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

When do Pilots and their TAG both generate an Order token?

Discussion in 'Rules' started by Ginrei, Jun 23, 2019.

Tags:
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Ogid

    Ogid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2018
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    751
    Let’s try to stay civil guys. It just doesn’t worth it.

    @A Mão Esquerda Manners always matter, of course, but this particular topic was going pretty well until a few posts. The OP did a rule comparison plus a question, some back and forth about how this is supposed to work and that the RAW is not clear. Totally fitting thread for a rules forum.

    Also yeah, opinions are subjective but the fact that some interactions are niche doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be discussed. The more solid the rules the better, because I’m sure that player lose a lot of game time looking for some obscure interactions that are not that clear and they shouldn't rely on nothing more than wiki/books plus FAQs. Of course this won’t be hot fixed like the LoF one in the last FAQs, but pointing issues with rules constructively is completely healthy for this game.

    Also these aren’t fixed that frequently because the CB politic about not touching the printed rules unless absolutely necessary. But this particular issue would be fixed changing just 1 word from 1 line in an ability that is only present in TAGs; and that affects how the pilot generate orders (to be fair the remote pilot ability would also need that line so it'd be also clear there); but it’s not like it’d cause some catastrophic butterfly effect with the rest of the rules.

    That exactly how I read it (with the exception of the bonus point; the manned rules let you dismount the pilot even from an unconscious TAG for some last epic banzai play).
    The problem is that the point 3 is not clearly stated (and I have tried to refute that), so RAW you can read that if both are in the table each one generate 1 order unless the TAG is unconscious, which feels wrong.
    But yeah, those are the TAG/Pilot rules in a nutshell.
     
    ChoTimberwolf and Ginrei like this.
  2. tox

    tox SorriBarai
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2017
    Messages:
    1,620
    Likes Received:
    1,729
    Right, i forgot where to find that!
     
  3. meikyoushisui

    meikyoushisui Competitor for Most Ignored User

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2017
    Messages:
    1,385
    Likes Received:
    1,892
    Are we really going to make a tone argument? I don't think I'm the only one who has always taken the stance that the content of what people say is more important than the delivery.

    1) How often does the interaction occur?

    Pretty much any game where someone has a TAG and dismounts it, this action occurs. That's not a lot, but that's a frequent interaction in games with TAGs, which are a huge draw for new players and centerpieces for armies.

    2) How many players are affected?

    Any player who has dismounted a TAG should have consulted the rules on this issue. That should be a pretty large amount of the playerbase.

    3) How would the fix spider through the rules?

    Ir really wouldn't, the rules just need to clarify how the profile of the operator/pilot/remote pilot relates to the profile of the TAG.

    4) How many resources would this take?

    As far as I can tell, this is like a 1 hour job, even with checking to make sure the rules conform to the current style. If anything, CB have made this a more difficult job for themselves because of rulings they have already made that do weird things (such as pilots being removed if their TAG dies).
     
    ChoTimberwolf and Ginrei like this.
  4. SmaggTheSmug

    SmaggTheSmug Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2018
    Messages:
    461
    Likes Received:
    691
    Looks like this part needs cleanup, as the intent is that a Pilot never generates Orders. It should probably be something like:

    "A TAG whose Pilot was expelled continues to generate Orders for her Order Pool as long as it's in a non-Null state."

    Note that there are TAG Operators that are not Pilots and they generate Orders normally. So it's the "Pilot" characteristic that prevents the pilot from generating Orders under all circumstances.

    I'm happy that the "pilot evaporates when TAG gets killed even if dismounted" rule has been changed. Especially when AI Pilots never suffered from this.
     
    Ginrei likes this.
  5. Ginrei

    Ginrei Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    427
    That summary is a nice quick reference. Unfortunately there are lot of concepts that are still unclear. Do game states affect just the target profile or both for example, but that's discussed in another topic. Depending on how that is ruled, the sequence when declaring orders and which profile is active during the process will be important.
    Speaking of, does the Dismounted Pilot generate an order when the TAG is Dead? I assume no. But if this is the case there isn't really a relationship between the Pilot/TAG when generating orders. It appears that only the TAG can generate the order. Yet the rules appear to interchange the term Pilot and TAG.
    I don't think it's the Pilot skill per say that prevents the Pilot generating an order.

    Every trooper with the icon on their troop profile generates an order. As far as I can tell, that is the default position the rules have taken. Some units do no provide that order because they have accompanying rules stating so. The problem as I see it is CB appears to have decided Pilots and Operators are not meant to provide an order by default and didn't write any rules to that effect.

    According to the RAW the Iguana Operator should generate an order along with it's TAG on Turn 1. I imagine the reason players don't do this is because they believe they know CB's intent and bend the rules accordingly.

    This rule for the Ejection System implies the Pilot/Operator never generates it's own order by passing the TAGs order onto the Operator.
    • A TAG equipped with an Ejection System provides its Order to the player who fielded it until its Operator enters a Null state
    ***

    Why put the order icon on a troop profile that is never intended to generate an order? It just causes additional rule text explaining the trooper doesn't get it.

    My Solution:

    I'd just remove the Order icons from the relevant trooper profiles and call it a day. Pilots, Operators, G: Servants etc. It CB has the time they can then remove the rule text that becomes redundant because of it.

    I don't know the rules for Post Humans, but if they're affected by this, I'd just write a rule explaining how the order is passed on. Like the Iguana.
     
    #45 Ginrei, Jun 24, 2019
    Last edited: Jun 24, 2019
    ChoTimberwolf likes this.
  6. Ogid

    Ogid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2018
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    751
    The shared states are just unintuitive because the rules haven't been expanded, probably because that case is very niche; but it's better if we left that for the other thread: https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threads/which-states-pass-on-from-tag-to-pilot.33918/

    We have these rules:
    So RAW, the TAG is dead, not unconscious, so there is nothing preventing the pilot for generating an order. RAI we know that's a overlook and the intended behaviour is the pilot not generating an order. But this is caused by the same issue we are discussin here.
    The only place where pilot seems to be used instead of TAG is in the Expel rule, the wording isn't inconsistent in this one.

    Operators work fine, they aren't that different to a Dog-Warrior: It's a model with 2 profiles that will never coexist; the second trigger when enough wounds have been made to the first one.
    A trooper needs to be in the table to generate orders, so the operators are working as intended; they don't generate orders while inside the TAG.
    Uff, this one is too drastic. That would require touching a lot of profiles and rules... it's much easier to just fix the pilot.
     
    Ginrei likes this.
  7. Ginrei

    Ginrei Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    427
    I agree with you up until here. The Operator suffers the same problem as the Pilot. It has no rules telling us the order on it's profile is not generated. The Ejection Rules passing on the TAGs order doesn't change that fact. RAW the ejected Operator should generate two orders LOL.

    Also, what is considered to be deployed on the table is open to interpretation is it not? A PIlot in a TAG seems to be deployed on the table.
    I'll have to disagree. Giving a trooper a resource on its profile for the player to count and spend... only to immediately negate it seems so unnecessary.

    It's far more efficient and easier to follow as a player to simply remove the icons that provides the order in the first place. I count the orders in my list and move on. Who wants to rely on either player remembering not to count certain orders because there are written rules telling us not to in certain cases.

    I get players are used to this already and it's comfortable for them, but it's unnecessary and could be one less thing for new players to remember. I understand some posters will call this silly and a waste of CB's time but these are the little things that will add up to a much better experience in the long run.
     
    Ogid likes this.
  8. Sabin76

    Sabin76 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    1,295
    Likes Received:
    1,606
    Perhaps someone who's been playing longer than me can correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember pilots weren't a thing before, right?

    If that's the case, then I think the problem is that when they wrote in the pilot rules they just assumed that everyone would treat order generation the same as before (i.e. the TAG generates the order), and until now that assumption worked because people remembered a time when it was just the TAG.

    Like I said though... I could be wrong on this.
     
  9. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    6,470
    Likes Received:
    8,046
    They became a thing mid N2 if memory serves, so there's no excuse for how poorly the rules function with regards to Pilots in N3 (but my issue is with the rules as intended and written, not with whatever this debate is meant to be about - a model with several profiles don't generate orders per profile -.-)
     
    Ogid likes this.
  10. Sabin76

    Sabin76 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    1,295
    Likes Received:
    1,606
    I mean yes, but if no one questioned how they worked in the past then it's feasible they never really looked at how it was worded and just copy/pastad into N3. Poor excuse, I know, but there it is...
     
  11. Ogid

    Ogid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2018
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    751
    Operator rules are more solid than the pilot ones. I can rules lawyer that into the RAI easily.
    Here as it is talking about the TAG (but not specifically about the TAG troop profile), it can be read that is talking about the trooper order (TAG+Operator) not about rescating the TAG order from the grave. So this is makin clear that even if the TAG is the "main" profile, the trooper (TAG+Operator) still contributes with his order.

    Also the deployment rules make clear that a model that is not in the table is not deployed yet. An operator have a miniature that is placed in the table later thanks to the ED rules; also you cannot use anything from the operator profile from the TAG, argue that the operator is deployed just doesn't hold.

    It's true i'd be more convenient but there are also rules that uses the kind of order (irregular/regular); so removing them will also mess with other rules. Maybe something like printing them in a different size to remind the player that there are special rules about them, but something like this would require a mayor rules change (N3.5 or N4) to being implemented.

    Funny thing is, add that little line to some part of the general rules (like here: http://infinitythewiki.com/en/Unit_Profile) and this whole thread would be wet paper. But as it's not stated we have to follow what we know that is the RAI and that's dangerous for the consistency of the rules.

    EDIT: Note that we are doing a "stress test" to these rules here, trying to actively break them to see how they can be improved. We are not looking for ways to scam other players, we now and we will play the RAI, but the RAW should match the RAI.
     
    #51 Ogid, Jun 24, 2019
    Last edited: Jun 24, 2019
    ChoTimberwolf likes this.
  12. Ginrei

    Ginrei Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    427
    That is exactly what this debate is about. The RAW allow them to generate orders. I assume the intent was for them not to generate orders.

    I feel like there isn't enough consideration given to new players. We can never assume players know or have any insight into CB's intent. A new player who's never seen an Infinity mini before should be able to read the rules and play the game as it was intended. Anything less than that means there is room for improvement.
     
    meikyoushisui and Ogid like this.
  13. A Mão Esquerda

    A Mão Esquerda Deputy Hexahedron Officer

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    1,894
    Likes Received:
    1,914
    Across the board Pilots and Remote Pilots didn’t become a thing until TAGLine.
     
    Dragonstriker likes this.
  14. Ginrei

    Ginrei Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    427
    I'll get to the rest of your post later, not enough time atm.

    This isn't directed at you in particular... But I'd like to make something clear regarding interpreting any set of rules or instructions. "It can be read" is a big red flag. It implies there are other ways it can be read. One reading does not invalidate the other. The moment we have two different and valid ways to read a rule, it becomes a bad rule as thre is no way to determine which is truly correct.

    So although some of us might be able to read a rule so that it plays as intended, there is someone else who can read the rule and play it differently. Both are completely valid RAW but only one is valid RAI. Unfortunately, the rules as intended do not exist in any tangible form. Making them inaccessible to the most basic level of player, the new player.
     
  15. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    6,470
    Likes Received:
    8,046
    I have never come across anyone new who thought a TAG and its pilot generates more than one order. Pilot generate order after TAG is down? Sure, didn't read the rules properly, but have come across that.
    It is simply not intuitive for machine, the TAG, to generate an order, so I find the claim that this is a "new player" issue to be dubious. I really hate to break out this accusation, but this stinks of rules lawyer issue.
     
  16. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    6,470
    Likes Received:
    8,046
    Remote Pilots, no, but all non-REM TAGs had Pilots as of HSN2 if I'm remembering correctly (some of which are Operators)
     
  17. Ogid

    Ogid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2018
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    751
    I agree that the most accurate the better; however when there are 2 possible readings one is usually closer to the RAI and that's the one used, a player using the other would be accused to being lawyering. I agree that it could be clearer tho.
    However writting rules that can only be read in one possible way is very very hard. So a few extra complex examples trying to cover these weak points would help to make them solid.

    I quote myself
    Yep, what we are doing here stinks to rules lawyering because it is exactly what we are doing. But call this "white hat" lawyering, I think none of us plan to use this to gain unfair advantages in game, but to check for holes in the rules and how fix them. However there are players that will use any "advantage" they can, and also for these kind of players the rules should be as good as possible.
     
    ChoTimberwolf likes this.
  18. Ginrei

    Ginrei Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    427
    It must be nice to be able to reduce any difference of opinion in interpreting the rules down to Rule Lawyer'ing.

    I also find it strange how people dismiss blatant holes in the rules because they haven't come across the issue themselves. Does that really make those holes acceptable? In any other game, this is probably not a big deal. But in Infinity, a game with a history of misinterpretation, the application of ones common sense seems like a luxury we can't afford. So you'll have to forgive me for not trusting common anything in regards to this game. Maybe I am a Rule Lawyer. But if I am, Infinity has created me.
     
  19. Sabin76

    Sabin76 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    1,295
    Likes Received:
    1,606
    Not quite. We had this come up with the interaction between Biotechvore and Dogged a while ago. If one interpretation of the rules actually breaks the game, then you can safely assume that's not the correct way to read said rules.
     
  20. Ginrei

    Ginrei Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    427
    To be a little more objective. The rule specifically references the TAG. "A TAG equipped with an Ejection System provides its Order". With two profiles to choose from, one unit type called a TAG and the other not... The only conclusion is that the rule is talking about the order from the TAG profile. The rule then goes on to say, "provides its Order to the player who fielded it until its Operator enters a Null state". So one order from the pilot, and another from the TAG.

    Of course we don't play it that way, because alarm bells start to ring. Why is the Dead TAG giving it's order to the Operator? The Dead state doesn't work like that. We instinctively search for another explanation. When choosing the Iguana in Army, we see very clearly we only get one order. We also know how other troopers handle extra models and profiles. We start to build a case in favor of the way we think the rule was meant to work. Our local community or forum is another strong influence. When confronted with all this evidence backing our own instincts, the RAW get thrown out in favor of what now becomes common sense or RAI.

    Your alternate reading feels like that, and you're not alone. You're providing a new definition of what the rules meant when using the term TAG. Which is dangerous because redefining a term means all instances now hold that new meaning. How does the game now reference only the TAG without also including the Pilot? That may be required as they can be two very separate targets on the table. Does a Pilot reference now also include the TAG? I'd be looking for another interpretation that doesn't arguably break the game as @Sabin76 points out.

    No matter how much the majority believe in their common sense, it's ultimately a guess at the devs intent. When I see how some of these guesses have been wrong over the years what do I do as a player? Do I blindly accept every majority ruling and common practice when the rules look to tell a different story? Or do I question the majority and take the abuse in search of the truth. So many discussions could be resolved with a simple acknowledgement that RAW and RAI are not on the same page. Take some of the posters here for example. They're not as objective as you've been on these forums @Ogid. You've been a welcome breath of fresh air. Seriously.
    I think it does hold. If both TAG and Operator are to be treated as one trooper, I'd say deploying one deploys the other. A sepsitorized TAG will pass the state onto the Operator before he's ejected. You can kill the Operator before it ejects as well.

    I'd also argue the TO camo trooper has been deployed. The word deploy is clearly used.
    Sensor bots can reveal TO troopers as well during the game.
    Edit, @Ogid It occurs to me that Hidden deployment and AD troops generate an order only they can use. If the Operator functions similarly, it generates the order but can't place it in the order pool. The Operator exists in two states... one on the table and one hidden in the TAG. So I will concede in a manner of speaking. The Operator generates his own order while in the TAG but can't spend it as he's not on the table until he ejects.
     
    #60 Ginrei, Jun 25, 2019
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2019
    Ogid and ChoTimberwolf like this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.