A bit of a blast from the past. In the bad way, I'm afraid. So, in N3 we had a situation where the Discover rule said that you can't declare Discover versus the same marker again if you fail an attempt while Impersonation and Camouflage said the same but trooper. Effectively this put the two rules into collision course with each other and I believe it was eventually ruled that the you could declare Discover on the same trooper again if they revealed and re-entered the state in the same turn. Now in N4 we have the same situation again, but Discover now has an extra text "Note that a Trooper that has been revealed, and re-entered Camouflaged or Impersonation-1 or 2 State again, does not count as the same Marker". However, Impersonation still refer to trooper with this line (bold emphasis altered) "A Trooper that fails a WIP Roll to Discover an Impersonation Marker cannot attempt to Discover the same Trooper until the next Player Turn. Note that a Trooper that has been revealed, and re-entered Impersonation State again, does not count as the same Marker" Example; Fiday is facing off against Angus and Shona. Fiday is in IMP-1. Fiday declares Move, Angus and Shona declare Discover, Fiday declares Move again. Next order Fiday declares Move again. Question 1) if Angus fails his Discover and Shona succeed, can Angus declare Discover versus the Fiday's IMP-2 Marker in the second order? Question 2) after murdering Shona, the Fiday re-enters IMP-1, can Angus now declare Discover versus the Fiday when it's still the same turn?
"A Trooper that fails a WIP Roll to Discover an Impersonation Marker cannot attempt to Discover the same Trooper until the next Player Turn. Note that a Trooper that has been revealed, and re-entered Impersonation State again, does not count as the same Marker." I think the only possible conclusion is that "Trooper" is a typo for "Marker" in the first sentence. Otherwise, the second sentence would have no effect at all. It wouldn't matter whether the re-impersonated Fiday counted as the same marker, since there would be no rule which depended on whether it was the same or a different marker.
While I agree that is how it should be*, namely that Angus should be able to declare Discover against the Fiday's IMP-2 if the Fiday didn't reveal between Angus failing against their IMP-1, I do have a feeling that what they mean that IMP-1 and IMP-2 count as the same Marker. I also don't think this holds up cross-meta * I'm after all of the opinion that IMP-1 is too strong and somewhat vocal about it
I'm not at all sure what you mean. Are you saying that the answer to (1) is "no," because the IMP-2 marker is the same marker as the IMP-1 marker that Angus failed to Discover; but that the answer to (2) is "yes" because the word "trooper" is a typo for "marker"? Also not sure what you mean by "holds up cross-meta." I'm referring to the wording of the rules, not to the way it's being played (in any particular meta, or otherwise).
No, I'm saying that with the rules at hand I can't make out the answers to either questions, meaning that I can't expect a new group of players I'm not familiar with to play in the same way because they probably make other conclusions than I do. My suspicion is that neither is a typo, just not fully formulated logic. (Or if you will, that the last "Marker" is the error)
Ah, fair enough. Well, as with a lot of questions, we won't have a firm answer unless ijw steps in. Until then, we're just doing our best to find an answer that we hope a TO would find persuasive. "Trooper is a typo for marker" is the best (and only) answer I've been able to come up with that makes any sense, and personally I find it pretty persuasive, but YMMV.
So: IMP-1 Marker when it's Discovered is replaced with a IMP-2 Marker, this is a different Marker. IMP-1/IMP-2 Marker is revealed and then subsequently returns to a Marker State, this new Marker counts as a different Marker. That's the Unsolved interim answer we *think* is correct based on "Trooper" being a typo?
That's what I think. Not sure the thread's been active enough to say that "we" think so :-) Also, that's how it worked in N3, and it seems unlikely that CB decided to make Impersonation harder to discover in N4.
I don't remember N3 working like that. I remember me arguing extensively that it should work like that, but losing that argument or not getting any traction for that interpretation (something about the rules text in Discover being "less specific" than the rules text in Impersonation that contradicted it).
my understanding about n3's impersonation is it was still undetermined to this point. Where we were still unsure if you could fail a discover and be able to discover on the imp-2 when someone else succeeded.
Obligatory checking of the Spanish text: Camuflado/Camo: Si una Tropa falla la Tirada de VOL al tratar de Descubrir a un Marcador de Camuflado (CAMO), no podrá intentarlo de nuevo hasta el siguiente Turno de Jugador. Una Tropa revelada que haya vuelto a entrar en estado Camuflado en ese mismo Turno de Jugador no cuenta como el mismo Marcador. Suplantado/Imp: Si una Tropa falla la Tirada de VOL al tratar de Descubrir a un Marcador de Suplantado, no podrá intentarlo de nuevo hasta el siguiente Turno de Jugador. Una Tropa revelada que haya vuelto a entrar en estado Suplantado en ese mismo Turno de Jugador no cuenta como el mismo Marcador. So it looks like they got the Spanish versions right (it just says you can't try again in the first sentence) without being over specific, but messed up the English version. And both Camo and Imp have the same "If you exit and re-enter the state, you're a different marker" clause.
