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

Question on Alert, delay, IMM and imp states

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

  1. xagroth

    xagroth Mournful Echo

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    6,037
    Likes Received:
    4,938
    Oh my, you did:
    upload_2020-10-19_20-25-8.png

    Please do remember that declaration of orders is made on steps 1.2 and 3, while the requirements are check on step 6 (resolution). If the IMM state prevents me from declaring anything but dodge or reset on steps 1.2 and 3, the peripheral can't declare something different to the controller, and Idle only enters into account here at Step 6 (resolution).

    Remember, from peripherals:
    ► Peripherals are always activated with the same Order as their Controller, executing the same Short Skills of the Order, or Entire Order, although they are not required to have the same target.

    And what you higlighted in green? Read the entire paragraph, it refers to whatever was declared by the "Controller and Peripherals", AND, not "or".

    This phrase does more to prove my argument right than anything short of Helllois saying so, you know.

    But I'm a good person, and I believe in educating through reason, and not some imaginary Ad Autoritas argument. Even in sight of a post placed only to murk the waters.

    1. The Seraph does not have the Peripheral rule. As such, the Seraph cares nothing for the Auxbot, or his plight with such rule.
    2. The Auxbot does have the Peripheral (Synchronized) rule, and as such must comply with its limitations.

    This means that if the auxbot is IMM A or B, the Seraph can declare whatever it wants, because the Seraph does not check the Peripheral rule. It's the Auxbot problem to keep up, and if the Seraph declares something the Auxbot is forbidden to declare, the Auxbot does not declare anything at all, and the rules do not cover such hole (step 1 OK, step 1.2 OK, step 1.2 KO, the activation is done but the sequence can't continue).

    I'm sorry, but we are talking about DECLARING. You need first to declare, then check if you can, and then perform either the action or, if you can't meet the requirements, an idle.

    Being in IMM state blocks you from declaring.

    Pg 21 rulebook, order expenditure sequence:
    ...
    1.2. Declaration of the First Skill: The Active Player declares the first Short Skill of the Order, or the Entire Order he wants to use.
    If movements are declared, the player measures where the Trooper can move, chooses the route, and places the Trooper at the final point of its movement.
    ...
    6. Resolution: Check that the declared Skills, Special Skills, and pieces of Equipment meet their respective Requirements, measure all distances and Zones of Control, determine MODs, and make Rolls. If any Skill, Special Skill, or piece of Equipment does not meet its Requirements, the Trooper is considered to have declared an Idle.

    If I'm limited in point 1, going for point 6 to allow me to do as I please on point 1 doesn't look right.

    He's not the rules creator, Erland, at most he collaborated with some rules; in N3 he was just the wiki curator, by his own words, and got the already translated english texts.

    Unless he wants to claim to speak with CB's official voice, that is, instead of just being a Warcor (which is merely a game's representative that makes demos, and not needs to even know how to play. I've met several that didn't knew how to play, and several that indeed knew... but forgot rules from time to time).

    Besides, making something does not mean it was made right, there is a reason Software Testing exists, or the programmers would write the perfect code on the first try ^^

    O si lo prefieres en español... no, Ian no ha escrito las reglas. Como mucho, alguna en concreto, sobretodo si comparamos n4 y n3. Y aunque podría ser interesante que dijese dónde ha metido mano, no estamos hablando de eso.
     
    RolandTHTG likes this.
  2. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    10,199
    Likes Received:
    12,766
    @xagroth IJW didn't claim you can declare A with controller and B with the peripheral, he claimed you can declare A with the peripheral even though the controller is in IMM-A/B and can't declare A. The difference is very important.

    As for your claim that the controller can declare a skill that the peripheral can't, it remains unsubstantiated. At best I'll give you that the rules implies that you can't declare Move with either if one of them is in IMM state, regardless of which one it is, but that's far too ridiculous to be correct.
     
    inane.imp likes this.
  3. Erland Hâkon

    Erland Hâkon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2020
    Messages:
    192
    Likes Received:
    163
    In matters of rules, I give Ian the same credit that Corvus Belli has given him ... they have added him as a co-author of the Rulebook:

    Captura de pantalla 2020-10-19 205550.jpg


    Maybe he wants to claim his participation in the Rulebook, or not ... but he's in the «credits».
     
    #23 Erland Hâkon, Oct 19, 2020
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2020
    Scarecrow88 likes this.
  4. ijw

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

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,029
    Likes Received:
    14,357
    This. I am not claiming that the two Troopers can declare different things, exactly the opposite. They must declare the same Order and Skills.

    I assume this is just a misunderstanding of previous discussions. I was involved in editing the N3 rules, and have said so publicly several times. This included restructuring rules which were then translated back into Spanish.

    With CodeOne and N4 I was more directly involved.

    @xagroth - this is a polite request. Please calm down. You are currently telling someone on the rules team that they don't know how a rule works, while repeatedly making logical errors, and even making false claims about what I've said. I don't know if any of this is a language issue (because your written English is very good), but this is not appropriate behaviour.

    cc @Koni @psychoticstorm @HellLois
     
  5. RolandTHTG

    RolandTHTG Still wandering through the Night

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2019
    Messages:
    205
    Likes Received:
    252
    I will say that as a native English speaker, I'm getting hung up on the same logic issue that Xagroth is.

    Maybe it's just a disconnect between the rules as intended and how I've conceptualized the intent, but a peripheral getting to act normally even as its controller is paralyzed from the effects of a taser hit, is no different from a peripheral continuing to act when the controller is in a Null state, even if only the second issues is spelled out as disabling the peripheral in the rules.
     
    ijw likes this.
  6. ijw

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

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,029
    Likes Received:
    14,357
    To some extent it's not about IMM State specifically, but about all situations where one of the Troopers involved has a limited list of Skills they can declare, including if one of them is in Engaged State. If an IMM State stops the Peripheral from declaring anything other than Dodge/Reset, Engaged State would stop an Überfallkommando Chimera from bringing Pupniks into the melee.

    Conceptually, Null States are much more serious than IMM-A or IMM-B, as it means the Trooper is either Unconscious, Dead, or has been taken over by the enemy! It's also worth bearing in mind that although Peripherals shut down when their owner does, they're not just mindless bits of equipment, even if they're not as autonomous as a Remote. Take the Reactive Turn, where (even taking Xagroth's arguments at face value) the Peripheral can declare AROs if the Controller is in an IMM State, because unless you choose to ARO with the Controller, the Controller isn't declaring any Skills.
     
    inane.imp, colbrook and RolandTHTG like this.
  7. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    10,199
    Likes Received:
    12,766
    Tangentially: does the same apply to Fireteams or are they hard locked to only what the leader can declare? Edit: in active turn that is
     
  8. ijw

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

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,029
    Likes Received:
    14,357
    As written, yes, which I’m not a big fan of. On the other hand, with a Fireteam you can at least swap to a different Team Leader and get around it that way.
     
    inane.imp and Mahtamori like this.
  9. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    10,199
    Likes Received:
    12,766
    Okay, thank you! It's a pity, prevents piling in when the main CC dude is locked.
     
  10. xagroth

    xagroth Mournful Echo

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    6,037
    Likes Received:
    4,938
    I am, and was, calm, yet vehement. There has not been any languaje issue on my side, neither has been any behaviour that violates any of the forum's rules.

    I've been trying to point out the flaws in your logic, while you simply say my logic is faulty, then go for an Ad Autoritas argument.
    I never changed what you said, I simply extrapolated from the Rules as Written with what you say: RAW the controller can only declare X, and you say that the servant can declare things the controller cannot. This means the servant can declare something different than the controller.

    And I've noticed you saying to be on the rules team, which is not the same thing as having the authority to settle rules matters on your own. That being said, you can claim such authority now and I will write no more.
     
  11. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    5,936
    Likes Received:
    6,993
    TBF when one is an authority and the rules are arbitrary then Ad Autoritas is not a fallacy, it is simply bending reality to ones will. When an authority says that an arbitrary thing is true, then it becomes true by virtue of their saying it. (Can someone build an @ijw Thanos Click meme, kktnx :P ).

    But - realistically - one of the underlying principles of N4 is "declare what you wilt, resolve only what's valid else Idle". Now I do agree that - unfortunately - IMM and other similar rules constrain declarations not resolution: I think that should be changed to explicitly align with the core principle.

    I can certainly see your point (hey, IMM says I can't declare Move and if I'm part of a group declaration then I declare what everything else does, so my restrictions should propagate to everyone else); but ultimately that's clearly not the intent. I do agree that FAQing anything that restricts declarations to "well, you're a permitted to declare it as part of a group declaration - it's just if you declare something that you weren't supposed to declare it's resolved as an idle". This would also work to solve the Fireteam Leader in the Engaged state wanting to declare Move issue.
     
    xagroth and Stampysaur like this.
  12. toadchild

    toadchild Premeasure

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    3,872
    Likes Received:
    7,338
    See also coordinated orders; I could include an IMM model and a non-IMM model in a single coordinated order of move-reset. Only one would move, but both would reset.
     
    inane.imp and Xeurian like this.
  13. Adra

    Adra Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2017
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    11
    This is good robust stuff. I must admit that I would have assumed that the IMM state on a Controller would limit both its actions and the actions of it Peripheral. That it does not is a nice little boost to Peripherals.

    I can just imagine a Doc frozen in place whispering to his Peripheral to run and get help! :)
     
  • 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