1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Discover + shoot not permitted against an impersonation marker

Discussion in '[Archived]: N3 Rules' started by QueensGambit, Feb 12, 2020.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. solkan

    solkan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2017
    Messages:
    1,335
    Likes Received:
    1,982
    I’d like to declare Discover+Yell against whoever decided it was a great idea to have Imp-1 and Imp-2, and let people go around referring to the “Impersonation” state. :ghost:

    Concerning “ability to write rules”...

    Discover+Shoot is a relic of 2nd edition, the point where they found that changing 2nd edition’s “You can declare anything that might possibly be valid as a result of the order” to “We’re eliminating quantum entanglement in the rules” put marker states into the position of just going “Ha. I’d like to see you try” in response to Discover in an order.

    See also “Hack Transport Aircraft” vs. Explode. Or Assault, or the Defensive Hacking Device for that matter.

    Because there’s sort of a big difference between declaring Discover+Shoot vs. IMP-2 and vs. IMP-1.
     
  2. Vaulsc

    Vaulsc Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2017
    Messages:
    267
    Likes Received:
    845
    If I'm the owner of a camo marker and I'm in the reactive turn, my opponent has a powerful shooter declaring a discover at me, and I've got to decide whether to forfeit my response and hope that the discover roll is failed (sometimes this is the best move), or blow my cover and go for an unlikely dodge or return shot. This is because I can be shot at in the same order as a successful discover, thanks to the discover+shoot maneuver.

    If I'm the owner of a Greif operator and I'm in the reactive turn, my opponent has that same powerful shooter declaring a discover at me, the best move is surely to forfeit my response because a successful discover will mean that a new order is spent (wasted) afterwards and THEN I can try my luck with a dodge or return shot. But if my opponent unluckily fails the discover, I'm saved.

    Of course we're happy to just accept this and play on, even factor it into our strategies, provided that tournament organizers worldwide have read this ruling and aren't going to blindside us after we count on it mid-game. All of that is fine.

    But you're right. It IS retarded. There's an opportunity here to make the game more intuitive and beginner friendly. As it stands, this is like learning English and trying to memorize which words need an 's' on the end for pluralization, or learning German and trying to memorize whether the article is the male or female version. You can do it, but it just feels unnecessarily difficult because it is.
     
  3. fatherboxx

    fatherboxx Mission control, I'm coming home.

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2018
    Messages:
    661
    Likes Received:
    933
    Very accurate statement on like a third of Infinity ruleset and especially those rules that suffered through FAQs and forum interpretation sessions.
    Some things in the game are nearly as labyrinthine as legislation that I study for work. And sure I take pleasure in learning the quirks but a lot of people just bounce from the game when they encounter a case of a niche exception.
     
  4. Nuada Airgetlam

    Nuada Airgetlam Nazis sod off ///

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2018
    Messages:
    3,071
    Likes Received:
    3,019
    Hey, man. Love and respect your YT vids and analysis. Could you please refrain from using this word as pejorative? It's offensive. A "ridiculous" or "nonsensical", etc. would be much preferred.

    Thank you.
     
    alchahest, Xeurian, inane.imp and 5 others like this.
  5. Armihaul

    Armihaul Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    1,470
    Likes Received:
    1,112
    I've followed the post, and I cannot see where the difference is between discover+BS Attack against a camo marker, and the same against an impersonator marker
     
  6. fari

    fari CRISTASOL, EL LIQUIDO DE LOS DIOSES

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2017
    Messages:
    4,069
    Likes Received:
    4,434
    Me neither. But for caution, i'll ask the TOs how to apply before the event
     
  7. tox

    tox SorriBarai
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2017
    Messages:
    3,560
    Likes Received:
    3,542
    Because of this:
    Special Maneuver: Discover + BS Attack

    The combination of Discover + BS Attack in a single Order is a special maneuver that allows the trooper to make a Discover attempt and then a BS Attack against the same enemy, but only if the Discover attempt is successful. The game sequence for this special maneuver is:


    and this
    • Enemies cannot declare Attacks against a trooper in the Impersonation-1 state.
    • Enemies cannot declare Attacks against a trooper in the Impersonation-2 state.
    while
     
  8. Sergej Faehrlich

    Sergej Faehrlich Well-Known Member
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2017
    Messages:
    305
    Likes Received:
    700
    A Camouflage Marker has not been discovered at the time the 2nd skill is declared...so it hasn't been discovered previously at that point in time and the trooper is still in Camouflaged State. The Special Maneuver makes no distinction in what kind of Marker it can be declared against, so it applies to any Markers whatsoever (by discovering an Impersonation 1 maker, the quotes above apply: no Attack can be declared). At least that's my reading and I would rule it accordingly at any of my events.

    Please allow me to add (no offense intended!): this is a particularly annoying way of reading things into rules, that I just don't get behind. Camo, TO and Imp work exactly the same...at least that what the rules imply in the almost exact wording. Why on earth must we always look for these tiny littly things (possibly just oversights or translation variants) to make the game complex to a point, where event the most die-hard human rule-encyclopedias struggles to keep on top of discussions?

    Just to add some more fuel to the fire, some quotes:

    "If an enemy successfully Discovers your Camouflaged trooper, replace the Camouflage Marker with the trooper's model facing in the direction of your choice."

    "Upon a successful Discovery, replace the Impersonation-2 Marker (IMP-2) with the user's figure."

    Does that missing part of the sentence say, that I can't choose the models facing? One state explicitly allows for it, the other doesn't mention this. How would we resolve this? It's getting ridiculous.
     
    #48 Sergej Faehrlich, Feb 17, 2020
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2020
    miguelbarbo84 likes this.
  9. daszul

    daszul Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2018
    Messages:
    732
    Likes Received:
    876
    The difference is not about the Discover, but the BS attack.
    There are ways to attack a camo marker that does not work against IMP,
    like intuitive attack and mines.
    So Camo Markers and IMP Markers are not the same regarding being attacked.

    There are circumstances where you can declare an attack against Camo Markers (and those are explicitly stated).
    But you are not allowed to declare an attack against an IMP Marker...
    (At least there is a rule prohibiting it, and no explicite exception in the rules or examples.)

    That's what this is all about.
     
    Florian Hanke likes this.
  10. Sergej Faehrlich

    Sergej Faehrlich Well-Known Member
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2017
    Messages:
    305
    Likes Received:
    700
    Jep...that's what I wrote: as long as a Camo Marker hasn't revealed itself or has been previously discovered, it can not be the target of an attack. Neither Camos nor Imps can be the target of an attack, unless specified otherwise. There are ways to attack Camo Markers without discovering them beforehand, which is not the case for Imps (Intuitive Attack is a topic of it's own). In both cases the successfully discovered marker is revealed at the end of the turn.

    "discover&shoot" allows you to declare an attack against a marker, which will only happen if the discover roll is successful, but in the same order. This is explicitly stated in the skill's text. And there is no mention of any difference for various markers.

    The thing is: "discover&shoot" is not "triggering a mine" oder "intuitive attack". The first is not even a seperate skill, but a special meneuver...probably as worse a name as "special dodge". Cross referencing does not convince me.

    Just making my point here...I will be not be convinced by the arguments so far on this one. If you achieve a breakthrough...I'll be happy to follow this thread.
     
    Ebon Hand and miguelbarbo84 like this.
  11. tox

    tox SorriBarai
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2017
    Messages:
    3,560
    Likes Received:
    3,542
    @Sergej Faehrlich i'm not saying that my statement is right, i'm saying that THAT is the casus belli of the discussion.

    Anyway, i'm inclined to agree that
    1) at the moment it should not be allowed (or whatever if CB release a relevant FAQ)
    2) for N4 it should be clearly stated
     
    inane.imp and Sergej Faehrlich like this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  • About Us

    We are a company founded in 2001 in Cangas (Spain), and devoted to design and manufacture games and figures. Our main product, Infinity the Game, was born with the ambition to satisfy the most demanding audience, offering the best quality.

     

    Why are we here?

     

    Because we are, first and foremost, players.

  • Quick Navigation

    Open the Quick Navigation