This is the problem with following RAW blindly. It's rules for a miniatures game, not a rules statute written for every word to be parsed out by lawyers. How long have Krazy Koalas been around? And yet this is just now being brought up at the tail end of N3. Were people playing it this way the whole time? Did CB intentionally design them to be this broken? Of course not, because we aren't robots and should be expected to play it reasonably. I totally understand trying to bring to light rules issues so they may be fixed in the future, but you have to expect pushback on the concept of reading things RAW like a robot. This is why the very thought of playing it raw will draw hostility from some players. It's so asinine to the point where it offends people. Reading things this way encourages other players to do the same, and breeding this actively detracts from the fun of the game.
Perimeter weapons provide AROs in the active turn as if they were troopers. This is not true in the reactive turn. When a perimeter weapon is boosting, it is a deployable weapon declaring an attack and is not treated as a trooper for the purpose of triggering other deployables. This isn't a RAW vs RAI issue.
You do not need to trigger a ARO to trigger a Mine. They do not need to be Troopers to trigger a Mine. I posted the relevant rules in the first post and showed which passage are application and make the interaction possible.
It needs to be a figure, which needs to be a miniature (it is) with a troop profile (that's debatable). It has stats but I wouldn't call that a troop profile - it's lacking all the necessary attributes to perform skills that require rolls. That's an equipment profile. This madness can end of we agree that it's not a figure. Edit: going by the standards here it's easy to say that perimeter weapons don't have troop profiles. http://infinitythewiki.com/en/Unit_Profile
If you don't consider Perimeter Weapon to have a Troop Profile, then nothing in the game fits the description given on the page of Deployable piece of equipment or Deployable weapon. "Deployable piece of equipment. Game element with a Troop Profile, which belongs to the Army List of any of the players, and is able to perform some type of Special Skill or Trait. This element may also be designated as a target and receive Attacks." "Deployable weapon. Game element with a Troop Profile that may belong to the Army List of some players, and is capable of performing and receiving Attacks." Because they both refer to having Troop Profile. I also think that a given game element can fall into multiple categories in the Terminology (which is the case for MadTraps imo).
A figure doesn't need attributes necessary to perform skills, but a deployable piece of equipment does. The requirements for being a figure/model is very lax. Doesn't even need to be able to receive attacks.
I think the simplest solution is 'Perimeter weapons no longer move, you check if reaching the target is possible and then they auto-hit SpecFire themselves into BTB'. It is a dumb interaction as written, though, and hopefully something handled for COne/N4.
Where are you seeing that? When I search the wiki for "Deployable Weapon", it takes me here. It does not use the term "troop profile". http://infinitythewiki.com/en/Traits Deployable. The user of this weapon or piece of Equipment can place it on the battlefield—but never on a vertical surface— whereupon it becomes an independent element. Deployable weapons and Equipment have their own profile with Attributes, and are targetable by Attacks and Skills.
http://infinitythewiki.com/en/Game_Elements:_Terminology_and_Alignment In both the Deployable piece of equipment and Deployable weapon section, these things are defined as being "Game element with a Troop Profile". If a MadTrap doesn't satisfy this description, then nothing in the game does. The same page which defines Figure/ Model and Marker in a similar fashion. (Which are the terms used for the Mine trigger)
Fair enough. I can't break the logical chain. Now we just need to exercise our judgement as reasonable people.
I like this method of resolution as it keeps the interaction of triggering Mines. I think it creates high skill ceilling plays where you can position your Mine (or MadTraps depending on who's trying to outplay who) to trigger Mines in certain angles and at unfortunate timing for your opponent.
"Perimeter weapons provide AROs in the active turn as if they were troopers." I've seen this line brought up a few times here and on FB. It doesn't mean what people are taking it to mean. You, by definition, can only provide (to the reactive player) AROs in your active turn. It has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation at hand as in your Reactive (when Perimeters Boost) you are the one performing (not providing) the ARO. As mentioned elsewhere, a Mine detonating is not an ARO. If it was you would be unable to detonate them on your Active turn.
No. Just no. That leaves all the issues inherent in pathing Koalas while ALSO making them supremely exploitable to bounce templates off during their boost. Infinitely Boosting is just one of several issues with pathing Perimeter Weapons. The only reasonable way to play them is to teleport them like Engage. 1. Check whether a path exists 2. If a path exists, then during Resolution remove them and apply the hit to the target of Boost. If we're going to make up rules, let's at least make up good rules.
Mines being set off by boosting perimeter weapons seems to be supported by reading the rules closely but is a double edged sword. Either player could position their deployable in such a way so the mine goes off to their advantage. Like your opponent can clear mines that way but if you put your mine down next to a bunch of enemy troopers, then deliberately trigger a boost in trigger area near them that could be powerful. And that's before we get to bouncing templates off them on the way in. Triggering every mine on the table is debatable RAW but obviously ridiculous on the face of it to most if not all players. So I can't see it happening in real life. Hopefully the language / intent is cleared up in N4 or before then by FAQ.
I don’t see how bouncing templates would be an issue. Bouncing templates off of things in your active turn is not game breaking in any way. If the path Perimeter Weapon takes are clearly defined in the rules, then this becomes a great tactical option with a very high skill ceiling.
I think it mostly depends on whether triggering mines on Boosting is an intended feature or not, and each group would have to come to a consensus on that on their own, because some form of house rule is necessary to handle Perimeter weapons.
