1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hemos actualizado nuestra Política de Privacidad acorde con la nueva RGPD. +Info // We've updated our Privacy Policy to comply with the GDPR. +Info
    Dismiss Notice

[SOLVED] Immobilised and G:servant/Synch.

Discussion in 'Solved Rule Questions' started by Gwaernydd, Apr 16, 2018.

  1. Gwaernydd

    Gwaernydd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    44
    Likes Received:
    95
    Hi there!
    I hope this has not been asked, at least not recently, could not find it.
    If the Controller of a ghost servant or synchronised gets immobilised, can i still declare normal skills for the bot?Even repair its owner?
    The ghost rules state that isolated or null gets the bot disconnected, no mention of immo though. As i understand, although the imm state restricts you to certain skills, but the ghost rules say, that if one of the models cannot declare a particular skill, it´s an idle. so i declare a move+engineer, and the immo-d trooper does idle+idle, while the servant repairs him. or in the case of synchronised, the synch can run around doing stuff as long as it remains in coherency.
    Is this interpretation correct?
    Thank you in advance
     
  2. Zewrath

    Zewrath Nordic Master

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2017
    Messages:
    1,307
    Likes Received:
    1,885
    You are correct. :)
     
  3. Arkhos94

    Arkhos94 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    1,412
    Likes Received:
    1,341
    I disagree

    Ghost servant rules say this :
    The Doctor/Engineer and the G: Servant trooper must declare the same Order, declaring the same Short Skills of the Order. However, it is not compulsory that they have the same target.
    If either trooper is not able to perform the Order (whether the Entire Order or both Short Skills of the Order), then that trooper will perform an Idle, while the other trooper will perform his complete Order normally.

    Imm-1 rules say this :
    Troopers in this state cannot declare Attacks nor any Short Skills other than Reset, Regeneration, Sensor, AutoMediKit, or those that state so explicitly in their description.

    So there is no interaction between the two. Imm-1say the engineer is forbidden to declare the skill. You can't fulfill the bullet point of the Ghost servant rules so no move nor engineer for your trooper and his bot

    Subject was discussed on the old forum without reaching a consensus one way or the other : http://infinitytheforums.com/forum/topic/49396-immo-2-engineer-with-servant-bot/?page=2
     
    Wolf and Barrogh like this.
  4. ijw

    ijw Wargaming Trader, Freelance Editor (UK)
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    5,241
    Likes Received:
    10,641
    'If either trooper is not able to perform the Order' should cover it.
     
    chromedog, inane.imp and xagroth like this.
  5. macfergusson

    macfergusson Van Zant is my spirit animal.

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2017
    Messages:
    885
    Likes Received:
    1,304
    That the Servant remote can move around while the controller is Immobilized seems reasonable to me, however I have concerns about the part where they supposedly can perform an Engineer roll on the Immobilized Engineer. It is explicitly stated that the Servant does not perform the Engineer roll, it is the controller with the Engineer skill that is performing the skill. The servant just extends the range. So if the Engineer is Immobilized, how is it able to perform the Engineering skill via the Servant? The Servant doesn't have any way to perform the Engineering skill without the controller, and the controller can't perform that skill while immobilized.
     
  6. xagroth

    xagroth Mournful Echo

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    5,708
    Likes Received:
    4,591
    Same way an AHD totally controls an enemy TAG with a gameboy... space magic :p
    Also, that "engineer skill" is something like "release the antiglue"... I wouldn't be surprised if the menu was tracking the engineer's eyes.

    Incidentally, from the wiki:

    • The Doctor/Engineer and the G: Servant trooper must declare the same Order, declaring the same Short Skills of the Order. However, it is not compulsory that they have the same target.
    • If either trooper is not able to perform the Order (whether the Entire Order or both Short Skills of the Order), then that trooper will perform an Idle, while the other trooper will perform his complete Order normally.
    • If either trooper is not able to perform one of either Short Skills of the Order, then that trooper will perform only the Short Skill he is able to perform, and the other Short Skill will be an Idle. While the other trooper will perform his complete Order normally.
    That third bullet point that got somehow removed from Arkhos' quote spells it out VERY clearly ;)

    So yeah, in Hunting Party you can use your engineer's servants to free said engineer. However, remember both will generate ARO, so that engineer might eat a buller while he's trying to free himself XD
     
  7. macfergusson

    macfergusson Van Zant is my spirit animal.

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2017
    Messages:
    885
    Likes Received:
    1,304
    That doesn't spell it out clearly at all, because the Servant does not have the Engineer skill, and it doesn't perform that part of the order. The Engineer performs the Engineer skill, whether via his own body or remotely using the Servant's body, but the Engineer skill is not a valid skill while Immobilized. So if you declare Move, and the Engineer is glued down, the Servant is able to Move around, because of the bullet point you highlighted. That's not really the same thing when the second half of the order is "Engineer skill" because the Servant can't perform that without the Controller.


     
    #7 macfergusson, Apr 16, 2018
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2018
  8. Arkhos94

    Arkhos94 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    1,412
    Likes Received:
    1,341
    I removed it because i made the difference between declare and perform.

    If the engineer cannot declare the order (because of imm-1), the third bullet point has no importance : if the engineer cannot declare it, both cannot declare it (as obligated with ghost servant) so we never reach the "performing" step.

    To put it simply, if you are not allowed to say "I use engineer with my sophotec" then you won't use engineer
     
  9. solkan

    solkan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2017
    Messages:
    744
    Likes Received:
    1,258
    As pointed out in the other thread, the pre-condition for declaring Engineering is being in base contact with something.
    The primary use of the Servant is declaring Engineering when that requirement isn't met by the Engineer. So why do think that works, but not violating the other condition?
     
    inane.imp likes this.
  10. Teslarod

    Teslarod Trebuchet Enthusiast

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    1,298
    Likes Received:
    2,600
    Didn't we already have this? The Servant is performing the Skill, the Engineer is just rolling for it.

    Thanks to this Special Skill, a trooper with G: Servant can cancel the Unconscious state of another trooper, recover STRpoints, and perform all the capabilities of the Doctor and Engineer Special Skills, even though they lack them.

    All this part means
    However, when using this Special Skill, it will be the Doctor/Engineer who makes the corresponding Roll.
    is that you use the Engineer's WIP and you need to be able to make the roll (= need to have the Engineer/Doctor Skill).

    In between explicitly stating a G:Servant is able to perform the Doctor/Engineer Skill and attributing the correspondent Roll it should be pretty clear who uses the Skill. (The answer is both seperately, but the Engineer/Doc makes all the WIP rolls)
     
    inane.imp likes this.
  11. xagroth

    xagroth Mournful Echo

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    5,708
    Likes Received:
    4,591
    Objection: Spanish rulebook uses "to realize" ("realizar"), not "declare", when defining the actions of an IMM-1 troop (which are referenced from IMM-2, the only difference is how to remove the state).

    Further clarification would be required from CB, since no version of the rulebooks has been indicated as "having priority" when contradicting each other.
    It is necessary to consider, however, that IJW worked from a source of text that was not the one used to print the Spanish rulebook (I'd bet that CB made some tweaks and forgot to tell him), and that the native language of the makers of the rulebook is Spanish (which, at least in my eyes, gives more weight to that version of the rulebooks and FAQs, since it's how they write it first).

    That's because no Trauma Doc/engineer would roll directly on PanO otherwise, since their Servants have better WP, and yo would be nerfing all WP14+ Doctor or Engineers, forcing a rebalance of point costs on the servants or a change of their stats... which would be a chaos since there are factions with varied WP medics/engineers (Haqquislam, Aleph...).
    Simplest and most elegant solution is that the Servitor uses the controller's WP when rolling said controller skill, but not for things like Discover...
     
    Barrogh likes this.
  12. Barrogh

    Barrogh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2017
    Messages:
    1,873
    Likes Received:
    1,603
    @xagroth
    It'd be awesome if you would perhaps keep a list of found discrepancies between English and Spanish rulebooks. Would be a good idea to address CB with it for resolution, eventually.

    Can we ask you this? :)
     
  13. xagroth

    xagroth Mournful Echo

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    5,708
    Likes Received:
    4,591
    I can take notes about that, since it seems I'm the one mentioning those, but I doubt that they will be addressed before a theoretical N4 edition.
     
    m2cat, Section9 and Barrogh like this.
  14. macfergusson

    macfergusson Van Zant is my spirit animal.

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2017
    Messages:
    885
    Likes Received:
    1,304
    And if the rule text had said that, it would make sense. But that's not what we ended up with...
     
  15. xagroth

    xagroth Mournful Echo

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    5,708
    Likes Received:
    4,591
    You are aware that "it's the engineer who makes the roll" does not mean the engineer is "possessing" the servant to enact the repairs, don't you? If it were just that, then there would be zero reason for the servants to not be shared among doctors and engineers. The explanation is essentially that, from fluff, the engineer/doctor has his preferred "programs" and subroutines to diagnose and repair loaded in the servitor, and another engineer/medic would not be able to make head from tails from that. And from the crunch's perspective it's even simpler: it is the most clear way to express that the servant is an extension of the engineer/medic, that all servants have the same cost, and that you use the engineer/medic's WP and not the bot's.

    Now, if you want to drag that little bit of "since it's the controller who makes the roll, then you can't repair 2 STR at once from a TAG if repairing it with both the servant and engineer", be my guest, but that would be derailing the thread.
     
  16. macfergusson

    macfergusson Van Zant is my spirit animal.

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2017
    Messages:
    885
    Likes Received:
    1,304
    You keep trying to draw fluff explanations into a rules discussion, which is entirely pointless. And how do you know that the engineer is not essentially "possessing" the servant? The reason the servants aren't shared around is that they are tied via Ghost programming to their controller, just like G:Synch, or even G:Remote Presence (tied to their remote operator off the board).

    It is obviously NOT the "most clear way" to express it since it repeatedly comes up as an area of confusion and has never been officially clarified as far as I'm aware.
     
    Hecaton and toadchild like this.
  17. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    3,740
    Likes Received:
    4,224
    That's because the answer is always the same and usually comes in the first couple of posts: 'yes they can'.

    The real solution is to rebuild the 'these questions have already been answered' thread from the old forums.
     
    xagroth likes this.
  18. macfergusson

    macfergusson Van Zant is my spirit animal.

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2017
    Messages:
    885
    Likes Received:
    1,304
    Sorry, could you please source the official clarification that this is correct and allowed? I can't find it.
     
  19. Wolf

    Wolf https://watchwolf.net

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2017
    Messages:
    852
    Likes Received:
    1,011
    There used to be a concise summary of answered topics; could we maybe see a return of that initiative?

    (And it doesn’t matter if things are not resolved - a summary of those situations would still be extremely useful)
     
  20. xagroth

    xagroth Mournful Echo

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    5,708
    Likes Received:
    4,591
    *shrug* good luck summoning official answers to each an every question that requires a deep reading on the rulebooks. We are still waiting on official answers about differences in translation regarding at least three points of the rulebooks... and that's just between spanish and english.
     
    Hecaton likes this.