-A camo marker cannot be attacked directly! -imp marker cannot be attacked directly! -camo marker cannot be attacked and need to be discovered first! -imp marker cannot be attacked and need to be discovered first! -camo marker cannot be attacked unless discovered or by using intuitive attacks!!! -do I need to write down the last statement? -now... can a newbie be confused?? Yes!! It's all written in this case... But what a mess!!! Mask
Yes, Mask, you missed: - imp marker is an ally. The red box could be made clearer by removing the focus from each individual trooper to make it more general, however; IMPORTANT! For all intents and purposes an impersonator in the Impersonation-1 or Impersonation-2 state (IMP-1 or IMP-2 Marker) is an ally while in either of these states.
Read exactly what I was saying please... I agree that, in this case, there isn't an issue with the rule itself... My statements was only to point out that a newbie could easily be confused. (I'm not so that rule isn't a problem for me). I was arguing that the rule could be written way way better!!! Mask
I mean, probably. But possible interactions are all spelled out and contained within a single chapter, which makes it not really that confusing. People who like to really read into already known rules are more likely to be confused for a while than newbies in this case, IMO.
By the way any attempt to stimulate a more accurate and precise writing of the rules is a good thing! I saw too many players walk away from this awesome game blaming how the rules was disorganized and not well written. Mask
@Mask okay, so a bit more than a one line answer: I think you're making some comparisons that a newbie wouldn't make unless they had a veteran explain it to them poorly. A veteran would have a concept of what a marker is, but a newbie won't. The comparison between camo and impersonation wouldn't be there unless someone used bad analogies to explain the rules the first time around. I agree that it wouldn't be a bad thing to write the rules in a way that forestalls this, but at the same time it is not the rules fault when a newbie gets it wrong, but probably someone they thought knew the rules better.
@Mask , you can also hit a camo marker with a template that targets another enemy, but the FAQ on both states of impersonation says that you can't hit them like this since they count as friendly troops, which would imply that you can't intuitive attack them since if they count as friendly, even if you can declare intuitive attack, the attack is nullified by the marker counting as friendly, unless they ARO and reveal themselves...
I'm glad we agreed on this. And I dream of a situation where this game lacks the profound need of a veteran to be learned. Mask
I looked it up out of pure curiosity. Needs to be unconscious. I think the only possible way to get an unconscious impersonation marker is for a Hacker trying to go into Cybermask, getting ARO'd by a hidden deployment hacker with no LOF, and then taking enough damage to go unconscious but not die and still get off Cybermask.
Are you saying that we should favor what seems to be a clearly spelled out rule in favor of the contradictory ramifications that would occur if we applied an inconsistently used term mentioned somewhere else in the rules? It seems like you are, but that's exactly why people might read the first effect of Intuitive Attack and assume it works on Impersonation markers. "Etc." would include the Impersonation State (it's one that makes the model ineligible as the target of attack), and per your argument we apparently shouldn't pay attention to the use of the term "enemy," even if it contradicts what we've been told about the Impersonator (that it's an ally). Furthermore, the fact that it's apparently so clear that rules that refer to enemies (Discover, Delay) allow you to target Impersonation Markers, why would we even bother considering the fact that Impersonation causes enemy models to perceive them as friendly? So, are you guys saying that using Intuitive Attack against an Impersonator is a viable option? That's the problem with Infinity. Specific passages are often clear by themselves. It's when we're forced to cross reference and use precedents to determine interactions that flaws become more apparent and problematic.
Sure but you'd have to use the MediKit as a BS weapon, 'cause you're not allowed to enter base to base contact with the marker. (Same applies to Camo Markers)
I feel like using such words anywhere in the rules is a bad practice in the first place... On a side note, while I was going through these rules on marker states, it occurred to me that Surprise Whatever rules are needlessly bloated too.
Also martial arts grants surprise attack even though you can't use it without being in a marker state from another skill which already grants surprise attack...
It could be relevant for Cybermask users, but that was FAQ'd so... It's funny because the need to have all relevant skills was seemingly an attempt to have more control over giving (or not giving) that mod to particular units regardless of their ability to use marker state in general, but then SA/SS was nested and FAQ'd into everything, so...
Well, it's a serious issue. And I worry that answers like "It's common sense, of course you can't Intuitive Attack an Impersonation marker" mean that it's less likely the rules will be re-written more clearly.
I have stated many times in many conversations that there are things I'd like to be worded differently, placed differently, explained more, clarified, etc. In the mean time I will continue to work with what is available. In this case we have, on the same page of rules, a statement that specifies exactly which actions you can take against an impersonation marker, and that they count as friendly troops (yes, I will take ally to be a synonym), so there is no reason to look for house rules and exceptions. Intuitive is the general case, impersonation is the specific case. Could it be worded better and more consistently? Sure, I will never argue against that. But this thread, like many as of late, has descended well past the initial rules question into exaggerated griping about the state of the game.
It's not exaggerated griping when the process for new players is 1. read the rulebook, and find it confusing as heck. Then either quit or 2. Get surprised on rules as they are actually used are sometimes very different from how it's implied in the rulebook. It's a serious consideration for the growth of the game. As someone who has gotten quite a few people into Infinity, the fact that the rules are so cumbersome and obtuse is a *big* obstacle towards attracting new players. It's not a storm in a teacup.
It also isn't helping to constantly bring it up everywhere, repeatedly. I'm sure they've heard enough feedback to do with it what they will, either way. As a community we're all aware of these struggles. 3rd edition has made improvements but over time we've picked it apart and found all sorts of inconsistencies there too.
