Possessed TAGs and Dismount

Now, if they want to fix this (and I think they should) they could add Immunity (Possession) to pilots.

 

I cannot see where in the Possessed Trooper profile the pilot is mentioned. Can you?

 

There are some missing restrictions in the Possessed and Pilot rules, as Pilots cannot be in Possessed State.

In the meantime, I suggest: neither player can Dismount a Pilot from a TAG in Possessed State.

 

I feel like next time CB do a rules release they might as well get the entire community to bug test it, these oversights are cropping up alot.

 

Stringing a physical release out long after a virtual release (even a beta) loses a significant amount of hype. This would lower the purchase rate for the new rulebook, probably. While an awesome company that gives a LOT of stuff away for free, CB need some hype to pay themselves. Keeping your virtual and print releases tight is important for that.

Similarly, leaks are likely enough from even just the Warcor community that releasing rules for playtest there is essentially releasing the rules period.

I had similar thoughts, then thought it through a bit from the industry perspective. To make sales that allow them to make the cool stuff they do, CB need to release the print version first or at the same time as the first virtual releases/army builder/whatever.

 

Lets face it, the books are vanity products that sit on the shelf now the Wiki and army builder are out. Their value is in the fluff and exclusive miniature, not as a rule reference. I'd be happy to buy it without the fluff part, but the market "expects" and likely rewards a rulebook with a new edition.

 

Fair point, although on the other hand if the print version of the new rules keeps being wrong I think that will also impact sales in the long run too. If they keep having to rewrite shit I'm never going to get the LGS to restock the book because who wants to buy outdated books and I'll probably warn every single new player not to buy it just because it's outdated.

Balancing act I guess.

It really would help if they did more with the fluff side of the book. Alot of rehashed stuff, entries that are just outdated and wrong (daofei is still an invicible army unit etc). Managing to be more expensive than the 9th edition Warhammer rules and also being wrong everywhere both in fluff and rules mechanics with illegal diagrams and shit is not a good look either. I'm willing to chalk some of this up to Covid fucking ruining the year but the random price spikes I'm getting hit by in N4 have left me a little sour tbh.

 

Something like 75% of Infinity books sales come during pre-order and launch, they don't have much of a tail, partly due to the rules being online in more useful formats, partly due to hype, and partly due to the miniature.

Outdated print books aren't even a particularly CB problem, most games get Errata and FAQs, heck, the fact that Shadowrun books sell at all is a miracle considering the state they release in! Or GW books that get contents intentionally outdated every few months by chapter approved.

 

I don't know if trying to normalise the situation by pointing at GW is necessarily a good thing. Also the point of splitting the rules up between the core and the living rules was so they didn't need to outdate the print books and could adjust things with ITS, Fireteam rules, e tc. Kind of defeats the purpose when the core book is riddled with things that are wrong on day one.

 

The "neither player" part just popped out at me. Can both players use a possessed TAG?

 

No, by neither player he means the possessor can't eject the pilot of a TAG he controls, and the original owner can't eject the (unpossesed) pilot from a TAG currently possessed by the enemy.

 

Thanks. There was also an issue of the rulebook pdf not mentioning that the original owner of the TAG couldn't use orders, but it looks like the pdf has it updated. Relevant rule copy/pasted below :P

"Troopers in this state cannot be activated or receive Orders from their player's Order Pool. While they are Possessed, Troopers are considered to be enemies by the rest of their owner's Troopers and are considered to be allies by the Troopers of the player that caused this game state."
- https://infinitythewiki.com/index.php?title=Possessed_State

 

Not exactly. The version of Possession in the main text is correct, the version in the Glossary was an old version.

 

@Mahtamori I don't know if you want to track questions that IJW has answered but aren't formally resolved?

 

I'll track it at least until it makes it into easily searchable spot. If anything because of the relationship to the huge number of questions regarding pilots...

 

What if I dismount in response to a hacking attempt to possess?

 

You can't, sorry.

Dismounting only happens in the active turn, and is declared with the first Short Skill of the Order: https://infinitythewiki.com/General_Movement_Rules

You can dismount preemptively if you suspect you'll be targeted by a Total Control ARO, since Total Control fails if the target TAG's Pilot is dismounted.

Once the TAG is Possessed, you can't dismount since doing so requires you to spend an Order on the TAG, which you can't do as long as it's considered an enemy trooper. See the first few posts for more on why your opponent can't either.

 

Technically, if you dismount the TAG the TAG itself doesn't count as activated ("will not be considered" - anyone else thinks it ends prematurely? It's structured similarly in Spanish, btw) for the order so the Hack declaration itself is not allowed (I think that's what not considering a profile means...).

 

Exactly: to expand on what you're saying, the OES for that is:

1. Activate the TAG
1.1. Spend order
1.2. Declare Move, Dismount with the Pilot. The Pilot is now the active profile and the TAG is retroactively made not the active profile.
2. Total Control is not a valid ARO, the ARO needs to be declared vs the active profile, that is the Pilot.
Etc