There we go again, from the spanish rulebook: Translating this to english and keeping the intent is quite hard in the literal sense without adding commas, I'm afraid. I've marked in red the "sub-phrase", and it could be read like: The TAG or Vehicle of a Manned troop, whose pilot has dismounted and goes into Dead state, must be removed from the table with the Pilot's model. About the "hey, you are adding commas and changing how it is read", the problem is that in Spanish, for the phrase being "TAG gets dead -> remove pilot" there should be a comma between "desmontado" and "y pasa a...".
If the Gecko is Unconscious, yes the Pilot can dismount. If the Gecko goes Dead, yes the Pilot is also removed.
The question is, Where is the comma missing, in the English version or in the Spanish one? That's why I have asked for a subforum in the Rules forum about Translation inconsistencies.
After reading the Pilot rules a few times and the explanation above I think possibly both the English and Spanish are correct, but incomplete, irony being as it is, they both have half the explanation, just the opposite half. It doesn't seem "right" to remove the Pilot that isn't anywhere nearby when the tag is down, but I can see why it would be done that way for simplicity alone. Alternatively if the English one is wrong and the Pilot model stays around, generates no orders and can't be counted for anything that uses a points value, but can still be used to make AROs, and can presumably be given orders... If the Spanish version is wrong then dismounted / unconscious tags hang around to block line of sight/fire and can't be under a template attack etc, which more than anything would just be messy and a pain in the bum. As a third (though very unlikely) option, if both are ignored you get wrecks all over the place and non scoring pilots out for revenge at their broken ride...
Rather than start a new thread, thought I'd ask a Gecko question that came up in a recent tournament. Can one member of a Gecko Duo link team dismount and remain part of the link?
See this previous discussion in the old forum: http://infinitytheforums.com/forum/topic/33661-manned-tags-their-pilots-and-shared-fates/ I'm going to quote IJW's response in case of tragedy concerning the old forum: " There are several problems with this. As far as I can tell, the Spanish rules don't contradict the English rules, they're just written in a more ambiguous manner, The Pilot rules (in both languages) don't cover Pilots surviving the TAG model dying, Functionally, the rule in English hasn't actually changed from N2, even though the entire text has been rewritten and then translated into English again. Here's the N2 wording: 'If a manned Vehicle or T.A.G. loses 1 point of Structure over its STR value, it is considered destroyed, in a Dead state, and its Pilot is considered killed as well.' " And " Please note that it's not the intention of the English rule, it's the intention of the rules, regardless of language. I assume some of it is historical - Pilots were added on at a later date and were purely a free bonus for flavour. As they were seen as being an extension of the TAG for game purposes, they died with the TAG. " In other words, the weight of the evidence is that the English rule is correct and is a continuation of how the rule has worked in the previous edition.
Well, the problem with that is twofold: first, Specialist Pilots were added with Season 8, thus changing the premise (a pilot with no tag os less useful than a warcor). And second, the phrase might look ambiguous, but i'd say it's 70-30, in favour of (yeah, surprise there) the point I'm defending here, which goes in line with the 1.3 FAQ regarding that a pilot can only board his own TAG, and no other (so you cannot "load" gecko Pilot A inside Gecko B, for example). The issue is that Spanish has a lot of "soft" rules for grouping elements inside phrases, and people from Galicia are (in)famous because they tend to stretch the language so they are saying yes and no at the same time (and I'm not talking about CB staff here, believe me).
It is a general problem with latin languages. Portuguese and French have the same 'issues'. It helps a lot when you have a inquisition asking questions, but can make it bloody hard to give precise information in some cases.
The facts that you're ignoring: * The history of the rules (and continuity with the previous edition) * The history of the language versions for this edition (English was finished first) * The fact that I'm quoting IJW, who has been working with CB during the transition to N3 And all you have is the fact that the Spanish rule could be read to say two different things, one of which contradicts both the history of the rule and two of the other language versions.
Nope, I have: * N2 =/= N3, and the most egregious mistakes I've ever suffered were from N2 veterans playing against me (a "N3 only player") * Considering how things went with the RPG, I could bet both of my hands that, regadless of which ruleset was sold first, the rules were redacted in spanish. * The fact you are quoting a non-CB employee Warcor the same way I can quote several non-CB employees warcors and also testers. That leads to nowhere, and funny enough, I don't care one way or the other, since I don't use manned tags. I want the rules to be clear, concise and congruent with themselves and the translations. * The fact that I have found more rules written in english in one way, and in spanish in the other. In the ITS documents. * The fact that I Test for a living. Also, about The rules did not consider that the owner of the TAG would want his pilot to dismount, since there was no reason for the pilot to do so, while now they are specialists and you might need to capture a console. So if "my" gecko pilot dismounts from his 2STR damaged gecko, captures a console and ends the turn, and the other player blows the gecko, you say "remove the specialist from the console", thus changing entirely the point recount in several ITS Scenarios (where you can, for example, use the Intelcomm card to remove the "specialist" qualification of an enemy troop)
For what it's worth I work for CB as a freelancer, and am the main editor for the English rules. EDIT - that's not a call to authority or saying that I'm right in this case, just pointing out that I'm not a 'non-CB employee Warcor' in that sense.
You forgot to mention "maintainer of the Infinity Rules Wiki", @ijw And the only TAG pilot out for blood after you break his ride is Scarface.
so, are the english rule correct? or are the spanish ones? because from a pure logic point of view, the spanish wording seems a bit more "logical" than the english one.
