• 0
sam2000JSA

Engaged with trooper in Null State

Question

Although I really like the Infinity rules there are certain (very few) aspects I hate - and this is one of them!

 

So it's my reactive turn and I have a Pheasant Rank in cover with a boarding shotgun over a link team if Joan and her buddy knights.  Off to the flank a wounded impetuous Equestria knight runs at her, exchanging boarding shotgun blasts, and killing her Bao trooper buddy!  

 

In an epic exchange of buck shot the knight makes 2 saves, the Pheasant makes one and then the Knight  runs into CC shooting as he goes, while the Pheasant ARO's with a CC attack and wins! The knight goes down! But as he is just unconscious and now the Pheasant is Engaged!  Now the link team of Joan and friends can move freely ... (what happened next....well that's another story ;) )

 

The annoying rule is that even if you win the CC battle you are stuck in an Engaged State and can no longer draw LoF outside of CC. You also can't ARO if anything moves in your ZoC (as dodge needs LoF)....and all because there is a bleeding unconscious guy at your feet??? Really???

 

When this got FAQ'd recently many people hoped it would say that when you win a CC you may choose to disengage (move 1 mm apart).

 

I hope the Infinity rules people sort this out...

 

Was a great game though vs Chris "Pootle Flump" P! Epic!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

42 answers to this question

  • 0

Honestly with the new FAQ on this situation I'm still not entirely sure if it is intended to re-affirm the existing rules as written, or if it is trying to say that you may then choose to end the Engaged state as part of the order in which your opponent went Unconscious. It seems like it could really be read either way.

 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

My understanding was that one a model in CC goes unconscious, the other model can immediately disengage. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

You can disengage but only in your active turn with an order... you just don't have to roll a disengage / dodge. That's how the FAQ works apparently

Current FAQ

When a trooper enters the Unconscious state does this cancel the Engaged state?

The Engaged state can be cancelled when all the adversaries of the active troop are in Null or Immobilized states. 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

So the rules say:

  • The Engaged state can be cancelled when all the adversaries are in a Null or Immobilized state. The remaining trooper can then declare Move (but following the structure of the Order) to separate from the adversary and to cancel the Engaged state.

The FAQ says:

A: The Engaged state can be cancelled when all the adversaries of the active troop are in Null or Immobilized states.

It literally just repeats the existing text of that cancellation clause. So I'm not sure that it clarifies anything in any way.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I read it to say the as soon as your opponent is in null state you can choose to no longer be engaged.  It took away the moving away clause that would require you to move away.  In stead you are base to base but not engaged since they are in null state.  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
6 minutes ago, tat2spyder said:

I read it to say the as soon as your opponent is in null state you can choose to no longer be engaged.  It took away the moving away clause that would require you to move away.  In stead you are base to base but not engaged since they are in null state.  

It's a FAQ, not an Errata. The second half of the cancellation clause still stands as part of the rules.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
6 minutes ago, tat2spyder said:

It took away the moving away clause that would require you to move away.

that is how i like to read it too. The FAQ repeated the rule and took away a part of it. It could mean to replace the whole two sentence paragraph with the new shorter one. The old paragraph said you need a Move short skill following the structure (therefore requiring a new Order) whereas the new one doesn't so you could maybe? auto-disengage.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
4 minutes ago, Robock said:

that is how i like to read it too. The FAQ repeated the rule and took away a part of it. It could mean to replace the whole two sentence paragraph with the new shorter one. The old paragraph said you need a Move short skill following the structure (therefore requiring a new Order) whereas the new one doesn't so you could maybe? auto-disengage.

It would be great if they actually stated that. We got a very incomplete response on this one, sadly.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

And I think the Spanish has the same problem:

EntrarenestadoInconscientecancelaelestadoTrabado?

El estado Trabado se puede cancelar cuando todos los adversarios de la tropa activa pasan a un estado Nulo o Inmovilizado. 

 

Edit:  The Spanish cancellation clause:

  • El estado Trabado se puede cancelar cuando todos los adversarios pasan a un estado Nulo o Inmovilizado. En tal situación, la tropa podrá declarar Mover (siguiendo la estructura de la Orden) para separarse del adversario y cancelar el estado Trabado.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
4 minutes ago, solkan said:

And I think the Spanish has the same problem:

EntrarenestadoInconscientecancelaelestadoTrabado?

El estado Trabado se puede cancelar cuando todos los adversarios de la tropa activa pasan a un estado Nulo o Inmovilizado. 

 

Edit:  The Spanish cancellation clause:

  • El estado Trabado se puede cancelar cuando todos los adversarios pasan a un estado Nulo o Inmovilizado. En tal situación, la tropa podrá declarar Mover (siguiendo la estructura de la Orden) para separarse del adversario y cancelar el estado Trabado.

So, like the English, it is almost an exact repeat of the rules text we already had. :(

 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Yep, the FAQ just say "you can cancel it" without offering any new rules for doing so.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Soon™

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

So according to this I can run a yudbot in. Die go unconscious then just walk around any threats I like in my active and laugh as they can't do anything. That doesn't seem stupid to anyone else??

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
9 minutes ago, Dropkill said:

So according to this I can run a yudbot in. Die go unconscious then just walk around any threats I like in my active and laugh as they can't do anything. That doesn't seem stupid to anyone else??

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

A lot of people don't like that a model doesn't get AROs due to base contact with an unconscious model, which is why it's come up as a FAQ.

Bear in mind, however, that due to Electric Pulse (updated in HSN3), G: Servants and other REMs are surprisingly capable melee combatants.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
9 minutes ago, Dropkill said: So according to this I can run a yudbot in. Die go unconscious then just walk around any threats I like in my active and laugh as they can't do anything. That doesn't seem stupid to anyone else??

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

A lot of people don't like that a model doesn't get AROs due to base contact with an unconscious model, which is why it's come up as a FAQ.

Bear in mind, however, that due to Electric Pulse (updated in HSN3), G: Servants and other REMs are surprisingly capable melee combatants.

Sure it does seem counter intuitive that you can't disengage once you win cc to me though. But if that's the ruling I'm going to be using it and losing friends lol.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
5 hours ago, macfergusson said:

So, like the English, it is almost an exact repeat of the rules text we already had. :(

Yeah :rain-cloud:, and as far as I can tell there's the same discussion occurring in the Spanish forum, without yet any word from Semi et al.  :(

http://infinitytheforums.com/foro/topic/16223-¿entrar-en-estado-inconsciente-cancela-el-estado-trabado/#comment-355969

For what it's worth, that thread does contain a statement about how they ruled the mechanic to work at Interplanetary that year (2016) but they offered a big disclaimer that they weren't trying to claim to be making an official ruling, just a "The question came up, and we needed to make a decision" ruling.

http://infinitytheforums.com/foro/topic/16223-¿entrar-en-estado-inconsciente-cancela-el-estado-trabado/?do=findComment&comment=359482

"

I tell you what we did all the referees in the Interplanetary, and then if you want you throw yourself at my neck.

We understood that by "active troop", so, in lower case, refers to the troop that is not Unconscious. The fact that you put "can" means that if you want to stay locked, and if not, no.

In the IP it was used several times in such a way that the troop that was alive decided to follow Engaged, renouncing its ARO against a figure that was out of the combat, and risking that, instead of giving to him, it gave to the Unconscious.

Example:

- Player 1 on Active Turn: I move my Ghulam here (within 20cm of the CC combat in which a Muyib is Unconscious and Trapped with a Morat)

- Player 2 in Reactive Turn: Mi Morat is still Engaged and I can not perform ARO.

- Player 3 in Active Shift: Shot

Resolution: You apply a -6 to the Ghulam, and if it fails by that -6, it gets you to the Muyib."

The opposing viewpoint was that you should only be able to cancel the Engaged state during the active turn, for a trooper being activated by the current order.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
2 hours ago, Dropkill said:

Sure it does seem counter intuitive that you can't disengage once you win cc to me though. But if that's the ruling I'm going to be using it and losing friends lol.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

Do you have any left? lol

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
2 hours ago, dlfleetw said:

Soon

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Well that's cryptic ;)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
2 hours ago, Dropkill said: Sure it does seem counter intuitive that you can't disengage once you win cc to me though. But if that's the ruling I'm going to be using it and losing friends lol.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

Do you have any left? lol

Only you now hehe

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

WIth all due respect I find it ridiculous that we even have to discuss this one. I would interpret "can be cancelled" as something you can just decide at that moment. Troops being unable to shoot because an unconscious trooper lies at their feet is just plain silly at best >deleted too harsh judgement<

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
5 hours ago, System_Override said:

WIth all due respect I find it ridiculous that we even have to discuss this one. I would interpret "can be cancelled" as something you can just decide at that moment. Troops being unable to shoot because an unconscious trooper lies at their feet is just plain silly at best and a show of immense gamesmanship at worst.

You make me want to ask if you've ever played another wargame, with a comment like this.

Suppose you're the reactive player, with a model engaged by all unconscious enemies.  Active trooper activates in what would be line of sight if the model wasn't engaged, then declares a Move.  Then the active model declares a second skill.

When during the order is the reactive player's engaged model allowed to cancel engaged, granting it line of fire and effectively deciding that it gets an ARO against the active model?

There's a reason why war games like Warmachine/Hordes have rules defining phrases like "at any time" to not mean literally 'at any time', and things like voluntary skill switching in Infinity being forum-FAQd to be restricted to specific times.  Timing matters, and the rules are supposed to say when the states are cancelled.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
7 hours ago, System_Override said:

Troops being unable to shoot because an unconscious trooper lies at their feet is just plain silly at best and a show of immense gamesmanship at worst.

And yet that is how it used to work, quite officially. And we have nothing that properly expresses a change from that point in the rules. Whichever way CB decides it is supposed to work now, it does need to be clarified, because the FAQ answer provided is very ambiguous.

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
8 hours ago, System_Override said:

WIth all due respect I find it ridiculous that we even have to discuss this one. I would interpret "can be cancelled" as something you can just decide at that moment. Troops being unable to shoot because an unconscious trooper lies at their feet is just plain silly at best and a show of immense gamesmanship at worst.

We do however have to respect the ruling as is until it is officially clarified by CB in ITS tournaments. Otherwise you can of course use any rules you want! Most people think it's a silly rule - the only possible defence is the who "it's abstract and all happening at once"... which I don't buy either.

The wheels of the FAQ turn slowly....

See my blog for the full BatRep on this at

www.strategoslevel3.wordpress.com

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
2 hours ago, solkan said:

You make me want to ask if you've ever played another wargame, with a comment like this.

There's a reason why war games like Warmachine/Hordes have rules defining phrases like "at any time" to not mean literally 'at any time', and things like voluntary skill switching in Infinity being forum-FAQd to be restricted to specific times.  Timing matters, and the rules are supposed to say when the states are cancelled.

Yes many and I agree that most do a better job of defining rules and timing issues than Infinity does. But I am also certain that you are aware that Infinity isn't too great at clear definitions. That is a general problem and the one weakness I see with it (Also that clarifications take so long).

I just re-read the whole Wiki page and see where you guys are coming from. There were some relevant points ommited in the argumentation above imo.

  • f the adversary passes to Unconscious state (with an Unconscious or a Spawn-Embryo Marker), then the trooper could also declare a Coup de Grâce in any following Order to cancel the Engaged state.
  • A trooper can also cancel the Engaged state by succeeding in a Dodge Roll, whether it's a Normal or Face to Face Roll.

This again speaks for the not being able to disengage side of things. The "can be canceled" bitis sadly rather vague.

I still do find the concept silly mind you (no longer necessarily wrong but silly none the less), because it is not about everything happening at once. I could be engaged by unconscious troops for several orders in a row. Well at least you are at -6 to hit while being a sitting duck.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

If there was an official statement anywhere that simply said "The Engaged State is cancelled when all opposing troopers in base to base contact are in a null state" then a lot of this would be resolved, however it would open up a separate can of worms. :/

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites