If this is a situation you are very concerned about, then it might be worthwhile to determine how the organizers of any tournaments you plan to attend will rule it. Much as the Interplanetario judges made the determination at that event, other organizers get to make that call at their own events. If you're just playing with your usual group of friends, on the other hand, you probably already have an agreed-upon method, so you should just keep doing that.
I can and do. The problem is that any given event needs to have an organizer clarify all the ambiguities extant in the rules set beforehand to ensure everyone is on the same page. These ambiguities should not exist for long; it's not healthy for the game.
If CB had to release a FAQ for every ERROR made by the players or the TOs, you would have the "Human Sphere Phone Book". Errors are Errors. The rules are clear and once the "guilty" is noticed, no further action should be improved. As everyone told you, if this happened (i wasn't there and this never came up before, so i cannot say) it was an error. If you were coming to play with my group some years ago, our Minelayer put all of their mines down on deployment. It was an error made by one group, have you ever seen a FAQs/Errata request? The forum and FB are full of example of (even blatant) errors like these. Once they stand corrected, please let it go.
Did you miss the bit where psychoticstorm is playing with house rules and hasn't actually clarified the rule? In any case, psychoticstorm is part of the CB crew and actually agrees with the "error." In any case, the minelayer situation is clarified in the rulebook; the idea that combat groups of models in camo state are public is less clear, and the idea that deployable equipment and Ambush Camo markers can even be in combat groups to begin with is specious. Part of the reason the rulebook is so long is because of the many examples; the reason the examples have to be in there is because it's written extremely poorly (at least in English). I think the book could actually be made shorter *and* more clear.
No - examples are good to have regardless of rule text quality. Some people need them to aid with the logical reasoning of the rules while I dare say most people have use of them when new to the system and needs to get into the mindset of the game - not least because they sometimes reveal some of the trickier uses of skills which helps people get up to speed on the potential curveballs that might come. I think the problem is when the rules fall apart if the examples are removed. This says much less about the usefulness of the examples and much more about the quality of the rules. I think that Infinity rules quality is very high, but that the required quality for the logically complex puzzle that is Infinity is higher still.
I agree it is an issue worth addressing, I cannot give the resolution of the ruling since I am not responsible to give a rules resolve for something that is not written in the rules, but am bringing it to those who are responsible for ruling how it is going to be played. Please have patience.
So, mines laid during deployment belong to a combat group despite not being troopers so are not part of a combat group by Rules As Written? And Ambush Camo markers belong to a combat group despite not being troopers? #3 is NOT what the Rules As Written say. PS is the Greek WarCor and a volunteer forum moderator, he's not now nor has he ever been a CB employee.
Necro a thread that is just waiting for official CB staff to pitch in, not the best move in the book ;)
3 days old (last post before mine was Tuesday the 12th) is necroing? Now, the related thread in the old forum, sure. That was nearly 2 years dead. But my play-by-post forum RP usually has 3-5 days between posts, so I'm going to object to your claim of necro-posting.
No, necroed because you answer a post I made 8 days ago, that it was already answered by other people, and you added nothing to that (your arguments were laid already by others), and because the conclusion everybody reached was to wait for a staff member to say something. It boils down to either a) you want to respark the argument, but lack anything to add, or b) you want to increase the amount of posts you have in the profile. I can understand that just creating the account makes anyone look for what they missed, but be aware that not all threads and discussion will be open for further posting regardless of date of last activity there ;)
Even IF what he posted adds nothing new to the discussion, he's added weight to his side of the argument. Even though I believe weight shouldn't be a factor in any decision I can't deny it CAN influence a decision. I'm also fairly certain this thread wouldn't even exist here without the necroing of the one in the old forum. It made sense to move the very active discussion here so it didn't get lost in the transition.
Ah. People had been treating @psychoticstorm 's comments like they had that weight on the old forum so I assumed.
No I am not CB employee, any weight on my name may come because I run the FAQ before 3rd edition and my name is on the playtesting and proofreading part of the rulebook, among many excellent people who strive to give you the best from N3. In any case I have submitted the question(s) about the subject and waiting for an answer you will be informed as soon as I get it. I sometimes give answers myself because I know what the intentions behind the rules are or the question has already been asked when the rules were written but was considered an edge case, in this particular subject I would prefer the rules writer to give a clear answer.
Aside from his mod-voice, PS has been on the forums for even longer than I have. So it's more 'tribal elder' than 'CB employee'.
Knowing the combat group of individual camo markers shouldn't be the end of the world. As long as there is a rule stating all deployables, placed as camo makers by a trooper, belong to that troopers CG. And any rule stating equipment etc do not have combat groups comes into effect once the camo marker is revealed. So as a camo marker it has a CG, but as revealed equipment it does not. This means in a CG of 12 models/markers, consisting of 4 camo markers, it's clear 2 are not troopers. But a player still has to figure out which ones. Alternatively, a player could make a CG of 6 troops + 4 camo markers with 1 of those markers being ambush camo. Meaning the other player doesn't know how many troopers are under them. On the flip side another list might make what's under the markers obvious. Such as one camo marker in a CG and one irregular order in the order pool with no irregular trooper visible. This could be as far as CB wants the mind games to go and I'm ok with that possibility. It means if you want to play mind games you need to consider your list and CG organization. Whatever CB decides, they need to consider all the other rules that impact their decision. It's all well and good to decide they want the CGs to be private, but do they want CG composition or types of trooper orders to give that private info away?
And ambush camo cannot belong to a combat group.... So again either making up rules or breaking them with the interpretation that you know a camo tokens comabt group. Therefore you dont know a camo tokens combat group
What about Ambush Camo, which is neither a Trooper nor Equipment? USAriadna has no deployable mines. The only non-trooper camo markers in USARF are Ambush Camo. If I'm facing USARF and there are any camo markers that don't belong to a combat group, I can safely ignore them because they're dummies. Ambush Camo just became significantly less valuable. By about 8 points a model! In vanilla Ariadna, this isn't an unreasonable list to see: Ariadna ────────────────────────────────────────────────── GROUP 1 8 2 SPETSNAZ (CH: Ambush Camouflage) HMG / Pistol, CCW, Knife. (1.5 | 38) SPETSNAZ (CH: Ambush Camouflage) Sniper Rifle / Pistol, CCW, Knife. (1.5 | 34) HARDCASE FRONTIERSMAN Tactical Bow, Light Shotgun / Pistol, Knife. (0 | 12) HARDCASE FRONTIERSMAN Tactical Bow, Rifle / Pistol, Knife. (0 | 14) TANKHUNTER Lieutenant AP Rifle, Adhesive Launcher, D-Charges / Pistol, Knife. (1 | 25) TANKHUNTER Portable Autocannon, D-Charges / Pistol, Knife. (1.5 | 34) CHASSEUR (Minelayer) Rifle, Light Flamethrower, Antipersonnel Mines / Pistol, Knife. (0.5 | 20) CHASSEUR (Forward Observer) Rifle, Light Flamethrower, Antipersonnel Mines / Pistol, Knife. (0 | 20) S.A.S. Chain Rifle, Grenades / Assault Pistol, AP CCW, Knife. (0 | 22) S.A.S. (Forward Observer) Rifle / Pistol, AP CCW, Knife. (0 | 24) GROUP 2 3 FOXTROT (Forward Observer) Rifle, Antipersonnel Mines / Pistol, Knife. (0 | 18) FOXTROT (Forward Observer) Rifle, Antipersonnel Mines / Pistol, Knife. (0 | 18) FOXTROT (Forward Observer) Rifle, Antipersonnel Mines / Pistol, Knife. (0 | 18) 6 SWC | 297 Points Open in Infinity Army Not a single model on the table, just 18 camo markers. (Though I admit you might want to shuffle some units around between combat groups, I think the composition is solid) If we are assigning camo markers to combat groups, the first combat group has 10, second CG has 3. And there are 5 camo markers that don't belong to a combat group (because they are either dummies or a mine). At least with this list there are minelayers, so the 5 camo markers are still something to worry about.
@daboarder & @Section9 I can't tell what points you're trying to make in relation to my post. Maybe I wasn't clear? I completely understand the issues caused by the RAW and I have my own interpretation. What I'm saying is, the rules can be rewritten to make a camo marker's combat group open information or private information and both would provide advantages to the player. The only debate would be how much of an advantage CB wants them to have. I don't see the problem with ambush camo if while a camo marker it belongs to a combat group. Identifying the content under an individual marker would become as easy or as difficult as the player building the list wants it to be. I consider this a good middle ground between those wanting everything private and those who do not. Whether or not a camo marker is a trooper, equipment, or something else entirely becomes irrelevant. Because once the camo marker is revealed its normal rules will apply. *** At the end of the day, does CB want full camo marker lists on the table that make it impossible for the opponent to target specific combat groups and starve them of orders?
