I too am for the literal interpretation of the rule, up until it gets changed. So in this case even the explode/Comabt-jump explosion are treated similarly. Not a BS attack. On the matter of the lore and in-game rules: I should remind the doubtful the fact that we have explosive CCW... do they exist? No. Do they make sense existing? Even less... a sword that explodes on impact... c'mon! It's a game mechanic: I make an attack that results in 3 Saves. The creators decided to use an existing rule to simulate a mechanic of a guy that is so good at melee combat that every time he/she hits, he/she actually hits 3 times (like military knife combat technique where you keep on landing hits when the first hits). On that note monofilament are primarily CCW (there's no projectile ammo of that kind) so the template in this case is a tool used to simulate what actually happens. Yet it does not mean it's a BS attack. As for the boarding pistol, like a Chain rifle: they are used as an integral part of a BS attack so: no, nanoscreen applies. You don't roll BS, but the action you perform is a BS attack. You could use a stone as BS attack and the stone would be affected by nanoscreen too.
I would like to say that the wording for Nanoscreen lacks definition. You have to look here and there and then build it all together. We do not know what the designers intention was. Should it protect for all incoming attacks. At least BS Attack with a Chain Rifle is direct template and a mine also puts a DT down. Its the same. One is a BS attack, the other a automatic reacation of a game element. In the end - its a template. Should NS work or not? It not very konsistence that it work vs one template, but not the other.
The intention of the designers, in the absence (in absentia) of specification, is in the wording. A Chain Rifle is used as component of a short skill defined (in active and reactive turn) as a BS Attack. The definition of that DT is in the action. A Mine is an Automatic equipment the action of which is symbolized by a DT, but not necessarily is a BS Attack (unless specified). EXP ammunition have different mechanics: - A Missile launcher in blast mode makes an IT - A CCW doesn't have the blast option It's not very consistent that two of the same ammunition have different options. Yet one is effective to EXP ammunition (blast or hit mode), the other is a "borrowed mechanic": it's not so much of the explosion in itself, but you need to make 3 saves nonetheless upon hit. Similarly here a DT is a "borrowed mechanic" that also limits the usage (a friendly trooper under the template): it doesn't mean that a cloud of something comes your way, but it still means that (unless differently specified) it's not a BS Attack.
The rules for Mines only have them triggering, rather than declaring a BS Attack. That is understandable. However, I fully support adding this clarification to the FAQ. If there is something that could easily lead to misunderstandings, it should be explained as clearly as possible. For example, things like Speedball not being affected by the Controlled Jump hacking program. I already knew this on the very first day the Speedball rules were released, because Controlled Jump explicitly states that it only affects Troopers. But the official FAQ still included a clarification about it. This case is even clearer, because the Mine rules don't explicitly state that the trigger is not a BS Attack. Most players don't thoroughly study the rulebook. They usually look up the rules or relevant rulings only when they actually encounter a situation during a game. Providing clarifications so that players can play the game more smoothly—isn't that exactly what an FAQ is supposed to be for?
This is a little bit loaded. Let me explain myself and please get that I say this with the most healthy of attitudes. Infinity is a complex game. But is at the same time the most rewarding skirmishing game I know thanks to it's depth. The more you now about the game, about it's rules minutae and how everything clicks together, the more rewarding and satisfactory it is. But honestly, you don't need to study it. You just need to read it, consult it whenever the needs arise , and have a good level of reading comprehension. Unfortunately, reading comprehension is at it's lowest level ever in modern times. Blame cellphones and doomscrolling culture. But it is as it is. So I do agree with you @Angus. I will that every single rules items on the book would have not one, but two or three clarifications and diagrams and examples because even when the rule is as straigthforward as in this case of nanoscreen, unfortunately the current skills and attention span level of the times we have to live requires it.
This discussion is so dishonest. Anyone who has read the rulebook and any FAQs knows that Infinity is and has always been poorly written. Like it's better now than ever but that's not a very high bar to cross. Normus Belli. I can prove it to you. -> Turrets are tokens, not troopers. RAW troopers attacking turrets don't do face to face rolls. Turrets do normal roll attacks against all enemy troopers. Turret rules are very poorly written. Is this one of those very special cases where everyone who swears by RAW is suddenly all about RAI?
Thank you Tanan for pointing that out. It is with a very productive and positive inkling that I have to say: if there is an issue, please open a topic. I know players will benefit from it. Etiquette matters aside: I have to agree. One of the most prominent downsides, if not the only major one in my opinion, is that the passage in multiple languages make the writing of Infinity in English not fantastic at best (every translation is a betrayal after all). In the specific case of FtF roll moreover, there is no actual mechanic panel. What you report is the designer note, the descriptive version that should be followed by a bullet point explaining potential combinations. In the attempt to make a complex game easier to enjoy without bickering on where the comma lands, I think the first and foremost action to be taken would be for CB to review the specials rules and make sure that what is intended is actually written in a concise and precise way. Because ultimately what matters is what is black on white, not the potential intention in the game creator's mind (to which none of us has access in the moment the problem arises). Duty of us players is to point these things out in order to make CB work less tedious.
I've been playing this game from the start in the US. I'm not That dumb, well maybe a little, but I wouldn't be bringing up it needs a FAQ if I didn't' feel it needed it. I feel it does. I feel there's little difference between pointing and shooting a DTW than a mine doing virtually the same thing. A mine has better aim and friend or foe control than a remote? I don't think so.
@VonKrolok I don't think this is a translation issue. Infinity is just still showing its RPG roots when it comes to rules. Like there are some special people out there who will bicker endlessly about poorly worded RPG rules for tactical advantage, but generally speaking poorly worded rules aren't a problem for RPG community even though most RPGs have poorly worded rules. Any good gaming group will homebrew any rules that aren't working for them and continue to have fun*. Written rules are barely guidelines. * Ofc any rules interpretations or rulings are innately political and there are winners and losers. Some people will have more fun than others. That's just the nature of monke life.
I was just speaking about the obvious issue there might be: I come from a neo-latin language background and I know the verbosity of those languages compared to English. Bracketing subordinate sentences with commas is common in neo-latin languages, but in English it becomes horrendously convoluted (Philip K. Dick used to write like that). Bullet pointing is way more efficient in English: less going around and more to the point. I find your interpretation a more compelling, but not by a long shot: it's true that in RPG the decision of the D/GM is law so if there is an issue is solved easily. Back to the topic: I see no reason not to ask for a FAQ. It might be excessive? I don't know. Thing is it should be clear for everybody so better written than left unsaid. For CB is just editing a page in the wiki... walk in the park! In this particular instance of Nanoscreen and Mines I would like to highlight that in N3 the wording did not specify that nanoscreen was activated by BS Attack. Now they specified it. So it's one of two things: - they forgot to specify that mines are BS Attack - they intended to reduce the impact of Nanoscreen to reduce the cost overall It is my opinion (ergo: it has no value whatsoever) that the second applies considering that in N3 only the Gwailo had it (and nanoscreen contained no specification to BS Attack) and now there are some 3 or 4 troopers that have it and nanoscreen can easily be something that breaks the game if abused.
But that is the case? I would say RAW allows game elements that are not troopers to perform F2F rolls As I said before, reading comprehension is critical here. As it doesn't matter that Face to Face rolls are written in page 25 as the mechanic that is used when two or more troopers act at the same time to try to thwart each other progress... The specific rule in the combat module are telling you to use the Face to Face roll mechanic whenever the target declared for your attack is using an skill that does affect the outcome of the attack... ... and in case there is any kind of doubt: But as I said, the current state of the world regarding reading comprehension is what motivates me to indeed put not only one not twice but thrice examples and diagrams and side explanations everywhere on the rules.
It’s worth noting that nothing @Rabble quoted explicitly said that tokens can do f2f rolls and right now we only care about explicit wording. When we are doing RAW interpretations in 2026 the objective is ofc to get the most stupid interpretation allowed by the English language syntax. Everything that can be weaponised by tactical misunderstanding or gaslighting will be done. Turrets can obviously do normal rolls which would be quite bad for anyone who tried to shoot them. To be clear I think it’s obvious that RAI is that troopers can indeed do f2f rolls with tokens. I’m merely saying that while CB has made an excellent game, the rules shouldn’t be taken too literally (RAW) in N5 because those RPG roots are still showing. At this rate CB will probably fix the language in N7 or N8 and this has zero impact on the awesome games that we are going to play in the meantime. Same goes for all the RPG-adjacent miniature games out there.
