Yes, I fell into your cunning trap, I hope the other members of your shadowy Internet cabal give you lots of likes, you have successfully shown the incompetence of an Infinity fan who enjoys helping people with rules questions while he cares for his 4 month old baby. In the future I will never assume that when you ask a question with a highlighted term you are specifically referring to that and instead explain the entire mechanics of the game. However, if you would allow a flawed soul such as myself to offer some constructive criticism, your own wonderfully constructed denouement neglects to mention that mines are a direct template I must now explain that Direct templates make any incoming attacks a normal roll, as I cannot assume you know that >>If a Trooper affected by a Direct Template Weapon declares an Attack against the user of the Direct Template Weapon, their Attack will be a Normal Roll (if the Weapon, Special Skill, etc, requires a Roll). In the Resolution step of the Order, the Trooper will need to make a Saving Roll, since this type of Template Weapon affects targets directly, without needing to Roll to hit. This means that any BS Attack will not be a face to face, and therefore cannot avoid the affect of the mine. Apologies for not quoting the rules for BS Attacks, I am on my phone and holding a baby in my other hand. Unfortunately I don't feel comfortable giving a source that I have a baby in my hand. I understand if you choose not to believe me.
I sincerely hope that they don't give me likes, I don't believe in the «likemeter». I believe you completely, don't worry.
To be clear, the rule quote you wanted was the exact same sentence you opened the post with ? To say : a mine must trigger when it must trigger therefore, in the absence of any other interaction elsewhere, it will trigger even if you BS Attack it ??? Obviously, that rule must not have been enough as otherwise as soon as you typed out your question you would have found the answer yourself.
Yes, as easy as that. Yes. After reading the entire thread, do you seriously still think that I needed the question to be resolved?
The question was not asked in search of an answer, but to settle an imagined grievance between this community (treated as a homogeneous cabal of like-thinkers) and another unspecified group.
That's just an excuse to cover up not being able to provide an answer backed by the rules. No grievance at all, it was just a bet. My colleagues from (what did you call it?) «Shadowy Internet Cabal» unanimously bet that the best place to resolve a rules question was this forum, I told them «choose the easiest question you can find, we put it in all the places you can think of that can be solved and I bet you what you want that the last place in which the rule will be solved with a quote to the rules will be this forum.» I did everything possible to lose the bet, but what can I do, I won it.
what is even going on? this sub-forum is explicitly to help people with rule questions and you decide that a social experiment of such stupid design is acceptable? The original question is one that new players legitimately make all the time. "a deactivator is used to stop mines and its best range band is between 0-8, can i get it to work against a mine in the good range band" is a constant question. The answers given would have legitimately helped a new player understand that regrettably a deactivator is screwed in this situation but don't worry, its next range band is still super strong and we recommend that. It may move towards a tactic statement than a rules statement but otherwise new players will get upset that the anti-mine weapon cannot anti-mine. instead you make this into a social experiment where your perceived "correct answer" is literally in your own opening post that any person attempting to answer you in good faith wouldn't even think to bring up because you would have to be moronic to want that as an answer. and because people normally do not need to quote exactly from the rule book on every single answer as the question you are asking is not in any rules dispute, so why would people go out of there way to quote a rulebook when most people just want an easy question, easy answer. and if they did want a rules quote, they would just follow it up with "can I get a rules quote to bring it to buddies', or 'see it so I understand the rules better' or any other thing that a good faith questioner would ask. this is just you being a dick to a forum that is there for answering rules questions to the best of their ability in a game that has no official rules oversight.
Not counting this question, the answer to which is yes... ... the only interesting thing you said is this.
Forgive me if I stop replying in this thread. The bet was won many hours ago and I no longer have any interest in it.
The rulebook has no reason to contain a quote which says what you're asking for. Because your question was answered by the basic rules mechanics. Would you like to ask for a quote to support the statement "A successful BS Attack does not entitle you to kill the other player, or melt their models." next?
Nonono, as OP has indicated the word Deactivator was in the post title as a carefully calculated red herring and he actually wanted us to quote the part of the Mines rules that stops any attack preventing the detonation (but not the DTW rules or BS Attack rules that particular part of the Mines rule is built upon) We were simply not intelligent enough to avoid his galaxy-brained Machiavellian plan and now he can take proof our collective ignorance to win a bet with undisclosed Internet types. But not for likes, because likes are bad, and clearly the only motivation we simpletons have for posting here (as opposed to the desire to be helpful or support the game we enjoy in some small way) he instead did this for a bet, which is completely different and a much more altruistic motivation.
