Is Minelayer useless?

There is no doubt about camoed trooper still being trooper. The ITS pdf is full of "Troop (as a figure, but not as a Marker)" indicating that camoed trooper are still troop.


This being said, problem is :
- mines are not troop but deployable equipement, so no combat group for them (never)
- ambush camo are not troop either, so no combat group for them too




The (only) rules regarding private/public info of camo marker :
- The contents of your Camouflage and TO Camouflage Markers is private information (http://infinitythewiki.com/en/Open_and_Private_Information)
- When you replace one of your Markers with a model, you are required to share all Open Information relative to that trooper.(http://infinitythewiki.com/en/Camouflaged)

=> putting together this two point, I understand contents as public information, please tell me if you understand it differently (and please tell me why)

So to resume
A : General rule : Which combat group you belong to is an open information.
B : Specific rule regarding camo : Camo hide all open information (yes, no specifics, all of them)

A + B : Open info of any camo marker are not accessible to your oponent.

Please show me actual rules that contradict this

 

Just because the existance of a Combat Group is open information doesn't mean this fact overrules other rules that makes profiles private.

 

The point is that camoed figure is a trooper, camoed mine is not. Buuuuut, this label is actually hidden INSIDE of camo marker, so it`s private information.
That`s where we have the clash. One rule says that we should separate troopers from non-troopers, another says that we can`t separate bunch of camo markers because that`ll reveal private information.

 

Is there any other instance where this comes into play other than placement of Perimeter Weapons?

Impetuous explicitly ignore markers, Minelayer also. Even Perimeter Weapons are well specified how they react to marker state except initial placement.

 

Recamoing in LoF of an enemy camo marker is illegal, but if that camo marker is discovered to be a mine, you can now do it.

 

But there is no ambiguity here. Wiki clearly says that trooper doing recamoing doesn't know what's under the marker and can't do it.

 

Are we done herr?

The combination of breaking ambush camo
Ai beacons having a specific exception to combat groups
And ijws thoughts on the matter

Should all make further argument a non issue

 

i can almost garrauntee how it will be "ruled" at cancon in a few weeks

 

I haven’t cruised through the rules in a while, so please forgive if this has been answered elsewhere. I have some questions about the assessment of the mentione Interplanetario ruling:

Is it documented somewhere that the “most official” tournament has some sort of judicial power over the game, like a supreme court? It would seem to me that it wouldn’t matter what that tournament did, or did not, rule.

Is this kind of case precedence approach common in other systems?


I’m just curious about how this notion even developed.

 

Nah its not. Its just being used because said TO seems to the the only place that holds that argument

 

Ah, I misunderstood your question. Disregard my previous post.

 

Please let it be so.

 

I can't see how this is an issue unless someone is deliberately trying to break the game, in which case it doesn't make sense anyway.

 

Yea, I'm pretty sure I don't want to discuss anything with people who approach the game and it's rules in the way you do. Sorry, but not sorry.

Rule number 1 of this game ( and any other game, really) is that "Both players need to have fun".

 

Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

The only official ruling I can make and please keep this in mind for any future rules debates is:
Official rules are considered the Rulebooks, the FAQ and the WIKI, tournaments, tournament however high profile and their judges are not official and have no impact outside their jurisdiction of their tournament.

Yes, they may rule something wrong and yes it may have an impact in your tournament, I am sorry for that, but their job is to make tournament flow and they have the label "Human" that can produce errors.

As for the actual debate, I have no real Answer, it seems every group has its own interpretation of the rule, for what is worth (that means nothing) my group always played it that camouflage markers combat group is known and deployed camouflage markers belong to the combat group of the parent camouflage marker.

Yes, it makes mindgames a bit less intriguing, but has the advantage of players knowing what combat group to attack to starve a camouflage marker from orders and prevents one layer of abuse from camouflage markers.

I can see the pro and con of markers belonging to no group how good it can be for mind games but also how important it can be in first turn decisions and how it can be abused.

Please remain calm as we try to get an official answer to this problem and thanks for bringing it up to our attention.

 

I think a ruling that makes up rules (your marker beloning example) is far more egregious to the rules than the ruling that doesnt

 

I have no answer, so far.

My only ruling is who makes rules and who does not make rules.