That situation is different. Players are forced to choose one interpretation over another in order to keep playing the game. I agree with you that it's a relatively safe assumption to make. But i stand by my statement that the rule is still bad in this case. Regardless of how easy it is to make that assumption, we shouldn't be asked to make it.
If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and talks like a duck... or if it fails take ownership of its own decisions...
You are beyond tiresome with your vendetta. If I go to the park and run into someone with intent to kill me, and I kill them in self defense, what responsibility do I need to take there? Did I really choose to become a killer? Should I have done nothing and let them kill me? I didn't know coming into Infinity the rules were such a mess. Should I give up trying to understand how to play Infinity and let you or the game defeat me? Is that the responsibility you want me to take? Is trying to make the rules better for future players not a worthy endeavor? How do I make them better without identifying problems? Can you please just block me and move on?
Yeah let my poor boy Kirpal Singh know about that switch from N2 to N3 ;( The problem is, and I've been told by players on this very forum, that I'm not allowed to assume what CB's intent in writing the rules are, even though some other players apparently are? Either you play the rule exactly as its written, or you agree it's bad, come to a conclusion, and post here while you wait on an FAQ. There doesn't have to be any assumption of one RAI reading being right and another being wrong, there just needs to be an assumption of "here are some readings that are in-line with the text that solve the problem and don't break any other rules, can CB please tell us which one they meant?" This post is exactly that. It highlights the issue, explains some rules context, other forum posters chime in to show how its handled in other cases, and now CB needs to let us know which is right. At this point, this post may as well be locked, the issue seems to be laid out in full. I don't really consider myself a rules lawyer, but as we figure out in this subforum on a weekly basis, there are some big holes in the rules, and everyone agrees (either explicitly, or they contribute here by debating, which implicitly indicates their agreement -- even you, by participating in this thread, are recognizing that there is room for debate on this rule). The fact that situations that the game has no way of handling come up pretty frequently in play (I would say even as an advanced player who is pretty familiar with the rules that 1 in 3 games has us pausing and taking several minutes to work out a multi-rule interaction, and not being satisfied with the answer) means that there is plenty of room to make the rules better. And yeah, it does encourage rules lawyering at a competitive level because often the guy who makes the most compelling argument to the TO is the one whose ruling sticks for that tournament. If the rules were complete, there wouldn't be a need to lawyer them, or worry about what the intent of the rulebook was, we could just play the game and not worry about doing things that break it. Like, literally right now there's a massive hole in Spiral Corps rules (Stratuscloud) that's being played differently at almost every major tournament and half the time this is decided by TO's on the spot -- and a player who has a Stratuscloud unit in his army is almost always going to have an easier time arguing their side of the issue than the other player who might just have a general understanding of issue. Rules lawyering isn't a problem when a ruleset is tight. No one lawyers the rules of chess or mahjong (and yes, before some Captain Obvious type points it out, I know that those games are not as complex as Infinity). Even most very heavy board games don't leave room for lawyering when the rules are played as written.
Derp; Posthumans *are* one unit. Who also do not take up a unit slot in the combat group. Seriously, it's not hard to understand unless you're trying to creatively misinterpret for advantage.
It’s also worth noting that 1) the simple answer has been given multiple times and 2) that it’s been mentioned multiple times across multiple threads that the incessant nitpicking by a small number of forum users has exactly opposite the “desired” effect.
From experience, there is no "rules layer proof" rule system that does not resemble a phone-book, rules have a high real estate cost regardless of printable or digital media because their is so much anyone is willing to read. Taking aside, wish-listing, personal opinions, preferences and appeals to what feels natural, the TAG and not the pilot are the trooper and they generate the order not the pilot (they are also the ones who take up a slot in the combat group ectr).
What "order icon" in the troop profile are you referring to, @Ginrei? Serious question; I don't know what you mean.
Exactly, which means that happy medium needs to be found between ease of access and granularity/detail, leaving folks on both sides of the question disappointed at times.
I think he means the regular training icon pilots have that allows them to be in coordinated orders with other regular troops
That's what I was thinking too. So, if true, he's been misinterpreting the profiles all along. The trooper's Training Characteristic icon *doesn't* indicate that the profile actually generates an order, only how orders may be allocated.
Except Infinity is a game where the rules are given away for free in PDF format so the "estate cost" is bull, even in terms of what people can read in one sitting. I wouldn't care if they had a "simple rules" (which could be basically what exists right now) and "advanced rules" format so that the game was easy to learn and all the weird interactions could be spelled out separately (and digital only.) Give players a chance to interact with the rules in the way that best suits their needs. That's even worse then -- in that case, what indicates whether *any* unit generates *any regular or irregular order*? Also it's incorrect, see the rule entry for regular orders, which states: "Regular Orders are those contributed by troopers with the Training Characteristic Regular." Doubly so for posthumans, as G:Jumper doesn't actually provide any rules for handling the possessor's participation in a coordinated order.
The post I quoted used the term "model", using "unit" is my own habit because so many things are not one model.
Troopers generate orders. And the AI Beacon equipment before anyone says it. Troopers can have more than one profile and may be represented by more than one model. Unit is effectively a synonym, but Trooper is the game term.
Is this an admission that your argument was incorrect in stating that a profile's training characteristic did not indicate what type of order they produced?
No. How on earth did you get that? I didn't say that. Why would I admit to being wrong in your misquotation of my post? The Training Characteristic does indicate what *kind* of order, but does not indicate if the profile generates *any* order. It's on page 48 of the N3 rules, if you'd care to read them.
As I've previously stated; creative misinterpretation for advantage. Regular orders are orders contributed by Troopers with the Regular Training Characteristic. Training Characteristic icons appear on profiles Having an icon does not indicate a model is a Trooper. A Trooper may have multiple profiles and even multiple models. There's no "order icon". @Ginrei is wrong. You, @meikyoushisui are incorrect in your attempt to justify his wrong reasoning.
Then again, where do I find in the rules what troopers do and don't generate orders? Also can we keep criticism to people's arguments, rather than their persons? I've fixed this in my comment above.
It doesn't need to: Requirements To declare a Coordinated Order, you must spend 1 Regular Order and 1 Command Token. Up to 4 troopers can participate in a Coordinated Order. When you declare a Coordinated Order, name one of the participating troopers as that Order's Spearhead, and place a Spearhead Marker (SPEARHEAD) beside him. All participating troopers must declare and execute the exact same sequence of Skills. If one of the Skills of the Coordinated Order demands a target, all troops must act against the same single target. Only troopers with the same Training (Regular/Irregular) and in the same Combat Group can participate in a Coordinated Order. You can only declare a Coordinated Order during the Orders Phase of your Active Turn. G:Jumper doesn't contradict any of those requirements.
