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

Which states pass on from TAG to Pilot?

Discussion in 'Rules' started by daszul, Jun 21, 2019.

Tags:
  1. Ginrei

    Ginrei Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    428
    That's not exactly relevant. In that situation the Pilot may be the one considered to be Engaged, or both, we don't know at this time. In which case the Pilot can't Dismount because they are Engaged, the current state of the TAG becomes irrelevant.
     
  2. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    4,768
    Likes Received:
    5,691
    AROs are irrelevant (the FAQ explicitly covers that). What matters is whether your TAG is in a state where you can activate it; whether the TAG is in a state where you can spend a regular order on it and whether the TAG is in a state where you can declare Move. All of these things need to be checked BEFORE the rules from Dismount are applied.

    This is perfectly congruent with all existing FAQs and the Order Expenditure Sequence. No other interpretation is.

    You don't check to see whether AROs are generated until Step 4, at which point you are explicitly using the Pilot profile (because it happens AFTER the successful Declaration at Step 3).
     
  3. Ginrei

    Ginrei Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    428
    Then why does the FAQ explicitly say to use the profile for the entire Order sequence? This includes the activation. The FAQ also states the other profile does not count as having been activated. What you propose is contrary to what the FAQ explicitly tells us.

    You can't arbitrarily decide that the retroactive nature of the FAQ applies to the Reactive Players ARO and not the Active Players Activation itself.
     
  4. Ginrei

    Ginrei Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    428
    Also, who says I have to activate the TAG instead of activating the Pilot and declaring Dismount? All the rules suggest it's the Pilot Trooper being activated. It's only the profile that gets applied after.
    • This Pilot Troop Profile is usable only after the trooper declares a Move Short Skill and specifies he will use it to Dismount his Manned TAG or Vehicle.
    • 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.
    We can activate HD troopers not on the table. I'm fairly certain it's not a stretch to activate a Pilot on the table in a TAG.

    AD troopers must be activated while not on the table. They must also declare an Entire Order Skil before entering the table. Seems very similar for a Pilot.
     
    #84 Ginrei, Jul 3, 2019
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2019
  5. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    4,768
    Likes Received:
    5,691
    'as having been' is past tense. The effect is retroactive.
     
  6. Ginrei

    Ginrei Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    428
    That's not what it means.

    Q: When Mounting or Dismounting, which profile is activated?
    A: The new Troop Profile is the one that is activated for the entire Order sequence. The other profile does not count as having been activated.​

    The first sentence is present tense. The second sentence literally says "does not count as having been" which is quite a different meaning than 'as having been'. The others rules are also all in the present tense.
     
    #86 Ginrei, Jul 3, 2019
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2019
  7. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    4,768
    Likes Received:
    5,691
    You can't reconcile the rules any other way without additional input.

    The Pilot profile is enabled by declaring Dismount, this does not happen until step 3 of the order. This means that for Step 1 and Step 2 the only profile in play is the TAG. Therefore during Step 1 and 2 the Trooper IS the TAG.

    Reading the FAQ as meaning 'Retroactively the TAG profile does not count as having been activated' (which is perfectly congruent with the rules as written, it's just phrased more explicitly)* fits the requirements of the Order Expenditure Sequence and explains why:
    A) you can't ARO vs the TAG profile
    B) the TAG profile doesn't trigger mines
    C) the Pilot can't Dismount while the TAG is Engaged
    D) how to treat Possessed, Iso and Imm TAGs whatever the interpretation of how states are shared between TAG and Pilot

    Nothing else explains A, B, C and D and fulfils the Order Expenditure Sequence.

    So this reading (which isn't particularly odd of esoteric) allows us to interpret the activation of a Pilot in accordance with the rules we already have in a way that is entirely functional. Why do we need to question it further?

    Yes, I completely agree that there are additional outstanding questions that do need to be answered. This is not one of them.
     
    daszul, Sabin76 and A Mão Esquerda like this.
  8. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    4,768
    Likes Received:
    5,691
    Basically my argument is this:

    You can't apply the rules of a skill you haven't yet declared. However, once declared the effects of a skill may be retroactive.
     
  9. Ogid

    Ogid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2018
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    754
    There is no point in keep discussing this. These rules are incomplete and it could be both; rules clearly say you can only activate 1 profile per order and that one would also let you expel the pilot of a possessed TAG, so there are flaws in both sequences.

    If this were so clear, @ijw would have already given us an answer. This question will help them to mind this if they decide to expand the pilot rules, so I think this is a good question to keep in the list.
     
    Ginrei likes this.
  10. Ginrei

    Ginrei Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    428
    You don't know either of those with any certainty.

    How do you explain AD. The trooper is off the table and not even deployed. Yet we apply the skills effects by first declaring an Entire Order Skill. Are we actually activating the trooper before this step? If so, how? (Edit, is the profile of that trooper active, inactive, where are those terms even defined?)

    Face it, there are precedents in this game for all kinds of crazy bullshit.
     
    #90 Ginrei, Jul 3, 2019
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2019
  11. Ginrei

    Ginrei Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    428
    Because your interpretation isn't the only valid one. No matter how strongly you feel about your opinion.

    These different interpretations result in different outcomes during the game. That's reason enough to ask for an answer.
     
  12. daszul

    daszul Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2018
    Messages:
    731
    Likes Received:
    874
    Well, for AD it is all in the rules for AD.
    So we know...
    a) ... how to do it.
    b) ... that it is an exception from how we usually do it.

    This is missing and/or unclear for the Pilots of manned TAGs.
     
    inane.imp likes this.
  13. Ginrei

    Ginrei Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    428
    Where are the rules about what is required to activate a trooper? @inane.imp is making assumptions his interpretation is the only valid one within the rules.

    Does the trooper need to be on the table? Does it's profile need to be active? His point is basically, "You can't apply the rules of a skill you haven't yet declared." He's pointed out exactly what steps need to take place in the order sequence before we get to declare a skill.

    So how do we explain the use of the AD skill? The rule stating we don't have to deploy the trooper is found under the effects of a skill that can only be used by declaring an Entire Order Skill and spending an Order. So how on earth are we following it's effects before those actions are taken? We follow them because the Infinity rules don't follow any airtight structure themselves. If an effect allows or tells us to do something... we simply do it.

    Treating the Pilot skill and effects as we treat other skills like AD is perfectly reasonable, plausible, and valid. Contrary to what @inane.imp is saying.
     
  14. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    4,768
    Likes Received:
    5,691
    Because that's not congruent with the Engage FAQ. Which creates a situation where you create an exception to an exception.

    If your argument was correct nothing would stop you activating the Pilot profile while the TAG profile is Engaged and hopping out the back. The fact you can't says that either:
    A) states treat the Pilot and TAG as one trooper and are simply applied to both, in which case this entire discussion is pointless
    B) the TAG is the profile that declares Move and it is prevented from doing so because it is Engaged.

    Yes AD is exceptional but it is necessarily so (because of the way that it's written, it's effectively two skills: a Deployment Skill and then the Entire Order skill to come on, but CB). There is no need for an exception in this case. There is an interpretation that is congruent with all known interactions.

    My argument when reduced to it's fundamentals is vulnerable to the 'but maybe there's an exception here too' counter-argument. But if that exception doesn't work either, then what?

    I'm not assuming that my interpretation is correct I can't find another interpretation that explains all the known interactions without being a mess of exceptions to exceptions .

    How do you think your interpretation deal with the Engage FAQ?
     
  15. Ginrei

    Ginrei Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    428
    Option C: A TAG that is Engaged also means the Pilot is Engaged. Nothing more, nothing less. The Pilot doesn't share any states applied to the TAG. The Pilot counts as being Engaged because it occupies the same space on the table the TAG does, thus it's also in base to base and Engaged.

    An Engaged TAG is very different in my view than an enemy trooper targeting the TAG and having any effect spill over onto the Pilot without consideration for the game space physically between the two models. Different enough I can see two different rules governing these situations.

    The truth of the matter is, I can't apply the same logic you have in terms of what the Engaged FAQ might mean for the rest of the game. I can't do that because time after time it's been proven that the rules don't always follow the direction someones subjective view/logic dictates. I also do not believe CB takes enough care choosing it's words in the FAQs or rules themselves to trust they've considered all the angles.

    AD for instance does not have to be as flawed as it is. (I can't tell if you're defending the skill as working fine or not.) Moving the appropriate rules outside their current location so they can be used without having to declare and activate the skill first would be a start. A fine tuning of the O.E.S. regarding step one wouldn't hurt either. AD is just another example of how CB create skills that don't properly follow the O.E.S. structure they've put in place to support their game.

    Going back to the current state of things like AD or deployment in general... When we continually make exceptions ourselves so the rules function adequately, can you really be surprised when people start viewing the exceptions as the norm? In other words, I expect exceptions with how Pilots and TAGs function rather than expecting them to follow some perceived precedent found in another rules FAQ.
    I'm glad you think that and I know it's tough to always point it out. But without pointing it out, your quotes below say something else.
    "Nothing else explains A, B, C and D and fulfils the Order Expenditure Sequence."
    "This is perfectly congruent with all existing FAQs and the Order Expenditure Sequence. No other interpretation is."​
     
  16. daszul

    daszul Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2018
    Messages:
    731
    Likes Received:
    874
    Cool!
    So the TAG gets +1B because of the Pilot?
    And the opponent may choose whether to hit the TAG or the Pilot, because he/she is engaged with both?
    But why is the Pilot no longer S2 but S6/S7?

    Hm.
    Maybe not.

    I think the only thing we can agree on
    is that some FAQ about manned TAGs would really help a lot.
     
    #96 daszul, Jul 4, 2019
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2019
    Ginrei likes this.
  17. Ogid

    Ogid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2018
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    754
    Ginrei likes this.
  18. Ginrei

    Ginrei Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    428
    You're right. It's absurd. Just as absurd as the pilot automatically suffering from the same game states the TAG is under.

    I can agree that the rules need to be rewritten. Until then, I wouldn't subject my opponent to any of the assumptions made in this thread.
     
  19. Gunmage

    Gunmage Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2017
    Messages:
    272
    Likes Received:
    255
    So... was there an explanation of this point? Because it came up in a discussion lately... =\
     
  20. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    4,768
    Likes Received:
    5,691
    No.

    Ultimately, "play it like Zondnautica except the TAG isn't G-Sync and you can Mount an ISO TAG" is by far the easiest way.
     
    #100 inane.imp, Mar 15, 2020
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2020