Great! We are getting to the core of the problem. I’m not sure if that is stated explicitly in the rules. If it’s not, it should be printed in red in the cover of every new rulebook. But you have an official response in this same thread from ijw that I quoted before, there he explains how that works. If there is any connector you can link them, if not they are water-tight compartment. Now our issue. If these 2 phrases would be in the same bullet point or a connector would make possible to “parse” both together then we would be with this And that would change the whole picture because now we would have only 3 points and now the cancelation clause would be included in that particular case (the trooper voluntarily canceling that instance) and won’t affect any of the other 2. So “This state” could be refering to that particular case and not making a new general rule to the state itself. And in that case I’d agree with your interpretation that this is saying that you cannot reactivate the same instance once it is cancelled but you could activate other one. It definitely could be that, but as I said unless CB FAQ or errata something you have to go with the RAW, and now with the 4 points the "Once this state is cancelled, the player cannot activate it again." is negating any future activation in all cases. You can enter in states after using skills, failing BTS rolls, getting enough wounds… it’s depends on the state. You cannot activate stratuscloud for free based on that in all your models in the deployment phase or using a random ARO if that is what you are thinking. EDIT: After checking them it's true that the activation clause of some states (particularilly the ones that are Gear/skill based like the symbionte armour, holoproyector, albedo or stratuscloud) are a bit too general, It seems like they are making the asumption that we know that those are gear based and we know that they cannot be activated without said gear but it's true that it should be more specific.
Sure. At this point, we are discussing ways to write the FAQ/rewrite the rule, depending on how the rule is supposed to work.
The only valid interpretation does not have to be the one you say it is. Nothing you have said invalidates my interpretation. I have ONE trooper with Stratuscloud equipment. I'll use ONE short skill to activate it. I'll place ONE marker next to my trooper to show it enters this state. When I choose to cancel this ONE state myself, I'll remove this ONE marker and not activate this ONE state again because the rules say so. The term "this state" and "it" are, imo, referring to that one state that is being cancelled. If this rule: Once this state is cancelled, the player cannot activate it again. Instead said this: Once this state is cancelled, the player must remove its marker from the table. According to your logic, wouldn't you have to remove all Stratuscloud markers from the table? Or would you remove just the one because that's the obvious context here? Camo rules say this: Whenever the Camouflaged state is canceled, replace the Camouflage Marker (CAMO) with the trooper's model, facing whatever direction the owning player chooses. According to your logic, once a single marker is cancelled, we'd have to replace all markers with their troopers model. We don't because "The", "It". "This" are all referring to the singular instance being cancelled. Your interpretation would mean so many rules would have a scope beyond their individual instances it's scary to think about. Exactly. The rules are frail. They can break under the slightest bit of pressure. Applying any rigid structure and logic to them will fail.
Is your point that the state doesn't say that you need to possess the associated skill/equipment? That's pretty common across most game states. Generally a skill will tell you that you are allowed to activated the state. http://infinitythewiki.com/en/Camouflaged Activation Automatic in the Deployment Phase. During their Active Turn, troopers with CH: Camouflage may revert to the Camouflaged state by expending one Entire Order while outside enemy LoF. etc What you're looking for is: http://infinitythewiki.com/en/Stratuscloud EFFECTS By spending one Short Movement Skill or ARO it allows the user to enter the Stratuscloud (State) state. Also, this piece of Equipment allows the user to deploy in the Stratuscloud (State) state. During the game, it allows the use of the Stratuscloud (State) state. Or http://infinitythewiki.com/en/Camouflage_and_Hiding_(CH)#CH:_LEVEL_2._CAMOUFLAGE EFFECTS During the Deployment Phase, allows the user to deploy in the Camouflaged state. During the game, allows the user to be in the Camouflaged state. Dead is pretty much the only exception to this pattern. And to be perfectly frank, I'm not willing to debate whether or not models can legally enter the dead state.
But I did, I’ve explained you that the right way to read the rules is the one described by ijw: each point is a water-tight compartment unless the rules links them with other bullets points. That invalidate your interpretation because for that one to makes sense you will have to join 2 bullets points. Before when you didn't know how to read the bullet point you had an excuse, but at this point this is just you being stubborn. I’ll make one last try. RAW, the last 2 points are general clauses, the third one is telling you a way to cancel voluntarily it (which may be relevant if for example you want to shoot with another model), the fourth one is making a general rule about the state (Once this state is cancelled, the player cannot activate this state again). That general rule is talking about all cases, no exceptions. As I explained in other posts if you try to say that is only applying to the state being cancelled, you would be pointing something that apply to all states in a confusing way, so even if you initially felt that could be the right one, after you think about it you can see that can’t be. Now you can say, I think that’s a mistake and those 2 bullets belong together (you romantic!). In that case the (Once this state is cancelled, the player cannot activate this state again) would only apply to what is described in the bullet point. As it is describing a case in which you decide to end the effect before it ends, this is reminding you that once you end that particular instance you cannot turn it on even if it could be on until the end of the turn for example. Could be this the intended one and the actual text just a typo? Yes. And if this would be this way, then the disposable trait would make sense, so this is a quite good possibility. Can you join 2 independent bullet points to make that a rule does what you think it should do? No, RAW the state doesn’t do this, so until CB say something this is just a hypothesis. That’s reduction to the absurd, context is everything, so yeah, you should sort among the options and see what is the more likely. If after that you have doubts then we are more than happy to help you with that. But I feel like it today, I’ll play to your game: Once this state is cancelled, the player must remove its marker from the table.: Let’s assume this is in an isolated bullet point, in that case this would be talking about a general case. Every time this state is cancelled you have to remove its marker for the table. “Its marker”? A marker is a piece that is used to indicate each state instance so what this is saying is: Once a instance of this state is cancelled, you remove the marker that is that is indicating that instance. Pretty easy one. Also this case isn’t like the state one. Marker does have a plural because is each one is marking a instance. Stratuscloud is a state, you are in Stratuscloud or not. Stratuscloud markers are the pieces that indicate the particular instances, you can have 100 markers that indicate whether a unit is in stratuscloud or not. So if you are talking about a marker (singular) you are talking about one particular instance, if you talk about markers (plural) then you are talking about several instances. States are only singular and you will talk about all instances when you are in a general case or about a particular case if that’s what is rulling that bullet point (This trooper…) So, for a general rule to say that after a state is cancelled you have to remove all the markers from board you will need this: Once this state is cancelled, the player must remove all markers from the table. Now that is telling us that after any instance of the state is cancelled we must remove every single of the marker of said state from the table. Would that makes sense? For the states that we have right now no, but let’s imagine that a new state is representing a new rule for Aleph in which a powerful IA may empower different units, but with the disadvantage that if one unit dies or is isolated (let’s say those are cancelation clauses of that state) then the IA suffers a backlash and is expelled, forcing all instances of that state to end. The idea is forcing the player to choose if they want to buff only his top dog models and make that buff harder to remove or if he wants to buff a few more units at the cost of making that buff easier to remove for the adversary if he decide to hunt one of the weaklings buffed. I don’t agree with this one. Infinity rules are one most solid and complex systems that I’ve come across, and I’ve played a LOT of different games. Of course you can try to break any system by rules lawyering, but as I showed you in this thread this system holds quite well. Don’t get me wrong here, there is room for improvement and some effort should be done to make the game more accessible for newbies and to clarify rules that may create confusion. But it is perfectly playable, mostly coherent, and offers a lot of tactical options. Just for fun, let’s go back to the burgers to see the difference between a general case and a particular one: *You enter in the doctor office eating a rooten burger* Doc: Man, don’t you see that burger meat is green, have worms inside and stinks?? Thow it away and don’t touch that burger anymore!! *A week later you go to the doctor again eating a burger* Doc: Ey, that burger looks delicious! There is nothing wrong with you eating that burger! *pull out Occam’s razord* Now leave it in my desk, very slowly *enter in the doctor office eating a burger* Doc: Man, I don’t know how your heart is still pumping, Burgers are bad for you so thow that away and don’t eat burgers again!! *A week later you go to the doctor again eating a burger* Doc: If you want to kill yourself there are better ways, you know. You: Why? Doc: Didn’t I say that you can’t eat more burgers? You: Weren’t you refering to that particular burger? *2 hours of discusions about general cases, singular and plural use, booleans, logic plus advanced equations to solve the question* Doc: “hehehe” You: Doctor, are you Ok? Doc: “heheHEHEHEHEHAHAHAHAHA” *pull out Occam’s razord* You: Doctor? What the hell!?? No, NO, NOOOOOO *in the newspapers the next day* Patient forced to watch how Dr Occam stabbed his hamburger to 100 times. Said doctor lost touch with reality and has been ingresed in an asylum, he was found writing “the hamburger uncertainty principle”. Patient’s only words to this newspaper were: “But it was a totally different thing”. He died from a heart attack a few minutes later.
My point is, this is a rather large flaw in how the rules function. If the only way to enter the Dead State is to meet its activation conditions, it stands to reason troopers can enter any Game State so long as they meet the relevant activation conditions. I'm not going to argue troopers can enter all those Game States so easily, that would be stupid, even if RAW allow it. But I'm not going to excuse how stupidly the rules are written. The writers have shown on countless occasions they cannot be trusted to create a set of rules with a concrete structure to follow. Yet it continues to amaze me how much players will defend the rules as only having one possibly interpretation, their interpretation. I don't care which side this is fixed from, but it should be fixed. If activation clauses are not meant to be used as a guideline on how to enter Game States, remove them and fix the Dead State. Or write the activation clauses so they work. But, you didn't. You have not shown any concrete way to determine when a bullet refers to another bullet. Wait just a second... was IJW supposed to come with my copy of the rule book as well? More importantly, the term "this state" and all others like it, have the same problem whether a bullet point is a water-tight compartment or not. Do all those bullet points refer to the individual state being affected or every existing and future state. I think it's the individual because context supports it and the rules would be in an even bigger mess if it didn't. I have to give CB credit here because I think they're smart enough to know that. If I'm stubborn, you're also stubborn, what's the difference? I've admitted RAW can support both arguments but I'm going to follow my interpretation. You're adamant the only possible interpretation is your own. I know which one appears more open minded to me. I disagree. When I use a skill and activate a state I follow the rules in the order they tell me to. Nothing about that last cancellation clause suggests it's scope is beyond the individual instance of the state. There are no rules specifically telling me to go beyond it. And in the absence of any definitive term I'm going to default to what the context suggests. Which is the individual instance of the state. If it said 'this marker' you'd still only remove the individual marker. For Stratuscloud, "it" refers to "this state", you've said so yourself. So surely that rule is only referring to the individual state as well. I stopped reading here. We have nothing else to say to one another.
"It" (the state) is not a single physical object, it's an unknown quantity. Just like "sand" is not a specific grain, nor a definitive amount. Just like referring to the feeling of being tired isn't a specific object, but a state of being with no predefined time.
Check the first ijw post this thread, you have an example right there of 2 bullets linked. No, you don’t need ijw to figure that out, but it’s nice to have a confirmation from someone that worked in the rules that it works like that. The funny thing is that you are complaining that ijw confirmed that but I’m sure that if I didn’t cited him, you would be saying that there is no proof that the bullet points works like that. I still don’t see what is so hard to understand about “this state” and the 2 context it can be in. If the wiki page is talking about Streamcloud, then this state is Streamcloud. If the bullet point is stating a particular case, then the rule is only applied in that particular case. If there is no context then the rule will apply always always to that state. It’s not rocket science! And I have explained why RAW yours have no sense and I have also explained what change in the rules text is needed for yours to be the correct. We are not reading tea leaves. And this right here is the problem. That line can’t be clearer. It’s stating: After stratuscloud is cancelled, the player cannot activate stratuscloud again. We can discuss if this have more or less sense as a general rule but what this mean can’t be clearer. Is this ruling about any particular case? No, then it applies always. And yet you think that the meaning is: After this instance stratuscloud is cancelled, the player cannot activate this same instance of stratuscloud but can activate any future instance of stratuscloud. Reread the part about why markers (plural) is a thing and stratusclouds (plural) is not. I’m sorry if I annoyed you, I was just trying to help you to figure this out, and I mean it. But at this point I’d need puppets to explain it clearer so yeah, better leave it here. That's a dangerous path, I have been trying to explain that for 3 pages.
Yes, but how we use the word (context) defines that quantity. If I hold my hand out with one grain of sand (or one grouping) and say, Once this sand is dropped it cannot be picked up again. I'm clearly referring to that one grain (or grouping/selection, again context). Nothing stops us getting more sand from somewhere else. The entire context of the rule is about a single instance of Stratuscloud. We created one instance and the rules tell us how to deal with that one instance. It tells us by explaining how we deal with any one instance of the state.
No, that is the context of your claim, not that of the rule. We do not know if the rule refers to the specific state, the state as a universal abstract, or even if "it" refers to the skill - which is why clarification is necessary. However, I'm fairly certain I won't be surprised at what that FAQ entry would say.
Exactly. Which is why my claim is a valid one. I've said more than once already all those possibilities exist. I simply stated which i believed it to be. Yet you pointed out that, "It" (the state) is not a single physical object" challenging my claim. It would seem more on point to challenge the person claiming they know exactly what the only possibly interpretation can be.
Except he isn’t wrong. There really aren’t so that many (If any) game systems, with that level of complexity that also functions as well. I’d certainly be interested in hearing any other game with the same complexity work this well. Most rules actually function totally fine and most disputes comes from complex scenarios that take ages to find, (although others aren’t). I think this is the root of the perceived toxic nature of your posts. If any ruling is dubious, the most rigorous of the forum users will go out of their way, and be diligent enough, to either extrapolate or contextualise the wording of the ruling to fit the nature of the already established rules structure. This means, for the most part, they follow the basic principles of argumentation. You, on the other hand, for the last couple of weeks that I’ve seen your posts in various threads, merely present your statements, assuming you’ve done a good enough job of explaining your position enough and proceed to be prone to being either hostile or snarky towards criticism or rebuttals of your arguments. When you’re presented with counter-arguments, you seem to not engage with what’s actually being presented towards you but rather look for ways you can establish/overpower your own postulates onto the counter-argument, which means you aren’t addressing the issue on its merit, so when you cannot establish your argument as solidly as the counter part you dismiss them as appeal to popularity, lest you’d be forced to ever self reflect and improve your argument or, even worse, being forced to concede even parts of your arguments. It has occurred to me, though, that there’s beautiful irony in all your recent posts. You have been very vocal about how CB is to blame for how they aren’t clear enough in their rules and if many people read their rules poorly, it’s the fault of the writers of CB. I’d say the same applies to your posts, as infinity isn’t an ideology that can’t be challenged. Their have been numerous of instances, where people have changed on their position on a dime, due to convincing arguments, because the goal of the rules forums is to find either the correct or most commonly accepted ruling that abides by the structure of the rules, it isn’t about being petty or vain. There aren’t so many people commonly rejecting your arguments or rulings out of spite, pride or arrogance, there are so many people commonly rejecting you because your arguments are (mostly) bad and even further undermined by the fact that you seem to deem it necessary to engage in hostile behaviour, towards people you disagree with, while also holding them in contempt. Hope you improve yourself. God only knows how many times I had to embarrass myself on public forums before I learned to improve. Have a good nights sleep! - Zewrath
Rereading myself I admit that I was a bit inflexible back there, let me qualify what I said. I’m not saying that is what the rule is intended say, but that right now is what the rules RAW mean. After they FAQ it, the rule will probably be as @Ginrei say because it would fit with both that weird statement about the player that looks like it belongs to the bullet point above it and with the equipment being disposable. But right now, assuming that the rules text is right, we only have 3 real possibilities: Once this state is cancelled, the player cannot activate it again. It being a single instance of statuscloud. Rules about particular cases are introduced not talking about the state in general but a particular case (this trooper…), but let’s ignore that. The worst part about this is that this statement would add nothing to this rulling, you could remove this line from the rule and its functionality won’t change. So, why is it there? It being a new general rule to the state. This is congruent with how the rules are written but again let’s ignore that. This would also add a new functionality to this state. It being something else (the equipment, the ability…). As those wasn’t introduced before in this phrase, those would have been stated especifically. For that I’m pretty sure that, if the rules are correct right now, the number 2 is the one. But if anyone think RAW mean something else, that's fine, I don't want to be a rules nazi :P Now I’m going to remove my RAW guy hat. Let’s say that I’m going to play with a friend that has tohaa, in that case I’d ignore the RAW because there is something clearly wrong in this case, and if he would want to reload that and use that several times it would be fine for me because odds are that is the intended functionality (and also if he want to use his actions to move his drone to reload his Draal instead of attacking me, he can be my guest) I was playing the devil’s advocate (more like the rule's advocate) role here, but maybe I went too far and heated up more than I should so sorry for that. Let’s chill and just wait for CB to clarify this.
Thanks. I also find it fun to play devil's advocate. I don't need to provide examples of similar systems to show that Infinity has too many flaws of its own. The examples speak for themselves. Remind me how many rules questions and clarifications exist. How do Game States activate so the rules aren't completely broken, that sounds very basic to me. How many times have videos of games had no errors in them? Everyone else look away. Completely off topic and personal, but hey, I didn't start it. If you want to go down this road, I'll oblige you. You, for the last couple of weeks have shown yourself incapable or unwilling to grasp the concepts presented. Rather than ask questions to improve your understanding of the opposing argument, you prefer to speak out of ignorance and malice. You are not objective and make far too many assumptions. You can't refute the facts presented and prefer to attack the poster themselves. You destroy what you can't understand. Did I exaggerate, a little, but i like to paint pretty pictures. You reap what you sow and I'm not one to let it slide. I'll stand up to bullies like you. The difference is I don't do so politely and I'm going to retaliate. You seem to get some perverse pleasure out of provoking me. Yes, i hold you in contempt. My experiences with you have brought me to that conclusion. If you're not willing to present an argument or facts about the topic at hand, go away. If you want to preach at me, send me a pm. Or do you want to have it out here and get the thread closed or one of us banned? I'd also say your days of embarrassing yourself aren't quite behind you yet.
1. I really haven’t engaged with any of your posts for the last couple of weeks, so you’re having an obvious fever dream. In fact my last post to you was over a month ago. 2. My last response literally quoted factual structured rules, in which you proceeded to turn hostile, despite the fact that my post had no hostile content. 3. The bolded part is deliciously proving my point. You have a borderline insane view of any opposing arguments, you’re actually admitting that you view counter-arguments as bullying and something that needs to retaliating against. Right, so you got nothing then.
My problem with your line of reasoning is that you set up a hypothesis that the rule refers to the specific instance of the state when it declares it can not be activated again, but since one of the premises of reading this rule is that a state when viewed as a specific entity can never be reactivated because when you activate a state you gain a new instance thereof. Thus you have set up a logical tautology where A is the premise and you assume A, thereby you're not able to prove A because it doesn't matter how your proof is set up. Typically this is a sign that your assumptions are wrong, so since a specific instance of a state is forever gone when it is cancelled, it is a logical assumption to make that the "it" and "stratuscloud" the rule refers to is the rule itself and not the specific instance of said rule. However, we are left without knowledge whether it is the rule as applied to the unit or the rule as applied to the game.
Exactly, this is the real question. RAW it prevents the player to activate it again, which as a general rule would prevent any future activation in every model of its army, which is weird because it doesn't makes sense with how this is supposed to work. This rule is tied to a piece of gear that the models are carrying, so the activation of one of them shouldn't have any effect in the others. But strictly RAW this is what the rule say. It's logical to asume then, that this should refer to the trooper, so I think that it's fairly safe to play it like that, however as it is not supported by the rules RAW but an official confirmation that change that sentence into something like this is needed: Once this state is cancelled, the trooper cannot activate it again. Once this state is cancelled, the player cannot activate it again in the same trooper. But even assuming this we still have the Disposable(1) thing, if they only wanted that equipment to trigger just once then it's odd to give the equipment the ability to get reloaded and then include a clause in the effect that limits future activations, ending with the only equipment that can be used multiple times but that its effects will only trigger once. So this open a third posibility, that the phrase of the discord (Once this state is cancelled, the player cannot activate it again.) belongs to the bullet point above (or just never wasn't inteded to be there in the first place), in which case it would let the skill be used a second time after it is reloaded and it would also solve the player not being able to activate again thing as a general rule. I'd say the third posibility is the RAI, but we can't be sure of which one is the right one yet.
I can't say I've heard the term 'logical tautology' before. Its definition and what you've described don't look like the same thing. How does that relate to the validity of my argument... You'll have to be more specific. Rules don't have another function just because we believe the rule as written doesn't really do anything on its own. If nearly every rule had a necessary purpose I might agree, but they don't. So I disagree 100% with your 'logical assumption'. There are many examples of redundant rules in this game. Broken rules we ignore. Rules used for emphasis or clarity. I think this one was used for clarity. I agree... the "it"or "this state" does refer to the rule itself. But it's the game/rules themselves that treat them as instances. Let me try to make this distinction clear. The rules for a single Game State like Stratuscloud are telling players how all of the troopers in this state are affected. The rules are not telling us to apply the results of individual interactions with this state to all other identical states we have active. When something happens and one state is changed, we don't change all identical states active do we? Of course not, the rules must tell us to specifically do something so drastic. So why are we trying to say this cancellation effect of the Stratuscloud state is telling us to do something so drastic? There may not be any immediate consequences for all active states on the table, but we are changing how the state functions for everyone in our army list. This is a scope I don't think the basic functionality of the rules support. Edited for spelling.
I just used your same words. I wasn't going to figure out when we last spoke. It wasn't worth it or relevant. But you're correct, we last spoke much further back. Glad we cleared that up lol. I originally included this within my statement that you make assumptions, but I guess it needs to be said. You love to put words in other peoples mouths. I don't consider counter arguments bullying. You started this, so I'd appreciate it if you finished it.
I'm not sure I want to admit that I used to play Star Fleet Battles (1-12 ships per player, TOS Trek boardgame), but there it is, the granddaddy of all overcomplex rules. Some 500+ pages of rules, plus ~1000 pages of scenarios and ~2500 pages of ships. All rules interactions are explicitly defined and written in all places, or at least a short version with a reference back to the main rule for the system where the interaction is fully detailed. Winning a game of SFB comes down to 'who better remembered some obscure rule'. Definitely not my thing anymore. There's also Attack Vector Tactical, which gets it's complexity from being a fully 3D, fully Newtonian physics space game. Squadron Strike is by the same Author as AVT, and is a good bit less complex, but still an order of magnitude more complex than Full Thrust. Oh, and the author of the games used to play Star Fleet Battles, which informs his rule-writing style.
