The Civilian's movement through the template means the Mine didn't trigger, so the Mine is still there. Again, simple. Civilian crosses where the template would be, then the Mine never triggers, and is still sitting there, either as an undiscovered Camo Marker or as a discovered Mine.
unfortunately mines are removed when triggered, not in the order resolution step. Therefore: short skill one: Hsien with synced xenotech walks into trigger area declare ARO: mine triggers, template is placed and mine marker is removed from the table short skill two: Hsien and synced xenotech continue walking, xenotech enters the template area stopping on the place where the mine marker was just removed from. As the civilian entered the template area, they have retroactively cancelled the mine so it needs to be replaced. However at this time there is another model occupying the same space.
First of all, the mine already triggered. Second, even if it could be rewound, it's possible for the civilian to walk over the position of the triggered mine before touching the template, then stopping toeing the template and partially on top of the mine's position.
The passing of the Civilian through the template means the Mine didn't trigger, so the Mine is still sitting there, and the Civilian can't occupy that space, since the Mine is still sitting there. Again, simple. There's no "retroactive". The Civilian passing through where the template would be means the Mine never triggered, and is still sitting there, a place where the Civilian cannot be. Again, it's simple. Civilian crosses through template, Mine never triggers, and is sitting there.
Not simple at all, since then you'd have to retroactively rewind civilian movement, and what if the civilian's movement gets rewound in a way that the mine still triggers? Then you're stuck in a bit of a contradiction. Since mines get removed upon triggering, there has to be "retroactive" action in the situation.
except that the mine triggers at the first opportunity - which would be when a valid target and only a valid target enters the trigger area. Once you suspect this has happened you place the template and if it touches the target model the mine marker is removed per the rules under mines. If this happens after the first skill of an order declaration then it is possible to move the civilian under the template thus retroactively cancelling the triggering.
The Mine never triggers if the Civilian crosses it, so it's still sitting there. Simple and what the FAQ reads. It's not difficult unless we actively decide to make it difficult. Civilian crosses template at any point during the Order, Mine never goes off. Simple as that.
the net result is that the mine does not go off, however based on the structure of an order (BRB p31) the mine triggers (step 4)and then retroactively cancels having triggered (step 5). This leads to the bit of gaminess in using civilians as shields which we've been discussing for months now, and also leaves the extreme edge case we are discussing now where two markers occupy the same space.
Only if you start from the end and work backwards. If you start from the beginning then at some point the mine MUST have triggered and is being retroactively untriggered. Just fallow the timing. for my first skill I walk into a mines trigger area with a troop, I have not declared my second skill yet... what happens with the mine?
So it's not possible to combine different levels of Camouflage? The FAQ speaks to different skills but not levels.
A trooper possesses all of the lower levels of a skill, those lower levels of the skill don’t all just combine into the same skill. From Skill Levels: “Some Special Skills are divided into Levels of expertise with distinct effects and uses. Unless otherwise stated, any numerical Level of a Special Skill automatically grants all lower Levels of the same Skill. For example, a Level 3 also grants Levels 1 and 2. Conversely, alphabetical Levels such as Level X state whether they grant any other Levels of the Skill or not.” There are skills where all of the leveled skills can be used at once, mixing the effects together, like Holoprojector, but Camo has NFB. So a trooper with Camo 3 (TO) can use the Camo 2 skill to be a CH Camo marker. It doesn’t use the Camo 3 skill to become a CH Camo marker.
In other words, you can coordinate camo with both camo and TO camo troopers as long as: Everyone uses the CHL2: Camo skill. Everyone turnes into a Camo marker (no one turns into a TO marker). Everyone only benefits from the negative MOD to enemy attacks from Camo (-3, not -6).
Occupying the same space as a mine that was 'retroactively' not triggered is a fine thing to discuss in an academic sense. And I agree that RAW, following the structure of an Order and its resolution, one could create a paradox similar to a model or marker occupying the same space as a revealed Hidden Deployment trooper. Fram a practical perspective though, it has little impact on gameplay. Most players, in my experience, don't leave templates on the table anyway, because it is inherently impractical. And most players, again in my experience, communicate about what they are going to do in an Order/ARO sequence before moving on to the final resolution. The Xenotech preventing a mine from triggering would often be a deliberate, intentional act, either planned in advance, or done in response to an unexpected event, e.g. the triggering of a mine. In other words, the Active player plans on deliberately preventing the mine from triggering. EX: "I am revealing an anti-personnel mine that you triggered with your first Short Skill. I am going to place the template here, where your model first entered the trigger area. Does that look right to you?" "Yea, that looks right, but hold the template there for me, I am going to declare Move for my Second Short skill, and try to move my Xenotech into that template." "Okay, go ahead and measure, I'll hold the template here." "Looks like the Xenotech's base will clip the template, so the mine does not trigger." "Yep, that looks right, I'll leave the cammo marker on the table." If creating the paradox gave you some game advantage, then it might be fine to give it more weight, but it is a legitimate paradox with no official resolution in the RAW, so you'd have to house rule it. Consequently, its existence is interesting from an academic, game design perspective, but not much more than that. As an aside, all of these types of co-location paradoxes could easily be resolved with a rule such as "Models/Markers cannot simultaneously occupy the same point on the table. If this occurs, for any reason, separate the models/markers by the shortest, safest route until they are all at least 1mm apart. This is not considered to be movement, and can otherwise have no effect on any of the models/markers involved. Example: Fusilier Angus is partially standing in the same location as Saito Togan's Hidden Deployment, causing their silhouettes to overlap when Saito is revealed. Fusilier Angus is moved away from Saito's silhouette, maintaining his contact with Partial Cover. Saito is moved the remaining distance, remaining outside the LoF of enemy models. If only Fusilier Angus had moved, he would have lost contact with his Cover, and if only Saito had moved, he would have been brought into the LoF of enemy models. This is therefore the shortest, and safest, route for both Saito and Fusilier Angus." Or you could not bother with that laborious malarky and figure players are reasonable enough to sort it out themselves when it actually comes up once in a blue moon.
@MindwormGames The point would be to use the Xenotech to "clear" (as opposed to just move on by) the mine.
The interesting thing is that if you've been around enough to remember 2nd edition, 2nd edition's FAQ for dealing with co-location paradox didn't have any allowance for keeping both models safe. You just considered the shortest path necessary to separate the models, subject to the surrounding physical constraints. And the old approach was biased towards letting the active turn player's model remain where it was and moving the no-longer-hidden model out of the way. But only in the cases where the end positions overlapped. So there's different expectations of what's fair depending on how much you remember of the game history.
But that’s just the point. It would have to be a house rule for that to happen, so it’s impractical to speculate about it in the context of how the rules work in an ‘official’ capacity. It creates a paradox that the RAW has no answer for. We can all agree on that, I think. It’s not like dragging an engaged model onto a wall, or shooting a model in the back arc via super jump. Here you wind up at a point where the rules legitimately break down. So, if that does happen, players will have to come up with an on-the-spot resolution that can be expected to vary. Try clearing a mine like that at my house and it won’t happen, for example. Try it at a local tournament and it’s in the hands of the TO.
You appear to be making statements not compatible with reality due to emotional considerations. Case #1 where the game rules break down and need a FAQ: Step 0. There's this nice data terminal (roughly 25mm round) with a prominent notch on the table, and that terrain piece is in the middle of the table. Step 1. You deploy a hidden deployment model in base contact with the notch. Step 2. In the first round of the game, I activate a trooper, it declares a move from its current position to the the notch on that data terminal. I measure the movement and the trooper arrives there. Step 3. Your hidden deployment model declares an ARO. Two models are now co-located, and the game rules break down. -- Case #2 where the game rules break down and need a FAQ: Trooper A in just outside of a hostile mine's activation area. In the reactive turn, it declares a Dodge which enters the mine's activation area. Do you need me to link to the forum discussions on how to resolve the issues and then point out how the FAQ resolved it? -- Why on Earth would anyone want to play at your house if you don't understand why the FAQ did what it did?
