I'd say it needs a FAQ; It is not obvious to me what the end result of the interaction is, if the MSV3 user shoots and hits - a camo marker, or a revealed mine that takes no saves, or a mine that takes saves?
It's interesting that there are two types of people in this thread: Those that can see a logical outcome (the mine cannot physically be shot at, so the shots fail and the mine is not discovered) Those that really, REALLY need an explicit outcome. I wonder, what is the need for the explicit statement of result? Are they unable to rationalize it themselves, or perhaps they enjoy the argument itself? IF an explicit statement is needed, and IF one is given, it's going to be incredibly similar to the logical outcome that people are unilaterally coming to. tl;dr, this thread is a waste of time, and the people that are refusing to use logic are either attention-seeking or otherwise trying to find a way to rules-lawyer instead of enjoying the game collaboratively (and yes, that is possible in a competitive environment).
What I've learned about Infinity is that the rules don't always align with an intuitive (or, as you put it, "logical") outcome. Most beginner's think you can use Surprise Attack in ARO while hidden or in camo, because logically you are ambushing someone, but that's not how Surprise Attack works, even if it feels logical. And the question posed in this thread is a good one: if you're Silhouette 2 when in camo because all camo markers are Silhouette 2, and Silhouette X when not in camo because all mine tokens are Silhouette X, when do you assume the properties of these silhouettes? Your presumption is that you are always Silhouette X, even when you're Silhouette 2, because a mine doesn't magically get to be as tall as a human when hiding and shrink down when revealed. But there's no rules for being in two Silhouette sizes at once. Currently, the rules state that you're Silhouette 2 when in camo, and Silhouette X when not. I don't consider this discussion a waste of time at all, I think the discussion is good, and I think that having it might help get it FAQed for clarity.
Camo units are almost always the same Silhouette as the bearer, meaning if they go Prone the Camo Marker becomes Silhouette X. N5 reintroduced Silhouette 0. Mines are S0. Mines are, uniquely, hidden under a S2 Camo Marker (see camo state and concealed trait). They’re the only thing in the game where the marker and marker contents can be different Silhouettes at the same time,
All that is required is change the camouflage wording to state the camo marker is the same as the profile of the trooper or piece of equipment. Therefore, a mine in camo state has the same silhouette as the mines profile. Troopers in camo state prone, same applies.
EY man, that's not nice. Infinity is a game, not a simulation. I understand both sides - logic behind idling shot order, "because you can't see the mine". However I'm on the other side. You can still discover it, right? From the game perspective the object at the given moment is S2 and van be seen. Can be discovered successfully? Can be fired at with MSV3 successfully.
Because altering LoF during a trooper activation is totally a thing because of mine camo interaction, does camo decloaking also work the same way? Example: Trooper A activates and moves to get a LoF to enemy trooper B. A big expendable enemy antipode is between the troopers in camo state. Camos don’t block LoF. The antipode declares dodge which immediately cancels the camo state. Can trooper A declare a BS attack against trooper B? An if it can, is the order idled because requirements are no longer met during resolution because clearly there is no longer LoF between the troopers?
I think it’s reasonable to request confirmation of N5 rules interactions since the new rules are neither N1 nor N2. Assuming things work a certain way (for whatever reason) is a good way to lead to conflict and frustration. Clarity is key. I find it interesting that there’s any question about seeking rules insight in the rules forum. FWIW, the game rules are the contract to which both players agree (unless house rules are agreed upon) to play the game. I don’t think it’s rules lawyering to want to play the game by its rules. Obviously, people are free to play however they wish, but pickup games in an FLGS might turn chaotic if the RAW are ignored/subverted. I think it’s unfair to characterize people seeking clarity as rules lawyers (cheaters?) or attention seekers. There are people who think they owe it to themselves and their opponents to play by the rules to the best of their ability.
With MSV3 targeting a camo marker that is a mine where the base of the mine is in total cover I believe that the Attacker is able to target the Camo Marker and thus can roll to hit and force save rolls because it is a S2 at that time it doesn't become a Sx mine until it is forced to make saving rolls. This is messy and CB should just make Mines S2.
Would the procedure not be: MSV3 Trooper Targets and shoots the mine in Camo state, then if the Mine is hit, it makes an ARM Save (at this point, it will now have to reveal in the States Phase as it was forced to make a Save)... if it Passes, it then Reveals (in the States Phase) and becomes a S0 token that is now in Total Cover OR if it Fails, it is taken off the board as there is no Uncon' State for it to be in? Just asking to see if I understand the interaction...
I think that is pretty close to the RAW interpretation but I think some people are advocating for the shot auto failing because the Sx which is the profile that has an armour value has total cover.
It is hit by a successful Attack. In this case, the replica Decoy does not make the Saving Roll and is simply removed.
Well, I don't think, nor see how a model would have a legal Arm bonus for cover as being in Total Cover means you couldn't be targeted anyways. Basically, a Total Cover model can not be a Target to begin with, thus would not have any Arm bonus for a Save... or am I not understanding your point? The way I see it, you MSV3 see it, you then shoot it. If it somehow survives, then you can't target it anymore. That's the way I would play it just to keep the game moving.
I'm really not clear on why this is so hard for people? The Camouflage Marker is a game element representing a sensor blip. It hides something underneath. Normally, the thing underneath and the Marker are the same Silhouette, so having LoF to one grants LoF to both, but they are distinct game elements. In the specific case of mines, the Marker and its contents are different Silhouettes. Being in the Camouflaged State does not change the Silhouette of the mine any more than being in Camouflaged State changes the Silhouette of any other thing in the game. Consider what's actually happening when the MSV3 user is declaring a Skill against a mine under a Marker: When the MSV3 user draws LoF to the S2 Marker, it is permitted to declare Discover against the Marker. When the MSV3 user draws LoF to the S2 Marker, it is permitted to declare (ineffectual) BS Attacks against the Marker. When the MSV3 user draws LoF to the S0 mine, it is permitted to declare BS Attacks against the mine even if the mine is hidden under a Camouflage Marker. A BS Attack without the No LoF Trait requires LoF to the target. So what's the target? If the target is the Marker and you have LoF, a BS Attack meets its Requirements, but the Marker doesn't have STR and can't make Saving Rolls, so nothing happens when you hit it with a BS Attack. If the target is the S0 mine, and you don't have LoF, you don't meet the Requirement for BS Attack to have LoF to the target, so the BS Attack becomes an Idle. If the target is the S0 mine, and you do have LoF, the BS Attack meets its Requirements and works normally. MSV3 allows you to do this even if the mine is under a Camouflage Marker, but this requires that the Trooper is able to draw LoF to both the S2 Marker and the S0 mine underneath. This isn't even hard to visualize by analogy: Imagine a secret object (let's say a coin) is hidden under a plastic cup. You don't know what the object is, though; the cup is opaque. To see what's in there, you can... A - Knock the cup off the coin, revealing it (Discover to cancel Camouflage), or B - Shoot the plastic cup, hoping to hit the contents, but miss the coin (BS Attack vs Camouflage Marker without LoF to the S0 mine) Nothing in the rules lets you use a direct-fire BS Weapon to BS Attack something when you can't draw LoF to it due to solid Total Cover. MSV3 clearly doesn't say anything about ignoring the Requirement for LoF to the target. Nothing in the rules makes a mine S2 while it's under a Camo Marker. The rules very clearly distinguish between the mine and Marker, and that they have different Silhouette values. You can houserule that the mine becomes a targetable S2 thing while under the Marker, but that's a houserule, not RAW.
... and then proceeds to write multiple paragraphs, with bulleted lists, to unpack the rules issue. Not saying you're wrong, just found the situation amusing. : )
