Just curious. For example, I have a doctor, an engineer and a servant-bot in my Army List. If I assign a doctor as bot controller for one game, and an engineer for another - does this still count as one Army List or two different ones for tournament restrictions?
They aren’t assigned in army. They are placed with the unit they sync with and you can decide at placement.
There is a rule: "When included in an Army List, Peripherals must always be associated with a Controller." https://infinitythewiki.com/Peripheral
Then you have answered the question yourself. If it must be associated to a controller in the Army List, associating it to another troop would be a different list, right?
There is no functional way that it is possible to associate a servant with a specific potential controller in an army list. I also don't think there is any rule that either allow you to make those associations ahead of time or force you to do them, either.
So we have a rule that means nothing. And even if it meant there is no tool for its implementation. I love that game. ^_^
How do you come to this solution? Because there is no feature in the app to associate a peripheral? To me the wording is clear: if i put a nasmat into my list, i need to write down somewhere to which controler he is associated. I can not decide that one time he is going with the engineer, another time he is going with the doctor - that would be two different lists.
*shrug* show me the rule that says how you are meant to accomplish this and when you need to accomplish this. Hell, the rules don't even say the controller they are associated with has to be the controller that controls them during the game. It tells you they can never be added on their own.
They did turn their minds to it - if you put a Servant by itself, Army says the list is invalid because "Peripheral must be in the same group as a doctor or engineer." If the intention was that the peripheral also had to be linked to a specific doctor or engineer at list-building, you'd think they'd have included that functionality in Army. The functionality already exists since you can (and must) link the other types of peripherals to their controllers in Army. So I'm inclined to agree with @Mahtamori that "When included in an Army List, Peripherals must always be associated with a Controller" means that they must be in the same group as a Controller and can't be in the list by themselves, consistent with the Army validity message. But of course it's not conclusive.
The question isn't whether the servant must be associated with a controller, the question is whether that means you must choose the specific controller at list-building, or whether it means the controller must be in the same group as a controller at list-building. The way Army works suggests the latter, but either one would be consistent with the word "must" in the rules.
For what it is worth, Spanish rules don't mention the Army list at all. It's a bit weirdly phrased for Google Translate and it's not exactly like I ever even had an opportunity to learn Spanish formally, but here's the text: Los Periféricos deben alinearse siempre asociados a un Controlador. Tanto el Controlador como los Periféricos deben respetar siempre el límite marcado por su Disponibilidad (DISP) en el Ejército seleccionado. With Google translating it to Peripherals must always be aligned associated with a Controller. Both the Controller and the Peripherals must always respect the limit marked by their Availability (DISP) in the selected Army. Someone who actually speaks Spanish could probably correct me, but that seems to say "Peripherals must always be fielded associated with a Controller" when I cross-reference the word Google has problems with using other sentences with the same word stem.
As a native Spanish speaker, I think I can shed light on this case. At that point in the rules it is entirely true that the Army List is not mentioned at all, but that is by no means to say that the Army List is not referenced. If we see the rulebook in Spanish when talking about the AVA (DISP in Spanish) it says: (p. 17) DISPONIBILIDAD (DISP) Representa la cantidad de Tropas de esa Unidad que se pueden alinear en la Lista de Ejército. another example; (p. 18) Un valor de Disponibilidad Total permite alinear en la Lista de Ejército tantas Tropas de dicha Unidad como el jugador quiera sin sobrepasar los Puntos de Ejército acordados para la partida. The fact is that in Spanish when it is clear that something refers to something else univocally: You can only align («alinear») the Troops in one place, in the Army List («en la Lista de Ejercito»).the second thing may not be specified. An example (p.18) Una partida estándar de Infinity N4 se juega a 300 Puntos y 6 CAP, permitiendo alinear hasta 15 Tropas para una partida de duración media. Or the example we are dealing with: (p. 105) Los Periféricos deben alinearse siempre asociados a un Controlador. For any native Spanish reader when reading the rulebook it is evident that troops can only be «alineadas» (as a synonym of included not fielded, if the latter is synonymous with «placed on the table») in one and only one place «en la Lista de Ejercito», therefore, can not be include the part of «en la Lista de ejercito» at all times so that it is not repetitive when reading it.
What you ask is if this: (1) "When included in an Army List, Peripherals must always be associated with a Controller."means this: (2) "When included in an Army List, Peripherals must always be in the same Combat Group as a Controller."? I don't see any way in which sentence 1 can be confused with sentence 2, if they had wanted to write sentence 2, they would have written sentence 2 and not 1, especially when that they have to be in the same Combat Group it is already stated explicitly and clearly elsewhere in the rule... there is no need to repeat it in a confusing way. (p. 107) A Controller and their Peripherals always belong to the same Combat Group.
Eh, you're a lot more confident about the meaning of the word "associated" than I am. But I'm not going to debate with you, in light of this thread: Can «Deactivator» prevent a mine from detonating? | Corvus Belli Community Forum
Yes, it is probably because I can read and understand the rulebook in both Spanish and English. And in Spanish there is no way that it can be taken for «having to be in the same group»; if you prefer RAW = RAI. I understand that you don't want to debate, because having as your only argument wanting to find in a translated text a RAI that doesn't exist in the original text, seems like a very weak basis to debate anything with anyone. Regarding the thread you seem to want me to feel embarrassed about. That thread just goes to show that most people answering questions about rules do so without ever reading the rulebook, and in many cases, not even the question. Proving the fake that the alleged rules gurus are is nothing I have to be ashamed of.
And what was your argument ? That you are a native speaker. That doesn't hold much either for a debate; it is not just any native that can be a translator. Being native doesn't mean that your grasp of your language is high. I work at a post-secondary institution and some native speakers manage to fails their entrance language exams. That said, I do agree with your interpretation (in the Army List was not written in the Spanish version because in Spanish you don't need to state the obvious and the army list is the only place the peripheral could appear anyway) as it appeal to my bias, but it is a weak argument nonetheless.
I mean, Peripherals can also appear fielded on the game table as a miniature. That's typically where you want them. I find the argument that leaving words out in rules because they are somehow obvious even without immediate context is, to put it politely, something that's designed to not hold up for scrutiny.
