Yes, if you re-write the rules you can have it be whatever. I think that nothing breaks horribly if you make all camo markers explicitly belong to a combat group (whatever combat group the model that 'created' them belongs to). Or if no camo markers belong to a combat group. It's when some camo markers belong to a combat group and some don't that we have problems. Camo Markers hiding Mines and Ambush Camo dummy markers explicitly do not belong to Combat Groups. So as the RAW goes, being able to ask the question 'which combat group does this camo marker belong to?' breaks mines and ambush camo, because the answer is that they don't belong to a combat group. If you're playing anyone but Ariadna, a camo marker that does not belong to a combat group is a mine. Don't get within 11" of it, and you can safely ignore it. If you're playing vanilla Ariadna, a camo marker that does not belong to a combat group is either a mine or an Ambush Camo dummy. That's not as complex as it sounds at first, since as long as you stay outside 11" you can still safely ignore it. If you're playing USARF, a camo marker that does not belong to a combat group is an Ambush Camo dummy and can simply be ignored at any distance. You're right that if we change the rules it's not a problem. But it is a problem now. A very good question for CB. I kinda suspect that most of the guys at CB tend to play single combat groups, so this didn't come up during testing.
Yeah. But whichever side of the fence you’re on going round in circles in achieving nothing isn’t it?
Well it's definitely telling the people who deny that there is, in fact, a problem, that not everyone agrees with them.
I'm necroing this thread but we have been waiting for an official answer on this subject for quite some time. Do you know if we can hope for one soon ?
We are working on ways to make the FAQ faster and more useful, I am afraid I cannot give more information at the moment.
