1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Possessed TAGs and Dismount

Discussion in 'Rules' started by Aldo, Oct 18, 2020.

  1. Aldo

    Aldo Spare 15

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    1,214
    Likes Received:
    1,828
    So, there seems to be no notes stopping me from possessing a TAG and then dismounting with the pilot.

    Pilot states that upon dismounting the pilot keeps all states that can apply, and Possessed has no restrictions on who it can be applied.

    RAW I think there is no discussion as to how this works, and with CBs disinterest in amending the printed rulebook so soon after release (see the marker state repeater fiasco) I fail to ser how this might be changed

    However might as well post it and see if there is an official reaction. For funsies
     
  2. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    10,817
    Likes Received:
    13,487
    Now, if they want to fix this (and I think they should) they could add Immunity (Possession) to pilots.
     
    Savnock likes this.
  3. Ariwch

    Ariwch Tournament benthotic lurker

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2018
    Messages:
    341
    Likes Received:
    330
    I cannot see where in the Possessed Trooper profile the pilot is mentioned. Can you?
     
  4. ijw

    ijw Ian Wood aka the Wargaming Trader. Rules & Wiki
    Infinity Rules Staff Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,058
    Likes Received:
    14,411
    There are some missing restrictions in the Possessed and Pilot rules, as Pilots cannot be in Possessed State.

    In the meantime, I suggest: neither player can Dismount a Pilot from a TAG in Possessed State.
     
  5. Triumph

    Triumph Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    4,660
    Likes Received:
    5,002
    I feel like next time CB do a rules release they might as well get the entire community to bug test it, these oversights are cropping up alot.
     
    Hecaton, Delta57Dash and Aldo like this.
  6. Savnock

    Savnock Nerfherder

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2017
    Messages:
    940
    Likes Received:
    1,243
    Stringing a physical release out long after a virtual release (even a beta) loses a significant amount of hype. This would lower the purchase rate for the new rulebook, probably. While an awesome company that gives a LOT of stuff away for free, CB need some hype to pay themselves. Keeping your virtual and print releases tight is important for that.

    Similarly, leaks are likely enough from even just the Warcor community that releasing rules for playtest there is essentially releasing the rules period.

    I had similar thoughts, then thought it through a bit from the industry perspective. To make sales that allow them to make the cool stuff they do, CB need to release the print version first or at the same time as the first virtual releases/army builder/whatever.
     
    Methuselah and toadchild like this.
  7. colbrook

    colbrook Black Fryer

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    7,962
    Likes Received:
    14,429
    Lets face it, the books are vanity products that sit on the shelf now the Wiki and army builder are out. Their value is in the fluff and exclusive miniature, not as a rule reference. I'd be happy to buy it without the fluff part, but the market "expects" and likely rewards a rulebook with a new edition.
     
    Armihaul, inane.imp and toadchild like this.
  8. Triumph

    Triumph Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    4,660
    Likes Received:
    5,002
    Fair point, although on the other hand if the print version of the new rules keeps being wrong I think that will also impact sales in the long run too. If they keep having to rewrite shit I'm never going to get the LGS to restock the book because who wants to buy outdated books and I'll probably warn every single new player not to buy it just because it's outdated.

    Balancing act I guess.

    It really would help if they did more with the fluff side of the book. Alot of rehashed stuff, entries that are just outdated and wrong (daofei is still an invicible army unit etc). Managing to be more expensive than the 9th edition Warhammer rules and also being wrong everywhere both in fluff and rules mechanics with illegal diagrams and shit is not a good look either. I'm willing to chalk some of this up to Covid fucking ruining the year but the random price spikes I'm getting hit by in N4 have left me a little sour tbh.
     
    #8 Triumph, Oct 21, 2020
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2020
  9. colbrook

    colbrook Black Fryer

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    7,962
    Likes Received:
    14,429
    Something like 75% of Infinity books sales come during pre-order and launch, they don't have much of a tail, partly due to the rules being online in more useful formats, partly due to hype, and partly due to the miniature.

    Outdated print books aren't even a particularly CB problem, most games get Errata and FAQs, heck, the fact that Shadowrun books sell at all is a miracle considering the state they release in! Or GW books that get contents intentionally outdated every few months by chapter approved.
     
    Savnock and Cthulhu363 like this.
  10. Triumph

    Triumph Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    4,660
    Likes Received:
    5,002
    I don't know if trying to normalise the situation by pointing at GW is necessarily a good thing. Also the point of splitting the rules up between the core and the living rules was so they didn't need to outdate the print books and could adjust things with ITS, Fireteam rules, e tc. Kind of defeats the purpose when the core book is riddled with things that are wrong on day one.
     
  11. pseudonymmster

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2018
    Messages:
    43
    Likes Received:
    16
    The "neither player" part just popped out at me. Can both players use a possessed TAG?
     
  12. colbrook

    colbrook Black Fryer

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    7,962
    Likes Received:
    14,429
    No, by neither player he means the possessor can't eject the pilot of a TAG he controls, and the original owner can't eject the (unpossesed) pilot from a TAG currently possessed by the enemy.
     
    inane.imp, ijw and paraelix like this.
  13. pseudonymmster

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2018
    Messages:
    43
    Likes Received:
    16
    Thanks. There was also an issue of the rulebook pdf not mentioning that the original owner of the TAG couldn't use orders, but it looks like the pdf has it updated. Relevant rule copy/pasted below :P

    "Troopers in this state cannot be activated or receive Orders from their player's Order Pool. While they are Possessed, Troopers are considered to be enemies by the rest of their owner's Troopers and are considered to be allies by the Troopers of the player that caused this game state."
    - https://infinitythewiki.com/index.php?title=Possessed_State
     
  14. ijw

    ijw Ian Wood aka the Wargaming Trader. Rules & Wiki
    Infinity Rules Staff Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,058
    Likes Received:
    14,411
    Not exactly. The version of Possession in the main text is correct, the version in the Glossary was an old version.
     
    pseudonymmster likes this.
  15. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    5,996
    Likes Received:
    7,087
    @Mahtamori I don't know if you want to track questions that IJW has answered but aren't formally resolved?
     
  16. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    10,817
    Likes Received:
    13,487
    I'll track it at least until it makes it into easily searchable spot. If anything because of the relationship to the huge number of questions regarding pilots...
     
    inane.imp likes this.
  17. Forbino1

    Forbino1 Well-Known Member
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2017
    Messages:
    394
    Likes Received:
    457
    What if I dismount in response to a hacking attempt to possess?
     
  18. wes-o-matic

    wes-o-matic feeelthy casual

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2019
    Messages:
    599
    Likes Received:
    959
    You can't, sorry.

    Dismounting only happens in the active turn, and is declared with the first Short Skill of the Order: https://infinitythewiki.com/General_Movement_Rules
    You can dismount preemptively if you suspect you'll be targeted by a Total Control ARO, since Total Control fails if the target TAG's Pilot is dismounted.

    Once the TAG is Possessed, you can't dismount since doing so requires you to spend an Order on the TAG, which you can't do as long as it's considered an enemy trooper. See the first few posts for more on why your opponent can't either.
     
    inane.imp likes this.
  19. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    10,817
    Likes Received:
    13,487
    Technically, if you dismount the TAG the TAG itself doesn't count as activated ("will not be considered" - anyone else thinks it ends prematurely? It's structured similarly in Spanish, btw) for the order so the Hack declaration itself is not allowed (I think that's what not considering a profile means...).
     
  20. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    5,996
    Likes Received:
    7,087
    Exactly: to expand on what you're saying, the OES for that is:

    1. Activate the TAG
    1.1. Spend order
    1.2. Declare Move, Dismount with the Pilot. The Pilot is now the active profile and the TAG is retroactively made not the active profile.
    2. Total Control is not a valid ARO, the ARO needs to be declared vs the active profile, that is the Pilot.
    Etc
     
    wes-o-matic likes this.
  • About Us

    We are a company founded in 2001 in Cangas (Spain), and devoted to design and manufacture games and figures. Our main product, Infinity the Game, was born with the ambition to satisfy the most demanding audience, offering the best quality.

     

    Why are we here?

     

    Because we are, first and foremost, players.

  • Quick Navigation

    Open the Quick Navigation