Stop being That Guy. "Do Synchronized Civilians generate AROs? The Civilians do not generate AROs. Note that a Mine whose template affects a Civilian at any point during the Order will not be triggered." At any point during the Order. No more no less. If, at any point during the Order, the template affects a Civilian, the Mine does not trigger.
Nope. "Will not" is not the same as "retroactively untriggered." If a mine triggers due to the first short skill of an order, it's already triggered - and thus this passage wouldn't apply. If, functionally, a retroactive un-triggering is what they intended, there are a number of ways to make that more clear. If that's the case, though, how am I supposed to take an FAQ seriously when the people writing it don't make a serious effort to understand the problem they're trying to correct?
I think @Hecaton at some point you either need to present your English pHd thesis to prove your enhanced grasp of the English language or maybe just accept that your interpretation of wording isn't perfect (like the language) and quite possibly wrong. And there has been a fair bit of interpretation to start this whole thread. Between the wording of the rules and the faq I think it's quite clear there is no timing within an order to remove a mine. Therefore come resolution, if a mine has triggered, and untriggered the net effect is untriggered and it is not removed. There's no civilian minesweeping hidden within the rules that you've found like some kind of Indiana Jones.
Oh come on. You can't really have a go at Hecaton for his weird interpretations of the language while maintaining the pretense that your own aren't as tortured. It's explicit that the mine triggers and is removed at once. The Mine is trigger, removed, untriggered and replaced. This is weird, awkward and unintuitive but not actually a problem. Indeed it's less of a problem then Perimeter Items hanging around to block a second Move declaration.
The only problem is that it could be explicitly stated instead of being left to interpretation. Hecaton may be harping on about it harder than necessary, but the point that it is written in a way that can confuse players is valid.
I'd disagree with that idea; since the timing isn't explicitly mentioned we're in a situation where the idea I posited is equally valid. At that point it comes down to individual playgroups and TOs. Considering you can explicitly do this against troopers with Explode it's not out of the question. Intelligently confounding the use of mines isn't a problem if it's within the rules.
2 different issues. Hecaton is saying that the mine is triggered, removed, untriggered. Alpha is saying that the mine is triggered, untriggered, never removed. Neither is what the rules say. To understand why the first is wrong requires simple interpretation of the FAQ: it's pretty clear albeit not entirely explicit. Honestly, it's a good job. The second requires to understand how the word 'once' differs from the word 'after' in the construction 'Once Y, X occurs' instead of 'After Y, X occurs'. This does not require interpretation.
Yes, but we know that you don't read English the way CB writes it: you're an outlier who would take too much effort to accommodate. This isn't meant insultingly, your interpretations are usually plausible they're just at odds with how most other people read CB's rules. I have found myself in a similar position. CB's time and effort would be spent more fruitfully spent solving the issues that the majority can't agree on rather than what you can't.
I don't think its explicit that it "triggers" at step 3 during the order process? There is nothing in the rules which stipulates that the mine ignores the normal order resolution. Other than the word 'Once", which you need to extrapolate to reach the point we are now.
To be honest, I think that most people have a problem with how CB writes English; the game has a problem where essentially you can't learn it just by reading the rulebook. I think that most people who claim it's clear to them wouldn't actually be able to correctly guess how to resolve a lot of rules issues if the community wasn't holding their hand the whole way like it does. Well, the civilian rules have required multiple FAQs recently, especially when combined with mines and template weapons. These problems were always there, just highlighted by the poorly-conceived Xenotech rules. What else is the next round of rules bloat gonna expose?
I agree it is intuitive, but if we are trying to get more written and less intuitive rules, as Hec's focus seems to be, it is a place for a simple addition of replaced or changing of the removal timing
There's nothing there that says it follows the normal order resolution, either, since it's not a short skill or ARO for a mine to go off.
"Once on the game table, Mines must trigger when an enemy figure or Marker declares or executes an Order or ARO inside their Trigger Area." Yes it's explicit that the Mine triggers at Step 3. "Once a Mine triggers, it is removed from play." Yes it's explicit that the Mine is removed at that time. There is no extrapolation required. To get to any other conclusion you need to make leaps of logic. Yes this is the difference a single words makes. Whether this timing is intentional is a separate issue: it's entirely plausible that this was badly written and you have the right of it. But it's what was written so it's what we have. Given that it works, what's your problem with it?
It depends on who "we" are, and what level of intuition is acceptable. If "we = CB' is expecting a degree of intuition and trying to avoid adding page on page to explicitly lay out every conceivable scenario, then "we = players" will have to accept that level of intuition and simply move on with it.
I don't disagree with you. My point is that you sit on the extreme end of that. So do I, I've just modified my thinking on some of it to go 'yeah nah' a lot more.
You and I have very different understandings of the word "explicit". Context is important in language, and you're not applying the context of the rules as a whole when reading passages and making conclusions. Could this be more explicitly written, sure. Is it saying what you are saying? Debatable. It works the way I read it too. Doesn't fuck with the existing game mechanics in any way and doesn't require quantum situations with the FAQ. And this leads back to my point, if hecaton wanted to continue arguing that it doesn't work, the burden of proof lies with them that their reading of the rule is somehow superior to others.
I mean explicit as in "the meaning can be clearly understood by virtue of a plain English reading alone with no room for doubt". I find both of the sentences we're discussing meet that standard. Understanding the sentence to mean "After triggering, during resolution, the Mine is removed" requires logical leaps arrived at by applying standard resolution mechanics. It may have been the intended meaning of that sentence, but it's not the explicit meaning: which is why I allow a mistake may have been made. I've explained why my reading of the rule is superior (at least twice). Nobody has contradicted me.
When you add in the need for intuition, you add in a chance for misinterpretation. It is quite possible to clarify rules in a fashion less open to misunderstanding without adding "pages on pages". This particular example would be solidified with less than 5 words.
