Hello, I was reading English Infinity Rules Wiki and found something. There are rules how you dismount motorcycle and TAG, but no how and when about mounting them again. Shouldn't pilot be in base to base contact to bike/TAG to mount again? By common sense, I think there would be some missed phrases in english rules wiki? or else a pilot could call-in a new mech from the sky
The consensus, where in the other player rolls their dice without throwing them at you, is that Mount (as alluded to in the General Movement rules) requires base contact. Disclaimer: Eventually we'll manage to get CB to admit that they forgot to specify certain rules. After all, it took them until HSN3 to add rules to handle profile size changes even though those were going forever.
yeah I think so. and I just want some sink holes between the rules filled up faster. that's why I started this thread.
http://infinitythewiki.com/en/index.php?title=General_Movement_Rules&redirect=no By declaring Move, a trooper may Mount or Dismount a Motorcycle, TAG, Vehicle, etc. at the start of his Movement at no cost, the new troop profile will be applied during the whole sequence of the Order. N3 Frequently Asked Question FAQ Version: 1.4, Sep 2018 Q: When can you Mount or Dismount a troop? A: When declaring Move as the first Short Skill of an Order, at the beginning of its movement, a troop can Mount or Dismount.
It says 'when' but doesn't say Pilot should be B2B to it. No requirement. If I do as written, I can call-in a new thing from the sky and former mounts remain in the field.
Huh, I guess the rules writers and I always assumed that you couldn't get back on a bike unless you were standing next to it first. Never spotted that before.
It also doesn't say you get a new one nor that you get to use the old one, so if you try to pull that argument on me in game I'll go "Okay, your trooper is mounted in nothing and since you can't spend an order on nothing to dismount it your pilot is gone, enjoy"
Remounting old one or new one, it doesn't matter to me. I wrote these above; 'By common sense, I think there would be some missed phrases in english rules wiki?', ' I just want some sink holes between the rules filled up faster. that's why I started this thread.' I don't intend to abuse anything. Ironically I'd rather like it better if I've missed something in rules. I want matters settled quickly by CB, that's why I started question thread. Sometimes I feel people here goes too protective on flaws of the game. If someone who is commonsensical but new to the game came and did play as rules written, can you blame him for not following common sense? Even if there are sink holes in rules? Then why everyone here in /Rules/ are fighting to make sure what is right and wrong? Correcting wrong rules should be done first by CB.
N3 Frequently Asked Question FAQ Version: 1.3, Oct 2017 Q: Can a Pilot or Remote Pilot Mount any “empty” TAG? A: No, they can only Mount their own TAG. Related Pages: General Movement Rules, Manned, Motorcycle, Pilot, Remote Pilot, TAG In this community Corvus Belli is notorious for not fixing holes in the rules. Rules and FAQ are also notorious to be spread out over several disjointed pages. Particularly the small ones such as "do I need to be in BtB with my TAG when declaring I mount it?". Making posts about it doesn't really increase the rate of fixing, which means that we build a community consensus on how to handle things. This usually amounts to "use common sense, and if that fails trust IJW". It not perfect system, but we make do and we argue because community consensus matters.
Thanks for your kind post. I understand that. I feel sad that what gamers do and CB does is reversed..
This is Infinity's third edition. I haven't seen the 1st edition rulebook, so I can't comment on the quality of those rules. The 2nd edition rules were basically written in this style that combined RPG like elements and miniature war-game elements, even when rules were added to or rewritten by FAQs. But it led to a lot of cases (particularly with movement skills that required die rolls) where you'd see: Model X declares it's doing Y The models that can see X if it succeeds declare AROs; and the models that can see X if it fails declare other AROs Model X declares its second skill Subsequent twelve page rules forum thread trying to decipher whether the principle of "Everything happens at once" is trumped the need to figure out whether or not Y succeeded to see which of the responses get resolved. a.k.a the Quantum Uncertainty Principle in Infinity. If 3rd edition is your first exposure to the Infinity rules, and none of what I just described makes sense, that's pretty much how much the details of the rules got changed. (And it's also why Engage is a huge, complicated thing that it is.) Third edition rewrote a lot of rules to remove that sort of thing, and treat the game more like a war-game and less like a tabletop RPG. But as you can see, there's a lot of cases where it's appreciated for its potential rather than its execution. And that's all before the question "Why doesn't CB fix the defects in their rules?" hits the usual debate about whether a game company has to fix their rules if people are managing to figure out the problems on their own. It doesn't particularly break the game whether you've got flying TAG mounts, or you have to walk back to the TAG to get in, after all.
Thanks again for kind explanation. well it looks like a high time we should take whip and shout to CB. seems too lazy company.
