"plain english". Ha. Anyway, no you haven't. All you've done is the equivalent of explaining a word by using that word in an example. You could try shouting, that would be the next logical step. What you seem to fail to grasp is single words in english don't have single meanings. Throw them into sentences within a wider context and they take on even more meanings. This is the problem of language, and English can be particularly egregious. To go back to mines, the immediacy of timing is implied by the wording. But in the wider context of the rules, it could also be in accordance with the normal sequence. "triggering" can be the same as shooting (a hypothetical new rule similar to BS:shoot, but not the same). An example for a fictional model could be: The TREXgunbot must shoot when a model activates in LoF of the TREXgunbot. When the TREXgunbot shoots, the ammo is expended. The enemy model declaring "freeze" will cause the TREXgunbot to not shoot. Come resolution, the TREXgunbot has not shot. Therefore, no ammo is expended. While timing is implied, because the final instruction we get is to not shoot, the ammo is not expended. There is no need to force timing, and then force a expending, then un-expending of the ammo for above to still be correct.
Do we give "feedback" or merely "complain"? And yet would folks be satisfied, or would those who bonafides seem strained merely continue on?
I've told you what the intent is, both here and in the 1.5 FAQ thread when you asked the first time. The Mine doesn't go off. If that means putting it back on the table because the Civilian moved into the template after it triggered, then yes you're going to have to put the Mine back on the table. The Mine will not trigger during that Order. I'll be blunt here. Because you cry wolf so much, by this point you're actively making it less likely that rules issues get fixed. I believe this is not your intention. Every time you bring up something like this, where it's an issue because you're actively trying to break the game, you reinforce CB's observation that there are a small core of posters that complain about the rules for the sake of complaining about the rules. This has already prevented several rules re-writes from being accepted, and you're contributing to that. I'm not telling you to stop bringing up rules issues, but please please please be more selective, and more tactical about it. Your current approach is counter-productive.
Did you read my points how, with your interpretation, I can use Perimeter Weapons to block movement after they've completed their Boost? Or do you think this is a non-issue? My point is that Mines and Perimeter Weapons disappearing immediately after they trigger/detonate is necessary to avoid cluttering the table with expended Deployables. This is a good thing and should be preserved. Moreover this is what the rules tell us to do. So there's no need to read more deeply into it. The explicit reading is sufficient to understand the interaction and provides the best gameplay outcome (despite some weirdness).
You aren't CB. Again, I disagree. If they came out and clarified the timing on when the mine is removed, that would probably help. If they say you have to put the mine back on the table if a civilian walks into the aoe, then they should explain what happens if that space is now occupied. Saying it's somehow verboten even though the rules are silent on the issue isn't helping; it's promoting a viewpoint where the rules are not explained but you're a bad person if you break them. This stuff comes up. Play Armory; if your opponent packs the room with warbands and mines, damn straight it's a good plan to synch your hvt and run them in there to work as a human shield. That stuff needs to be really clear, because games are won or lost by how that plays out. "Trying to win the game within the rules" (or just to explore what the rules allow one to do) is not a problem. You say "trying to break the game," but from where I'm standing, that's testing out the limits of a game that's played competitively. Unlike some of the more esoteric things here, this can and does come up in tournaments. And I'm not going to infantilize CB and assume that they can't handle things; I've heard plenty of talk about that from wacors, usually smattered in with "they're just Spaniards who don't know what they're doing, it's the duty of the warcors to act as a buffer between the fans and them so they don't fuck up." Fuck that. I'd use manipulative reverse psychology with a child or something. They're fully capable of handling honesty. If the honest approach is less likely to get them to do the "right" thing... I think there's something lost in trying to be duplicitous and manipulative about (what I perceive to be) the state of the game. I don't see the rules as likely to be fixed if everyone pretends it's fine. I also don't see them as more likely to be fixed if less people comment on the issues they see. It's all very counter-intuitive and I don't think your reasoning makes sense.
I'm a freelancer not a full-time employee, so no, in that sense I'm not CB. But I'm the main English-language editor on the rules side. If I say 'the intention of rule X is Y', that means that, while working for CB as an editor, I've discussed that rule and it's intent directly with CB. If a rule hasn't been discussed with CB, it'll be 'I think it's Y, here are the reasons why'. This isn't secret information. It's been mentioned multiple times on the forums, and you can look for 'Ian Wood' in the editing credits for the later books. By moving a trooper into the position that the Mine was in before it triggered, when you know that this forces the Mine to be put back in place, you are intentionally creating a situation that cannot be resolved. That's what I mean by 'actively trying to break the game'. But in this case there's no rule issue to be fixed, unless, again, you are trying to consciously create a situation that can't be resolved. What you've described is a tactical issue, not a rules issue, and one that requires the opponent to not remember that their Warbands have Pistols, and generally enough PH and Kinematika that they can Engage instead. Don't forget that the alternatives to this FAQ are: The Mine detonates, potentially harming the HVT and ending the game. If this happens, one of the players will auto-lose, although it's not clear which of the players would count as having caused the harm - the opponent for owning the Mine, or the active player for knowingly moving the Civilian into a template. The Mine's template is nullified without cancelling the triggering of the Mine, making a synced Civilian a 100% risk-free way of negating enemy Mines. Nobody is pretending everything is fine. But when it comes to getting stuff fixed, I'm telling you what the situation is. It's irrelevant whether you think my reasoning makes sense, it's a description of the situation. Every time you bring up a rules issue that requires tortured logic to be an issue, or reading the rule in a way that multiple posters are telling you is a misreading, or requires intentionally creating a situation that can't be resolved, or that you've already received an answer for, you reduce my ability to get rules changed or re-written. That's an actual, already-experienced and ongoing situation.
Does it, though? Break the game, I mean. Doesn't the trooper get IMM-2 until the mine is somehow removed as per the rule for a model placed in a position where it can't fit?
That could be a sensible house-rule, but there are no rules covering a trooper or civilian ending their movement in the same place as another item. The IMM-2 rule is specific to troopers etc. whose Silhouette value changes, and even then it's only if the Silhouette change is mandatory. Sappers, for example, Idle instead of entering Foxhole state.
Eh, you clearly disagreed with some of the rulings that CB makes (Like the Shock and Dogged/NWI one). And I'd be careful about calling yourself the editor of books CB publishes, that's an accolade of questionable merit lol. Well, we should find out how to resolve it. What if the mine is blocking a doorway to an objective room, or is at the closest point at which an objective can be interacted with? Is the answer "You're a bad person for trying to win the game?" If there's unresolvable situations within the rules, they should be worked out, like the Dismount situation. And most people would rather deal with pistols or engages from Warbands rather than their template weapons. In the context of dealing with mines, though, it's very much both, since the question is whether mines can be removed risk-free or not. Yeah, and all three of these options are bad, imo, and more importantly, only #1 is explicitly disallowed by the rules (since the rules are clear that the template is canceled). It's getting to the root of why the civilian rules are problem-causing and honestly fairly unfluffy. If their attitude is "Hmmm, this dude is complaining about this rule, that means it's not a problem; conversely, if nobody had been complaining about it, that means we should probably take a look at tweaking it" then CB has more problems than I thought.
However, if the same person is complaining over and over again, with interpretations that strain credulity, would CB be wrong in doubting that person's motives and discounting that opinion? I'd argue that they'd wouldn't, especially if it appears that person is acting in (while not perhaps bad) less-than-good faith?
Considering how unclear and poorly constructed the English is in a lot of the rules for Infinity, I don't know if any of my interpretations "strain credulity." In fact, I've seen interpretations quite a bit dumber than mine that didn't.
Well, considering you've the rules editor stating that's the impression that your arguments give, a re-assessment of your methods might be advisable.
You've completely missed the point. If I state the intention behind a rule, you don't need to second-guess it and think that the intent is something else. We know how to resolve it. Don't do end the move on/in the Mine, just like you don't end your position 'in' one of your own troopers. As far as I'm aware, that covers all the possible situations. The question has been answered. Several times. Doubling-down is not a good look.
I don't take what he says as the word of God. Yeah, I do. You're not infallible. Nothing in the FAQ talks about that. Honestly the whole situation has called into question when, exactly, mines get removed, and when they get removed has pretty fundamental implications for gameplay (i.e. they can be used to block doors in objective room missions). I don't think it's that bad. Insisting that others must not question your statements is generally worse in my book.
No, he’s neither infallible nor the word of God, but he is involved in the actual rules discussions, as edits are made, and he has specifically advised that the way you present your “arguments” actively downgrades the urgency in CB’s eyes. So, again, if someone actively involved in the decisions advises you that your actions have the exact opposite effect to your stated intentions, well, ignoring that, doubling down, and insulting him in the bargain could lead an outside observer to doubt your intentions and good faith, and as such dismiss you to an even greater extent.
They get removed when they trigger, as stated in the rule. Once on the game table, Mines must trigger when an enemy figure or Marker declares or executes an Order or ARO inside their Trigger Area. [...] Once a Mine triggers, it is removed from play. This is exactly the kind of statement that leads to you being perceived as arguing in bad faith. The majority of players are reading something one way, but you're adding an alternative reading to claim that there's another rules issue.
@Hecaton wasn't arguing that the rules don't clearly articulate the timing of when Mine's trigger, it's actually fairly clear that he agrees with the majority on the timing#: rather, he was saying that, because this whole situation is poorly articulated*, people are questioning everything including that the rules describe the timing of Mines triggering clearly enough. That is to say, @Hecaton's referencing my discussion with @Alphz: @Alphz does think that the timing of when Mine's trigger isn't clearly articulated in the rules, is the one with the alternative reading and claims that there's another rules issue. # He disagrees on how that timing interacts with Civvies. * For the record, I disagree with both him and @Alphz that is area is poorly articulated.
Basically, is the outstanding issue thus: If I trigger a mine with the first skill, can I Move through its position with the second skill? (For now, completely disregarding civilian presence or not)
That's the discussion that @Alphz and I were having. However, I completely disagree that it's outstanding: only 'Yes' is supported by what the rules actually say. Or, as I said it a while ago (for situations involving Civvies): The rules say that the mine is triggered, removed, untriggered and replaced.
