the forums even the poster is pretty fuzzy about the correctness of is pretty substandard way to determine rules questions over vague mechanics (which there are a lot of when you get into it). It's even worse than relying on when he makes an offhand comment he doesn't seem to have really considered the details or implications of (eg guts with Symbiomates).

 

That's true, and I'm all for using the intent of the rule where you can reasonably tell what it is. But just because you've played it a certain way previously or want it to work a certain way doesn't mean that's the way it is supposed to be played. And how players think the rules are supposed to be played is inevitably strongly biased by what favours them, which often makes determining how something is supposed to be played an intractable problem.

In fact it's been demonstrated several times that the CB sometimes clarifies things to contradict the community consensus on how to play, and usually closer to RAW. On the other hand players may decide to say the rules 'heavily imply' something when in fact the rules actually say the opposite.

If IJW wants to explain the way he thinks a rule should be played and why, and especially if he has some special insight into CB's intent with a rule, that's clearly a powerful advocacy for it IMHO.

I'm less convinced that a casual off hand comment or even just a like holds the same weight, especially where the actual rules fairly clearly seem to contradict it. IJW has been mistaken before. IJW is not the rules.

 

There are ways of rationalising Auxbot idles, Seraph Short Skill jumps according to the rules (and I said so above, and that's one way) I agree.

It's only a fait accompli (is that your French phrase of the week, lol) when we've been told how the rule works by someone with the authority to determine the way the rule works (and technically only if they did that before we knew about it if you want to use the phrase right, lol).

Happy to play Auxbot idles, Seraph jumps for now. My main point is I would really like some of these things clearly and consistently cleaned up in unambiguous english at some point though, as I'm sure several others would too.

 

Maybe if we keep arguing about trivial details for long enough they'll get annoyed and settle it properly lol.