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

Stratuscloud Clarification question

Discussion in '[Archived]: N3 Rules' started by Wormy, May 28, 2019.

  1. DustGod

    DustGod Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2018
    Messages:
    241
    Likes Received:
    241
    I guess I'm just not seeing the issue here...
    Oh well moving on
     
    A Mão Esquerda likes this.
  2. Ogid

    Ogid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2018
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    755
    What is the point of stating that you cannot reactivate an instance of a state if that particular instance cannot be activated anyway because you are going to activate another instance of that state? That makes no sense, If that would be referring to that it would be misleading, a rule can be unclear but won’t try to actively trick players.

    A state is an altered condition that a model can be in, you are entering in the same altered condition, not in a different one. If it has the same name, does the same and is represented by the same marker then it IS the same state, you can’t say you are entering in a different state, is the same state. Look the states list, if you aren’t entering in the statuscloud state, in what state are you entering the second time you try to activate it?

    An IRL dumb example to ilustrate this: you go to the doctor, you enter in the doctor office eating a gigantic burger. The doctor say: “what are you doing? Your hearth is about to pop and you are eating that crap?? Once that burger cancelled, you cannot eat Burgers again.” You go home. The next week you go to that consult again and enter eating another gigantic burger. The doctor stares at you: “Didn’t I said that you cannot eat that again?” Then you respond, “No, you were refering to that burger instance, this is a totally different thing!” Does that makes any sense?
     
  3. Ogid

    Ogid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2018
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    755
    Nothing really, I guess that is supposed to be controlled by the unloaded state, because unless you reload it you cannot try to activate it again, but if a player reload it then it meets with that clause that seems to be like an extra security level.

    What it says is that you cannot activate it AFTER it is canceled, but if you play with 3 Draals you can activate the 3 with no problem unless one of them has canceled the state (so you would have to activate the 3 in the same turn). I do agree that make no sense, and that the RAI is that the limitation should be per model nor per player (so unless any of your opponents have a problem with that, play it that way), but RAW that is what the rules say.
     
    #63 Ogid, May 31, 2019
    Last edited: May 31, 2019
  4. Ogid

    Ogid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2018
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    755
    Good question, off the top of my head I'd go with the state being removed with the model, but I haven't revised the rules about this one
     
  5. DustGod

    DustGod Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2018
    Messages:
    241
    Likes Received:
    241
    My favorite part was when the cheeseburger killed the fat guy and the doctor could see it coming...
    Dumdumduuummmm:mask: (mystery noise)
    :nerd_face::hankey:
     
    A Mão Esquerda likes this.
  6. Ginrei

    Ginrei Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    428
    I agree that makes no sense. Which is why I disagree with your interpretation of what that final cancellation clause means. The activation rules for the state are absolutely pointless too, yet there they are.
    I agree that doesn't make sense. Because I find fault with your analogy. You're changing the words and creating a different meaning. Substitute the words with equivalent ones only. Noun for noun, verb for verb etc. You've replaced 'It', a pronoun, with 'Burgers', a plural noun. Compare the rule and your analogy side by side:
    • Once this state is cancelled, the player cannot activate it again.
    • Once that burger cancelled, you cannot eat Burgers again.
    (Edit, your analogy is referring to all burgers at the end. While the rule uses 'it', which would mean that exact burger you cancelled. They are two completely different things.)
    For your analogy to be equivalent is should read like this:
    • Once that Burger is cancelled, you cannot eat it again.
    Here's the analogy i would use because I think it's easier to follow:
    • Once this state is cancelled, the player cannot activate it again.
    • Once this shirt is removed, the player cannot wear it again.
    That rule does not prevent me from buying another equivalent shirt (using the Stratuscloud short skill), and wearing it (enter the Stratuscloud state). I think that's a more tangible analogy to understand. I couldn't think of a way to make the burger work. Eating the thing is so final.
    You only 'think' you know what the RAI and RAW mean. It's your opinion. There is a different interpretation of that rule for each possible meaning of the term 'this state'. Without a definition for that term in the rules, each interpretation is valid. We players just need to find and agree on the most plausible one until a ruling is made.
     
    #66 Ginrei, Jun 1, 2019
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2019
  7. Section9

    Section9 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    6,148
    Likes Received:
    9,666
    Because it is Disposable, therefore you can Reload it?

    If you cannot use it again even after Reloading, why the hell is it Disposable?!?



    There are several less-confusing ways to say that than making it Disposable. Say, by using the same phrasing as used in Active Albedo:
    • This state has a limited duration of two Turns, and once cancelled it cannot be reactivated.
    That would cover exactly the same apparently-desired game effects without confusing the hell out of people by using the words "Player" and "Disposable"!
     
    Wormy and ChoTimberwolf like this.
  8. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    12,018
    Likes Received:
    15,302
    Just my two cents;

    For me this is a difficult shot to call because on the one hand the "can not activate again" sentence makes no logical sense to even print if Disposable(1) can be Reloaded and reactivated because Disposable(1) should take care of that, but on the other hand it uses the same kind of mechanical logic as the Discover vs Markers does for each Marker State (which is different from what the Discover rule says - the limitation in the Discover rule makes perfect sense) where if you fail a Discover against a Hac Tao you may not attempt a Discover against that Hac Tao again this turn which if you apply the same logic as seems to be the case for Stratuscloud then you wouldn't be allowed to Discover the Hac Tao even after it re-TOs

    So what I'm saying is, there's no good consistent way of handling this that doesn't break logic.
     
  9. Ogid

    Ogid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2018
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    755
    The funny thing is that does more for supporting my claim than to counter it. You are right, I’m using Burgers, plural, but only because in English if you say “You cannot eat more burger”(singlular), refering to all the burgers and not to that particular burger, it is grammatically incorrect. But the game states in this game have no plural because for the game they are binary, you are in one state or you aren’t. You won’t find a single point in the rules where they say something like “A model in the suppressives fire states”, they can use the plural if they are talking about more than 1 different state but never if they are talking about the same. The control about if you are refering to all the cases or one particular case I controlled by what they say in the phrases. For example, going with the suppressive fire example again:

    Here they are refering to ALL the cases, every time an enemy trooper have to make a FtF roll against a trooper in Suppressive Fire they apply the -3 MOD. ALL the troopers in in SF replaces the BS weapon profile

    Here they refer to only the trooper because is what it is stated, If the trooper (that particular model) declares an Order the BF ends.
    Again, compare it with
    This is preventing the player to activate the state again once it is cancelled, creating the weird interaction described. If that clause where refering to a particular case then it would only apply to that particular case. If that would be joined with the clause above it then the meaning would change

    Now that is refering to that particular trooper case, which I think it is the intended behavior BUT we are not allowed to think, just to apply the rules.



    Totally fair, I’m not part of CB staff so this is only my opinion and I hope that some official source rule this. BUT what you got wrong is that you could interpret the rules as you decide to read them that day. That doesn’t work like that, there are only 1 way to read the rules, if after reading it that way you have doubts then ok, they can be discussed. But you cannot make wild guesses after reading a point, just read the point and apply what it says RAW.

    Also you don’t have to dig very deep to find an official source telling this works this way, in this same thread, one of the first ijw responses
    So, unless a bullet point uses something that link it with other bullet point it is considered a general statement that applies to the whole topic (program, state, ability…). So again, what does “Once this state is cancelled, the player cannot activate it again” mean?. As it is not refering to any particular instance of it, then it is a general statement that apply to the state as a whole, which is weird because no other state works like that and it’s likely a bug, but it is what the rules say RAW.

    So I’m just reading the rules the way they are supposed to get readed and interpreting them.

    Also about the states, you do have a definition of what an state is here and also a list of states, if you are entering in a stratudcloud state then go to that list, click in that enlace, read the rules and apply them. The rules for the state say that if that same state have been cancelled before you cannot activate it again. Hence you cant, again I’m just reading the rules and applying them.




    I agree that is weird that you are allowed to activate the equipment several times but the state just once, but that’s what the rules say and there is no way to go around that unless someone from CB FAQ or errata it. We can discuss if the cancelation clause refers to one model or the player but either way a model cannot activate it after it is cancelled RAW.
     
    ChoTimberwolf likes this.
  10. Ogid

    Ogid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2018
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    755
    Oh, You ninjed me before!

    I think that they wanted to create a kind of albedo effect but giving the player more control over the activation. Let’s compare the albedo and stratuscloud equipment and status:

    Albedo
    • Equipment: Automatic and obligatory during deployment, you must use it.
    • State duration (under effects): This state has a limited duration of two Turns, and once cancelled it cannot be reactivated.
    Stratuscloud
    • Equipment: Optional, you can use it during deployment BUT you can also activate it with actions
    • State duration (under cancelation): 2 points explaining how it is cancelled depending on how you activate it. An extra point indicating that you can shut it down voluntarily and an extra point saying (Once this state is cancelled, the player cannot activate it again.)
    Albedo equipment have only 1 trigger so clearly you cannot activate it twice but they also included the “once cancelled it cannot be reactivated” to make very clear that there is no way you can turn that on again (that is redundant, but makes no harm), and as it doesn't state player we can safely guess that is refering to the trooper as in any other state.

    Stratuscloud equipment can be activated with actions so it seems that they decided to limit its uses by including the Disposable(1), instead of that they could have included something that would prevent the player from using that ability a second time, but they went that way. Both are legit ways to design it, in one you can only press the button once, in the other if you reload it you can press that button more than once. So up to this point you have an equipment with one use but that can be activated twice if it gets reloaded.

    But they also included a statement that prevent a second activation of that state as they did with Albedo (Once this state is cancelled, the player cannot activate it again.) Probably the intended wording would be something like (Once this state is cancelled, the trooper cannot activate it again.), but let’s ignore that part because either way if you have once trooper with that ability the effect is the same. So now you have a button that can be pressed more than once if you reload the equipment BUT the state can only get activated once.

    So in game, you can reload it, you can spend the order and use the skill again, but when you try to activate the effect the cancelation clause triggers and prevent it to activate again. There is nothing broken there. Just the design choices are odd because you have the stratuscloud equipment that can be reactivated but the second time a trooper try to push that button nothing happens and I think that’s the only equipment that works that way.

    The other possible explanation is that they wanted Stratuscloud to be able to get reactivated so they included the Disposable(1), but then they kind of copy/pasted Albedo effect into Stratuscloud effect and the clause that prevents it to get activated again remained without no one noticing. But in this case we are assuming that the cancelation clause is a mistake, and doing that without no one from CB confirming it is risky.


    In the case of the CAMO markers and discover… I think that the key there is that the game doesn’t say that they track the CAMO markers after they leave the game board. So if the Hac Tao is discovered, that TOCAMO marker is removed from the game table. If then the Hac Tao decided to enter in a state again you are facing a different TOCAMO marker, so you are allowed to discover that new TOCAMO marker.
     
    ChoTimberwolf likes this.
  11. Section9

    Section9 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    6,148
    Likes Received:
    9,666
    Sure there is. Rewrite the freaking rule.

    • If you're supposed to be able to use StratusCloud once per model, remove the Disposable keyword and any mention of 'player', and use that bullet from Albedo about how the StratusCloud state lasts for two player turns and cannot be reactivated. Done, and very clear. (Note that I think this is how CB intended the rule to work, as a version of Albedo that can be started in the game instead of at deployment)
    • If you're only supposed to have one StratusCloud per army, write the rules to say that, like TriCore.
    • If you're able to reload and reuse StratusCloud, then remove that entire line that says the player cannot reactivate StratusCloud State.
     
  12. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    12,018
    Likes Received:
    15,302
    Yup. It's one of few situations where the fix is simply removing some text - it hasn't been destroyed because of attempts at saving on typographical space. Remove either Disposable or the line about preventing reactivation.

    I'm strongly leaning towards that you're not meant to be able to activate it more than once.

    Though, they still kind of need to clarify whether you can activate it on more than one model.
     
    ChoTimberwolf and Ogid like this.
  13. Ogid

    Ogid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2018
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    755
    100% agree, a rewrite would be great.

    But in that case while they are on it they could remove any rule that prevent a state from being activated again from those kinds of states descriptions. These effects are activated by the model’s gear, so let that gear handle those rules instead of the state itself to avoid these weirds “I can use the ability (equipment) but then effect doesn’t trigger so this make no sense”. The idea is this:
    • Equipment (can only trigger once) -> State
    Instead of the less intuitive:
    • Equipment (can trigger any number of times) -> State (can only trigger once)
     
    Section9 likes this.
  14. Ginrei

    Ginrei Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    428
    @Ogid I feel like I'm not getting my point across with the analogy, but i'll give it one more go. I'll concede removing the shirt as an instance is a little abstract. But a shirt we're wearing vs not wearing is equivalent to an active state vs a cancelled one. I'll try something easier to visualize:
    • Once this shirt is stained, the player cannot wear it again.
    We can still buy a new unstained shirt and can wear it just fine. That's about as clear as I can make it that the new Stratuscloud state is different than the previous one. So the rule preventing me from activating the previous one does not prevent me activating a new one.
    That is simply not true. If I ask you to bring me a bat... what do you bring me? There is more than one thing you can bring me to successfully fulfill my request. The term, 'this state' or 'it' also have more than one possible meaning whether you can see them or not. Those terms should be used as little as possible in a rule set, especially when the structure of the rule set is also very poor. Context helps us identify the meaning but it's not always crystal clear and certainly not always agreed upon among different people.
    You cannot be certain of that. You're assuming 'this state' is defined as every possible instance of the Stratuscloud state. When the term 'this state' can easily mean this particular instance of the Stratuscloud state being cancelled right now. I think the context supports the term as meaning this one instance and have given reasons why. You've given your own reasons why but I disagree with them and your interpretation is not the only possibility
    Again, there is another way to go around that as I've explained. Your interpretation is not the only possibility.
     
  15. Ginrei

    Ginrei Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    428
    This is where occam's razor seems to apply. For the state to only be used once per model you're assuming they made 3 errors. Making the skill reloadable, using the wrong term 'player' instead of 'model/trooper', and wrote a terrible explanation.

    Where as the theory that a single instance of the state can't be activated and deactivated at will, is based on 1 error of clarity. It just relies on following the context to conclude 'this state' only refers to this instance of the state.

    Nothing CB does surprises me, but I know with absolute certainty what i'd put my money on if forced to do so.
     
    Wormy likes this.
  16. Section9

    Section9 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    6,148
    Likes Received:
    9,666
    Yeah, it would also work if CB created a Single Use keyword that is separate from Disposable. Difference would be that Single Use is just that and cannot be reloaded, while something Disposable can be reloaded.

    In this case, CB would need to add Single Use to Albedo and StratusCloud (the two I know off the top of my head, are there any others?) and could then remove the bullets about how you cannot re-enter the state entirely because that's covered under Single Use.

    It would be more work to add the Single Use keyword, because they'd need to edit Albedo as well, but I think it would be the better way to go. Another big advantage is that Single Use as a keyword does what it sounds like (issue with old Total Immunity).
     
    Ogid likes this.
  17. Ogid

    Ogid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2018
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    755
    Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to say that a phrase only have 1 meaning, you can read something and understand a different thing, that’s totally fine. The issue is that you are ignoring the logic behind how the rules are written. Infinity rules are complex so is important to be strict when using the rulebook or you can end stuck in conclusions like that. Some 101 about infinity rules:
    • Each bullet point, unless it refers to other bullet point, is an independent rulling about that particular topic.
    • Unless a particular scenario or condition is described, the bullet point rule is a general case.
    So again, let’s compare 3 clauses about states:
    • The first one rule about a particular instance of SF (the trooper with SF active doing something), a particular instance of SF will get cancelled if that particular trooper declare an order.
    • The second one is ruling about all instances of SF, so it making a rule about how the state works. It doesn’t say that effect (-3 MOD) works in a particular condition we assume that It always works that way. So as long as a trooper has a SF state, enemy troopers that FtF him gets the -3.
    • Now the third one, our apple of discord. The “it” here is clearly referring to the state, so let’s translate the phrase: Once this state is cancelled, the player cannot activate this state again. Now we have to check when this applies, what does “this state” means? As there is nothing stated about it we have to assume that we are in a similar case than our second one. This is a general statement that regulates how this state (Stratuscloud) works, so it would apply to every single instance of this state. So this means: Once a instance of Stratuscloud is cancelled, the player cannot activate any instance of Stratuscloud.
    So yeah, I’m assuming that, but it’s an educated guess after knowing how the rules are written.


    I stated above why “this state” is making a general rule, but let’s analyze again this case. If after you cancel once instance of a state and is no longer in play you MUST activate a different instance of that state. What is the point of a rule saying:
    • After this model cancels this stratuscloud instance he cannot activate it (the same stratuscloud instance)” and leave implicit the important part that is
    • After this model cancel this stratuscloud instance he cannot activate it (the same stratuscloud instance) but it can activate other stratuscloud instances (as any other state, you know)”
    So this one can’t be the real one because it would be stating something that is true for every single state (you will activate a different instance of the same state) in a way that would confuse the players.

    Other thing that seems to confuse you is that you think that reloading the equipment suddenly make the activation of a new instance of stratuscloud legal, but that doesn’t work that way. Reloading the equipment only allows you to use that equipment again, and you can do it no problem, you can spend 10 orders reloading and activating it if you want. But when you resolve its effects (Activate the Steamcloud state) then you have to follow the Steamcloud state rules, that in this case prevent you to activate the state again.

    I really like this one, simple and very clear while keeping the "trigger block" in the equipment instead of in the state.
     
  18. Ginrei

    Ginrei Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    428
    How do you know when a bullet point refers to another bullet point instead of the topic? Is this defined somewhere in the rules?
    The point of the rule saying that is because the bullet point immediately preceding it says we can cancel the state without spending an Order or ARO. The next bullet is making it clear to us that we can't reactive the state for free even though we just cancelled it for free. This is the kind of context I'm talking about.
     
    #78 Ginrei, Jun 1, 2019
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2019
    Ogid likes this.
  19. toadchild

    toadchild Premeasure

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    4,262
    Likes Received:
    8,073
    I feel like this conversation is becoming a bit circular. There's clearly a lack of clarity on whether or not reloading works, and we're not going to be able to answer that unless it gets FAQed.
     
  20. Ginrei

    Ginrei Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    428
    If you want to leave the roundabout help me make sense of something. Troopers enter Game States based on what? Only when skills etc tell them to? Or when they meet the activation clause in any given Game State? I feel like I can meet the activation clause for the Stratuscloud state very easily with all my troopers.

    Dead
    Activation
    • If a trooper in the Normal state loses all the points of his Wounds/ Structure Attribute, and takes one or more extra points of damage, he enters the Dead state automatically.
    • If a trooper in the Unconscious state loses one or more points from his Wounds/Structure Attribute, he enters the Dead state automatically.
    Stratuscloud (State)
    Activation

    • Automatic during the Deployment Phase.
    • This state can be activated by expending one Short Movement Skill or ARO.
     
  • 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