Can «Deactivator» prevent a mine from detonating?

The mine triggers normally and Deactivator won't do anything to stop it.

Remember that Deactivator works on all Deployable equipment like Repeaters and Cybermines, and is still a better option than a combi rifle out to 16" as long as WIP is higher than BS (and no MSV)

 

Seems pretty clear in the text: Mine detonates when a skill is declared; deactivator has no effect until the Willpower roll is passed.

So the mine will go off.

 

Ok then.

There is nothing in the rules to say that a Deactivator is treated any differently than any other BS Attack when interacting with a triggered Mine. Neither the Deactivator rules or Mines rules make any exceptions.

I put this in because the usual next question is "So why does Deactivator have a +6 rangeband at 0-8" if getting that close sets off the mine"

 

But it cold be avoided by a dodge. So mine effect applies at the end of an order.

Deactivator does not have the ability to avoid an attack. And like a usual BS attack against a direct template it is a normal roll, not face to face. So you get hit anyway.
That's how I see it.

 

Baggage Remotes in N3 could have the Minesweeper skill which did allow them to avoid the attack of a Mine, and even take ownership of it! But this skill didn't survive the transition to N4

 

Absence of rules can not be proven by rules quotes, unfortunately, though do note that the rule for avoiding mines by dodging is an exception.

Regarding the frequently followed up question: It also ignores all MODs, including cover, and bypasses ARM so it's usually better than most guns even if the Deactivator has MSV and good BS, plus it can target other stuff than Shock Mines such as Deployed Repeaters.

Minesweeper was janky as heck, though, plus actually getting an unarmed non-specialist S4 REM into range of something to take it over on a WIP 13 roll wasn't what I'd call order efficient 99% of the time (it was basically only when your opponent really worked to make it useful or when they rolled poorly on AI Beacon scatter). I'd say it wasn't until Speculo got a minelayer profile that it got an actual strategic use.

 

Asking in bad faith as well and not even bothering showing what was provided "everywhere else" for anyone who'd genuinely ask the question in the future. Thank you for adding to the reasons people on other media complain about the forums, I guess.

 

ok, the initial post was clearly in bad faith then.

In order to run an experiment, you have to conceive it, make hypothesis, then run it, then confirm. As this is a little experiment for you, it shows you concocted the initial post in order to prove your theory that the forum is being overrun by a clique of fake rulesolver with the support of the blind herd of follower. Post #9 strongly re-affirms it in that you say you took time to carefully select and word the question. A legit question seeker, that has a question in good faith, would simply spit out his question (and possibly present the two or three answer he has trouble figuring which is the correct reading) without a need to carefully word it. Furthermore, he would also simply ask the question he had in mind instead of trying to carefully select which question topic should be asked.

 

colbrook answer was clear, and he does not need a rule passage to say "Deactivator won't do anything to stop it".

Let me ask you, would a Spotlight hacking program stop the Mine from blowing up ? No ? Then how about you simply show me the rule passage that clearly says that, eh ?

"The mine triggers normally" could have been supported by the rule, but if you asked the question it means you already read the rule about how mine triggering works.

As for interaction between other skill and mine triggering; if that interaction exists, then it can be found in the rule; but when the interaction does not exist (as in : neither BS Attack nor Spotlight can prevent a mine triggering) then it is impossible to provide a rule passage and expecting to have one (post #3) is nonsensical.

 

Interesting, that's one very original way of trolling...

 

I'm sorry, I thought you were asking a genuine question in the rules discussion forum so I answered it to the best of my ability

Unfortunately I lack your staggering intellect and am unable to see any mention in either Page 76 of the N4 rules PDF or the official rules wiki that changes the interaction between a BS Attack and a Mine when a Deactivator is involved.

Perhaps you could find some time in your busy schedule of social experiments to enlighten a poor fake rules solver such as myself.

 

That's quite the claim you have there. I mean, leaving aside the rather obvious ad hominem, the assumption of someone genuinely asking this question tends to be that a face to face would prevent the mine from harming the trooper, yet your secret answer doesn't seem to have anything to do with face to face rolls. Another assumption people tend to have is that Deactivator itself is a device that is meant to specifically counter mines and thus specifically prevent triggering, yet again your hint to https://infinitythewiki.com/Mines does not have any text potentially pre-empting an exception in the https://infinitythewiki.com/Deactivator rules, nor does it seem to have any analysis of the Order Expenditure Sequence which the rules for Mines does seem to require in order to solve the rules question.

So the claim that there is a rules text that provides an easy answer to whether a Deactivator can prevent a Mine from triggering seems like a hoax. You've probably accepted an incomplete answer that doesn't seem to take a potential exception into account, such as the N3 Minesweeper provided.

 

Amazing.

 

I must admit that I misunderstood that your question about Deactivator was not specifically about Deactivator. I apologise that I assumed that you already understood the interaction between Mines and BS Attacks.