In Infinity the rules, as they are written in Spanish, are played as I have explained, you can believe me or you can not believe me, that isn't my problem. That there are those who want to invent the rules and play a different game, whatever it's called but it's not Infinity, what a surprise... it's not my problema either.
What do you want me to say? It's how Spanish is used. That is why in English it is always written “in the Army List” and in Spanish it is not. Apart from the fact that for us all the context is given by the use of «Alinear» which in this case can only be understood in one way.
It's called context. Context is typically not 80 pages apart in any language I'm aware of. CB also has this annoying tendency to write similar rules intentionally different by making adding or removing seemingly minor words. Your explanation just isn't all that credible on the face of it - leaving aside the fact that you kinda burned the credibility bridge in the post QueensGambit linked and seem quite happy to see it burned.
I see that you deliberately ignore the second sentence of my previous message... and you talk about credibility. As for the credibility I might have among the fake rule-solvers, who first invent the rules, when that doesn't work they seek or invent some interpretation in which the rule says what they want, even though the rule explicitly says something else and that when that doesn't work either they discredit those who don't think the rule works the way they want it to work... I don't think I could care less.
Why there is such interest in trying to discredit a forum member who helps solve doubts is a mystery to us, the newbies. In case you are interested in the opinion of someone outside your quarrels.
I have no idea what so ever why Erland has chosen to try and undermine the most active members on this subforum like he does instead of joining the discussion. I'm no saint and I've grown real tired of the aggression.
Most of Erland's interventions are 'The rule says this on page x'. Is that what you call undermine the most active members of the subforum and not joining the discusión? In this thread, he tries to explain how a rule works in Spanish and one of the responses of the most active members of the subforum is to question his understanding of his own language. Is that what you call undermine the most active members of the subforum and not joining the discussion? I see. Since he ridiculed the most active members of the subforum in one thread and one only, the one that mentions QueensGambit, now every time he intervenes in a thread, he must be discredited. The more active members of the subforum should be honest with yourselves, you don't forgive him for what he did; and I'm not defending what he did, but do not make excuses that he undermines you, that if an aggression or blah, blah, blah
Yes, it is necessary, being the most active members does not mean anything for those of us who have doubts, only that they write more messages not that they solve more doubts. If I have a doubt, I do not want to read dozens of messages about the opinion of others about the intention behind a rule, I want them to solve the doubt and tell me where the solution comes from 'the rule says x on page y', just what you do. But just as I tell you that I tell you 'that thread' was a big mistake, man.
No he deliberately acted in bad faith. So now we're assuming he's acting in bad faith and dismissing anything he says on that grounds. This is the consequences of acting like a [insert local Australian vernacular here]. Show me in this thread where you can prove he's arguing in good faith? I'll wait. Hell for all I know you're a sock puppet of Erland. Are you? Please prove that you're not. I can OTOH point to extensive conversations about the rules in English where Queensgambit's and Mahtamori's interpretation has been established by precedent as the way the game is generally understood by the English speaking community to be played (the requirement is that the Servant and an Engineer or Doctor are in the same combat group and the controller is assigned at deployment). Personally I find the rules as interpreted by the functions enabled in Army to be sufficient as justification for their reasoning. Practically, with no way to prove that a Zondbot was 'assigned' to a Daktari or Zoe also in the same combat group at Army list generation, it means that establishing that requirement is unenforceable and can, as a result, be dismissed on purely practical grounds. The earliest enforceable association of a Zondbot with multiple Doctors or Engineers in the same Combat Group is during deployment.
Take it easy because it doesn't matter what you say. They already have it so entrenched in their minds that whatever I say is against them and anything anyone says to defend me is false... that there is no need to waste time. Now they even attack you personally, it turns out that if you don't think like them it's because you're a puppet of mine, you can only be with them or against them. The important thing at the end of the day is that the questions are resolved, that some do not believe the solution just for the reason of coming from who it comes from, it does not matter.
How sad your life has to be to be a pet that when your masters sylve you have to come to the forum to bark and get the cookie that they give you a like. Don't worry that I'm not going to imitate your 'good faith' and I'm not going to ask you to prove anything, you're not smart enough to think for yourself, you only serve to obey your másteres.
I never thought that this forum could become as toxic as it is, even though I was warned about it. You're right when you talk about different games being played, there's Infinity and there's Fakenity. The saddest thing is that those who invent the rules for Fakenity present themselves as gurus of the Infinity rules. You're absolutely right when you call them fake rule-solvers.
@Koni menudar zahúrda maloliente y pútrida que tenéis de foro, ¿qué hay que hacer para darse de baja definitivamente? Si el foro es indicativo de la toxicidad de la empresa... no quiero que tenga datos míos.
As someone who comes from other games where you have to write down your lists yourself, this argument is baffling me: to me (and you may correct me here), your argument is „because this functionality is not explicitly in the app, it is not possible and therefore I will ignore rules“. Right? But the Army ist just a helping tool. Of course you can write down additional notes - even in the army app you can writes notes to your list. So if you go to a tournament (one of the few places where it matters that your lists stay the same), you can easily hand over your additional notes and there is the proof you ask for.
Nobody's proposing to ignore rules. Everyone (except the two trolls) is just trying to figure out what the rules mean. The disagreement, I think, is over whether the meaning of the word "associated" is ambiguous. "Must be associated with a Controller" could mean "must be decided in advance by the player which unit will be the Controller during the game," or it could mean "must be in a list that also has a Controller, in the same combat group." If you think that only the first reading is consistent with the definition of the word "associated," then yeah it would follow that Army is just buggy and you have to write down which unit will be the Controller before the tournament. The rules trump Army - nobody would disagree with that. However, if you share the majority view that the word "associated" is ambiguous, then you have to try to figure out what the rules team most likely meant by it. That's where it becomes helpful to observe some things about Army: - Army has a way for peripherals to be linked with controllers at list-building time. Peripheral (Synchronized) and Peripheral (Control) are both linked at list-building, and it's not possible in Army to add those Peripherals by themselves. - The rules team could have used that existing functionality for Peripheral (Servant) in Army, but chose not to. - The rules team also chose that the error message for an orphaned Peripheral (Servant) in Army would read "Peripheral must be in the same group as a Doctor or Engineer." - There is no other rule in the game that requires a player to make any decision in advance of the game other than by using Army, or to write down any choices that don't appear on the Army list printout. - The rules state that "Infinity Army is the free and official tool to create Army Lists for Infinity" and go on to say that Army "assesses the legality of each Army List the player creates, keeping in consideration the guidelines for the creation of Army Lists." To me, these are good reasons to think the rules team intended one of the possible meanings of "associated" rather than the other one. I also think this is a very common view since, to the best of my knowledge, @inane.imp is correct that most players play it that way at least in metas I've played in (although I'm far from certain since it doesn't come up very often). I totally get the frustration that the rules aren't clear. We used to have Infinity Rules Staff active on these forums to answer questions definitively. It's a serious failing of CB that they no longer do that and we're left to try to figure out the best readings ourselves. Incidentally, the question came up on here a year ago but there was no resolution just a recognition of the ambiguity: Tuareg Doctor with Nasmat | Corvus Belli Community Forum . If @inane.imp could find some of the other discussions he referred to, that might help more.
One of those you call a troll has already tried to explain that in Spanish there is no option to have those two interpretations, although I know that anything I say will be ignored. In Spanish, the second interpretation is impossible precisely because of the use of the verb «alinear/to align», in Spanish to align is something that is done previously and there is no option not to do it previously. Players can be align for a match, tropos can be align for a combat or the case at hand miniatures can be align for a game... but «align» always, always has to be something that happens prior to the match, the combat or the game. It may be that these two interpretations can be given in the translated text, it may be and I do not deny it; but trying to find out which of the two interpretations is the one that the creators of the rule had intended to use does not make sense... since in the original text it is impossible for those two interpretations to exist.
I am quite impressed on how easy and fast the thread has managed to devolve. At nobodies surprise Thread is closed and if it reopens with such behavior there will be warnings and or time outs. For the record, as far as I know, the idea was always to assign peripherals to a specialist at the list creation and this was fixed, I will see if some text can be added to the army list to indicate this or if a function can be created assigning Peripheral Servants.
