One that has some discussion on old forums but not seen it here flagged as answered. Disconnected troops do not count as survivors for vp at the end of the game. 1. Do they still count for points in missions where you count the points in a zone such as supremacy and frontline? 2.Can they secure/contest hvt and ones that require a non null trooper to be btb with an objective.
I think I'll be watching this thread. The way Dominate is written in the ITS document suggests that Ghost: Synchronized are not troops and can not contest an area since it specifically calls out "as well as <..> Ghost: Servant". Additionally, Baggage doesn't really handle Dominate objectives well, again suggesting but not spelling out that Victory Points and Army Points is one and the same and anything asking for one or cancelling one also asks for or cancels the other. I.e. the answer is likely buried a bit deeper than it should be. Or has a few too many "clarifications". I think, in the end, "only miniatures and markers capable of generating orders may" is a way easier concept.
Disconnected is not a null state. 1 All reference to "dominating" a zone usually exclude null state troop only. So I don't see anything preventing the answer to 1 to be "yes" 2 Secure the HVT only exclude null state troop, so same answer
G synch are definitely troopers, for one thing if they aren't they wouldn't generate aos. I'm confident the answer is yes to both.
I'm fairly sure the answer is yes to 2, but I can see complications that makes me only... say 60% sure it's yes to 1 as well. Do note that generating AROs is not necessarily unique to troops (see Perimeter) and Ghost: Synchronized have a complicated relationship to Trooper definition. The rules for Ghost: Synchronized pegs them as troopers, but the rules for Terminology and Alignment has "capable of spending orders" (no emphasis added) as a prerequisite for being a Trooper. I'm fairly certain they do count as individual troopers, but talk about contradicting signals.
Assuming we are talking about the same thing perimeter has an exception that states they generate aros as if they were troopers.
Precisely, they need and have an exception, but they aren't troopers themselves. To be perfectly clear, a non-trooper would generate an ARO if a rule said so explicitly, even without calling back with "as if trooper" Got any clarifying input on Disconnected and Dominating zones? Of particular interest is end of turn 3.
Meaning that generating AROs is specific to troopers, and to things that count as troopers for ARO purposes. I'm not seeing anything in the Disconnected state that would stop the trooper from counting for areas, securing/contesting the HVT or controlling in base contact. They just don't count when you add up the points of your remaining troops to see how many VPs you have.
And how about synched units? Are they permanently troopers because Ghost: Synchronized calls them troopers, or do they stop being troopers when they cease fulfilling the requirements for being Troopers due to being Disconnected?
That's a bit of an evasive answer. I was hoping for a more "well that settles it, then" experience when reading the answer to the problems I proposed. Perimeter weapons explicitly enter Disconnected state as well and Perimeter rule seem to rely on the line "Troopers in this state can not declare orders or AROs" to prevent the Koala from declaring Boost, does that mean a Disconnected Koala becomes a trooper or that a Disconnected Koala can still declare Boost? For the record, I am fully aware that this is not the intention nor how this should be read, but I am also very annoyed that G:Synch doesn't fulfill the formal requirements for being a trooper, but becomes one implicitly by being called a trooper without being specified as such.
Sorry, it wasn't supposed to be evasive. To rephrase, what part of the rules say that they stop counting as troopers? They're consistently described as troopers everywhere that I can think of.
The game's definition of a Trooper doesn't really agree. The exception that states they are troopers isn't given, it is implied (instead of stating a synched unit IS a trooper, it calls a trooper with synchronized a trooper). The reliance of such implication has consequences for how to read other rules interactions. Granted, I could counter-aegue myself in that the natural/default state of a synched unit is connected and as such it will through the controller fulfill requirements for being a trooper (while a Koala is incapable of attacking and as such won't ever be a trooper) I know you can't do anything about it, but if taken literally something breaks, and I suspect it's going to be Perimeter*, unless I'm missing something critical. * because if a Disconnected trooper stops being a trooper simply because it can't spend orders and can't attack, then it has some serious consequences on troopers stunned or immobilized. I.e. it would be absurd to take Terminology and Alignment as being redefinable during game.
they have a specific points cost for a reason. That reason is these situations. Disconnect does not turn them null, therefore the answers are YES and YES
I agree with your conclusion. But I hope you'd agree there should be better ways to come to that conclusion. Thinking, why else is that mentioned, or why else is that there, isn't proof of anything.
ive seen the discussion before, i saw all the discussion concerning why Sync bots were given an explicit pt costing when N3 dropped. I dont really need to see more. especially as "disconnect is not a null state" should be as far as the reasoning is required to go. Shrug
Apart from that being a meaningless distinction, the rules also call the G: Synch trooper 'just' a trooper multiple times.
What @Mahtamori brings up is a key problem within the Infinity rules. The moment a rule set stops telling players what's what and instead implies what's what there are issues. Where's the distinction between descriptive wording, implied wording, and Labels with rules attached to them? If we have categories that every model must fall under where is it listed what falls where? It seems necessary that if a condition for scoring VPs is being a Trooper, every model should be identifiable as a Trooper or not. Troopers typically need a BS value to shoot things, it's not implied or tucked away somewhere, it's plastered under a BS stat heading. Why is being a trooper or not an exception? Frankly it doesn't matter how many times troopers with Ghost are described to function. The basic question still remains. Does the model on the table count as a Trooper? I can come up with all kinds of ways a model with Ghost appears or is implied to be a Trooper, but that doesn't make it so. The definition of a Trooper emphasizes one thing in particular, "capable of spending Orders". Players are left to decide for themselves if all that descriptive text and wording found within the rules makes that model with Ghost a Trooper or not. This is bad. If we're supposed to take descriptions about Ghost rules meaning certain models are Troopers. How on earth do we separate which descriptions imply key rules and which do not? Plenty of things in Infinity are described as attacks, but are they actually "Attacks"? Identifying a profile as a Trooper or not would be so easy. Take the Troop Type or Troop Classification and note it there. Then add it to the rules to let players know. EDIT: Right now being a Trooper is a dynamic state within Infinity that can apparently change order to order.
