1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hemos actualizado nuestra Política de Privacidad acorde con la nueva RGPD. +Info // We've updated our Privacy Policy to comply with the GDPR. +Info
    Dismiss Notice

IMM-1 servant.

Discussion in 'Rules' started by Mahtamori, Nov 23, 2019.

  1. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    7,720
    Likes Received:
    9,608
    I might be tired and that's why I can't quite work this out, but today in tournament: Engineer uses Servants to "disarm" a couple of MadTraps. Can the Engineer activate and repair the glue away by using the Servant itself?

    Kind of a reverse of what the FAQ answers.
     
  2. Sabin76

    Sabin76 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    1,520
    Likes Received:
    1,887
    Since, they've decided to put the reasoning in the FAQ, I think I would come down on the side of "Yes. As the G: Servant trooper doesn’t have the Engineer Skill it is the G: Servant’s Controller who is performing the Engineer Skill, and this cannot be done while in Immobilized state the controller in not in the immobilized state."

    I must note here, that I actually really dislike this ruling and think it should be the opposite: Servants should be able to unglue controllers, but the controller shouldn't be able to unglue a servant using that servant as a conduit.
     
    Hecaton likes this.
  3. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    7,720
    Likes Received:
    9,608
    To be honest, I would say that it should be that both the unit making physical contact and the unit making the roll have to be free to act - which is how we played it and why the buggering servant remained glued at game's end :p
     
    DukeofEarl likes this.
  4. konuhageruke

    konuhageruke Well-Known Member
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2017
    Messages:
    829
    Likes Received:
    650
    This is what I would say.
     
  5. Section9

    Section9 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    6,146
    Likes Received:
    9,631
    Depends on the nature of the G:Servant link. If the Engineer needs to be able to move his hands/arms to do the fine-motor controlling (basically, acting as remotely-controlled waldoes), then the Engineer should not be able to use his own Servant to unglue himself.

    I would have ruled that the Servant could only be unglued by the engineer getting into B2B contact.
     
    RobertShepherd likes this.
  6. Sabin76

    Sabin76 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    1,520
    Likes Received:
    1,887
    I actually thought about editing that into my original post. I'd be fine with that as well from a logic/lore standpoint. For balance, though (and this may just be my meta), I think that the easier it is to use an Engineer to remove status effects the better. No one brings them with the intent to use them to remove effects, let alone use them in game to do so.
     
  7. Forbino1

    Forbino1 Well-Known Member
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2017
    Messages:
    305
    Likes Received:
    351
    Can I use G: Servant to cancel Immobilized state from his
    linked Engineer?
    No. As the G: Servant trooper doesn’t have the Engineer
    Skill it is the G: Servant’s Controller who is performing
    the Engineer Skill, and this cannot be done while in
    Immobilized state.

    Is there a ruling I'm missing? Engineer cant remote unglue its servant or vice versa by my reading. You need to touch.
     
  8. Diphoration

    Diphoration Well-Known Member
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2018
    Messages:
    327
    Likes Received:
    488
    Correct me if I’m wrong, but I was under the impression that you could doctor yourself as you are considered in contact with your own model. Which gives the nice interaction to the Sophotect.

    If this ruling is correct, the it would set the precedent that you could engineer yourself should you be able to declare the skill.

    IMM as per the fact doesn’t seem to do anything yo the bot as far as engineering goes.

    Strick RAW I would be inclined to say that the Engi can repair IMM on the helperbot by having the bot “repair itself”.
     
  9. Gunmage

    Gunmage Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2017
    Messages:
    272
    Likes Received:
    255
    The problem here is the "vice versa" part. The FAQ you quoted states that the one using the Engineer skill in this situation is the controller. As the IMM state disallows the use of this skill, the servant (which is otherwise free to act) cannot unglue the controller.

    The situation in question is different, though - in this case, the controller can declare his skill, and, as can be inferred from that same FAQ, the bot doesn't have to perform any action that would be blocked by IMM state (basically, someone who supports this interpretation is arguing that all G:Servant does from game mechanics PoV is fulfills the "skill user has to be in base contact with target" requirement of the Doc/Engi skills). Thus, this is the situation we have: the bot is in base contact with itself at all times, and its controller, as per RAW, can declare the order and repair the bot... which leaves us stumped as to how the hell that could be possible in real life. Another weird interaction stemming from this interpretation: it also means that Doc/Engineer can affect any other eligible target in base contact with the immobilized bot. I.e. if the bot was in base contact with a TAG and they both got glued by a Riotstopper - using this chain of arguments, Engineer would be able to unglue the TAG, too.

    I can't say that I'm onboard with this interpretation, though: the "G: Servant and Doctor and Engineer Special Skills" entry below the G:Servant skill box states: "The G: Servant trooper must meet all respective requirements to use the Doctor/Engineer Special Skills remotely." From my viewpoint, "all respective requirements" includes "is not in a state that disallows the usage of that skill".
     
    Sabin76 and Mahtamori like this.
  10. Sabin76

    Sabin76 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    1,520
    Likes Received:
    1,887
    Missed that part. It is weird to add the word "remotely" at the end, which adds a touch of ambiguity (I guess you could stretch it to mean "base contact"), but that's good enough for me.
     
  11. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    7,720
    Likes Received:
    9,608
    The issue with this is how Immobilized is constructed logically.

    Immobilized prevents the Immobilized trooper from declaring Engineer, it does not negate any requirements. The Servant isn't at any time able to declare Engineer anyway so being Immobilized changes nothing with regards to fulfilling criteria.

    (Also, on a related technicality, an Immobilized trooper can declare Change Facing because it is not a short skill)
     
  12. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    4,768
    Likes Received:
    5,691
    The irony being that this interpretation was opened when the one allowing G Servants to Engineer their masters was closed. I am now fully onboard with that FAQ.
     
  13. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    7,720
    Likes Received:
    9,608
    Nah, it's using the same logic and problem statement, it just focuses on the Servant instead of the Engineer. I'd say the FAQ didn't open anything, it only addressed half of the problem.
     
    BLOODGOD likes this.
  14. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    4,768
    Likes Received:
    5,691
    Fair, whereas I see it as a RAI vs RAW difference. My opinion is that RAI was that IMM prevents using the Engineer Skill but RAW states declaring. CB FAQ'd in favour of RAW and (to my mind) the RAW on this is clear (to misquote HellLois): as the G: Servant trooper doesn’t have the Engineer Skill it is the G: Servant's Controller who is declaring the Engineer Skill. Whereas if it had been Errata'd in favour of 'IMM prevents either the IMM'd trooper, whether the Controller or G Servant, from using the Engineer but not from declaring it' this wouldn't have been an issue. Hence why it strikes me as ironic.
     
    Mahtamori likes this.