I want to point out some confusion with the description of item infusion. The infusion feature states:
"You can infuse more than one nonmagical object at the end of a long rest; the maximum number of objects appears in the Infused Items column of the Artificer table. You must touch each of the objects, and each of your infusions can be in only one object at a time. Moreover, no object can bear more than one of your infusions at a time. If you try to exceed your maximum number of infusions, the oldest infusion ends, and then the new infusion applies."
People seem to be taking the rate at which infusions can be created to be the same as the limit of how many infusions can exist and be active at any given time. As per the language in the description, I'm not sure this is correct. Let me explain.
It states first that the Artificer can create more than one infusion at the end of a long rest and then pauses the sentence with a semicolon (this is important). It then goes on to state that the maximum number of infusions the Artificer can create at the end of a long rest is listed in the table. The semicolon is important here because it means the latter part of the sentence applies to the former part. Which means the limitation expressed only applies to how many infusions can be create at the same time (at the end of any given long rest). As written, this has no bearing whatsoever on how many TOTAL infusions can exist at any given time for the Artificer, but rather, it only states the RATE at which infusions can be created. For example, a 4th-level Artificer can create 2 infusions at the end of a long rest on Monday and can create 2 more infusions at the end of a long rest on Tuesday, totaling 4 known infusions.
The next sentence states that you must be able to touch the object you infuse. That's pretty clear. No guess work there. It then states that each infusion you know can only exist in one object at a time. Now, this is a very important sentence because this actually establishes a limit to the TOTAL number of infusions an Artificer can have active at any given time. If our 4th-level Artificer knows 4 infusions, then only 4 infusions can exist simultaneously (within 4 different objects, as stated). And, as per the first sentence, it would have taken at least 2 long rests for our 4th-level Artificer to create these 4 infusions (2 per long rest).
So the first sentence states the RATE at which the infusions can be created and the second sentence establishes the limit to how many TOTAL infusions can be created over time.
The third sentence states that no single object can hold more than one infusion. That's pretty clear. So, in our example, our 4th-level Artificer can have 4 infusions in 4 different objects.
The fourth sentence determines the behavior of your infusions if you exceed your limit (i.e. oldest one ends). Of course, the "maximum number of infusions" referred to in the sentence harkens back to sentence #2, which is where our maximum number of infusions at any given time is established.
So, here's the disclaimer. I know a lot of you reading this are going to say that I'm lawyering the description of this feature... and you'd be right. But I'd rather the language be crystal clear than leave room for ambiguous interpretation. The Artificer level progression table has 2 columns pertaining to infusions: "Infusions Known" and "Infused Items". Neither of which clearly define "Active Infusions Allowed". "Infusions Known" clearly defines total number of recipes an Artificer knows. "Infused Items" is ambiguous. Does it mean "Infused Items" per long rest? Or does it mean total "Infused Items" allowed at any given time? As per the language in the description, it only defines the rate at which the infusion recipes can be carried out.
I'm not specifically arguing for it to be one way over the other. I just want it to be clear. The root of this confusion really boils down to the use of the semicolon that I mentioned. If you replace the semicolon with a period, the entire meaning changes. I know the folks who write up these classes spend countless hours pouring over minute details to arrive at a balanced, fun, and engaging option for the players and I'm very appreciative of their work. Understanding the level of detail they strive for, I trust that they chose that semicolon carefully and this is why I'm so specific in my analysis. In this particular case, I think a little extra clarification is warranted. That's all.
We could go round and round all day long arguing about the spirit of the description versus the language of the description and nobody would be wrong. I just think it would be great if we could put this question to Jeremy Crawford. What is the actual maximum number of active infusions allowed for an Artificer by level? It would also be great if they would adjust the language in the description to alleviate the ambiguity.
The infused Items column in the level progression chart makes no distinction that it is per Long Rest. It just tells you the number that you can have at any given point period. The fact that the part after the semi-colon puts a limit on the part before it does not in fact make it so that it necessarily applies to the long rest Caveat. It merely is mentioned as a total cap of items. What the level progression chart is giving you is the option to know more infusions than you actually have in existence.
One of the indicators that this is the case for further clarification is actually within the Armorer subclasses in the Armor Modification subclass feature because it increases the total amount of active infusions that you can have at one time (using that specific language) by 2 (and specifying where specifically they can be used). But it does not in fact alter the total number of infusions that the Armorer can know. This bonus to do 2 more active infusions would be meaningless and thus have to be replaced with something else if it was simply a matter of that's all you could do per long rest and still get up to your total known infusions because it would not actually be any kind of advantage to that particular subclass that with the same ability actually increases the number of places they can also use those infusions (the attunement total still being a limiting factor).
The language of the older Infusion disappearing in favor of the newer infusion is also another plain indicator that this is the case because you would not need such wording if you could simply activate infusions up to your known number. They would simply limit the number you can have at a time and rely on the fact that you can only have one infusion on a single item at a time and simply state that placing that infusion on a second item would remove it from the original item rather than stating that there is an order that they can be removed ass you exceed the limit. Which clearly means that you can actually know more infusions than you can actually have active at any one point in time if you can put a completely different infusion from the oldest onto an item and the oldest will still disappear.
Your sense of ambiguity in the language is actually created by your effort to rules Lawyer the system into getting more than your allowed rather than the actual language of the class features and level progression chart involved.
No more arguing needed. The wording is not perfect, we all know, but they didn't change it in Tasha's so the Sage Advice is all we have (that and a bit of common sense).
The infused Items column in the level progression chart makes no distinction that it is per Long Rest. It just tells you the number that you can have at any given point period. The fact that the part after the semi-colon puts a limit on the part before it does not in fact make it so that it necessarily applies to the long rest Caveat. It merely is mentioned as a total cap of items.
Wrong. Please read my analysis of the language. The wording is unclear. The best indication that it is unclear is that Jeremy Crawford already had to clarify it, which Sutlo was kind enough to provide the link to.
One of the indicators that this is the case for further clarification is actually within the Armorer subclasses in the Armor Modification subclass feature because it increases the total amount of active infusions that you can have at one time (using that specific language) by 2 (and specifying where specifically they can be used). But it does not in fact alter the total number of infusions that the Armorer can know. This bonus to do 2 more active infusions would be meaningless and thus have to be replaced with something else if it was simply a matter of that's all you could do per long rest and still get up to your total known infusions because it would not actually be any kind of advantage to that particular subclass that with the same ability actually increases the number of places they can also use those infusions (the attunement total still being a limiting factor).
The language of the older Infusion disappearing in favor of the newer infusion is also another plain indicator that this is the case because you would not need such wording if you could simply activate infusions up to your known number. They would simply limit the number you can have at a time and rely on the fact that you can only have one infusion on a single item at a time and simply state that placing that infusion on a second item would remove it from the original item rather than stating that there is an order that they can be removed ass you exceed the limit. Which clearly means that you can actually know more infusions than you can actually have active at any one point in time if you can put a completely different infusion from the oldest onto an item and the oldest will still disappear.
These are good points of reference. However, the ability to change an infusion from one object to another would be a reason to specify that the oldest infusion ends if you exceed that limit. A moot point, regardless.
Your sense of ambiguity in the language is actually created by your effort to rules Lawyer the system into getting more than your allowed rather than the actual language of the class features and level progression chart involved.
As I already stated in my post, very clearly, I'm not specifically arguing for it to be one way over the other. I just want it to be clear. My analysis of the description is academic. I appreciate your thoughts on the subject but I can do without your judgement, thank you very much. The language in the description is definitely not clear. If it were, this question would not have come up from multiple players as it has.
I'm not wrong. Your trying to make it wrong. It is already clear. your purposely muddying the wording to create the potential loopholes your speaking of.
The oldest one also would not disappear with the one at a time limit. Let me give an example.
Let's say you can have 4 infusions active. For the sake of ease. You did the Infusion of Butt-Kicking, the Infusion of Bravery, the Infusion of Artificers don't suck, and your fourth one is the Infusion of Repulsion on a shield. You can move the Infusion of Repulsion, your newest one on the list, every time you take a long rest to a different party members shield. It will NEVER affect the Infusion of Butt-Kicking that you did first. No matter how many days, no matter how many times. Nothing will happen to Butt-Kicking until you actually take the action to move it.
Now Let's say you know a 5th Infusion on top of these 4 that your actively using. Let's call it the Infusion of Overload. When you have the other 4 already active. It doesn't matter on what rest you choose to activate the Infusion of Overload it will always deactivate the Infusion of Butt-Kicking automatically because Infusion of Butt-kicking is the oldest. This scenario can ONLY exist when you know more infusions than you can have active for yourself or the party and not under any circumstance where your known Infusions can match your total active infusions.
Also, jeremy's words aren't so much a clarification as a flatout restatement of what i already tried to tell you and others would have tried to tell you. The only amibuous nature to them is purely the creation of those trying to get more out of it as I said.
For clarification, the Artificer Table has a column labelled, "Infused Items" which is the maximum number of items that Artificer can have infused at any given time, based upon their level.
Whilst at 5th level, for example, the Artificer has 4 "infusions known" but they only have 2 "infused items" - this means they can have 2 items with an infusion on.
Stated directly in those rules, "If you try to exceed your maximum number of infusions, the oldest infusion immediately ends, and then the new infusion applies."
An artificer has x infusions know based on the level that you are in the artificer class. You can, at any given time half of x infusions active at one time. Hard capped.
Rules as written (RAW) vs rules as implied (RAI) (or in English, the translation of RAW) RAW: you infuse items when you finish a long rest. This does not mean that you infuse items 2 hours after you 'wake up' from a long rest. RAI: while you are taking a long rest is when you are doing you infusions. While the argument could be made that you could do all your infusions during this time, rotating from oldest to newest, while keeping only the maximin number of infused items allowed active at one time. However, that is not what is implied and therefore incorrect. What is implied is that you, as a character, must chose what infusions that you want to be active after a long rest is completed up to the maximin number of infused items allowed to be active at one time. This implies that you must make this choose before you start your long rest, so that during your long rest your infusions are being completed, and are completed after the long rest.
If the long rest is interrupted, the infusions that you were trying to do during that long rest will not become active and the infusions you had active before your attempted long rest will remain active.
When you do a new infusion to replace an old one. For the sake of argument. Any infusions that you have active that want to stay active will have to be re-infused during the uninterrupted long rest. For the sake of convenience, you can say those just stay active instead of having to roleplay that every time.
An artificer has x infusions know based on the level that you are in the artificer class. You can, at any given time half of x infusions active at one time. Hard capped.
Rules as written (RAW) vs rules as implied (RAI) (or in English, the translation of RAW) RAW: you infuse items when you finish a long rest. This does not mean that you infuse items 2 hours after you 'wake up' from a long rest. RAI: while you are taking a long rest is when you are doing you infusions. While the argument could be made that you could do all your infusions during this time, rotating from oldest to newest, while keeping only the maximin number of infused items allowed active at one time. However, that is not what is implied and therefore incorrect. What is implied is that you, as a character, must chose what infusions that you want to be active after a long rest is completed up to the maximin number of infused items allowed to be active at one time. This implies that you must make this choose before you start your long rest, so that during your long rest your infusions are being completed, and are completed after the long rest.
If the long rest is interrupted, the infusions that you were trying to do during that long rest will not become active and the infusions you had active before your attempted long rest will remain active.
When you do a new infusion to replace an old one. For the sake of argument. Any infusions that you have active that want to stay active will have to be re-infused during the uninterrupted long rest. For the sake of convenience, you can say those just stay active instead of having to roleplay that every time.
At least this is how I play artificer.
While this is a perfectly logical and legitimate way to approach it. it's not entirely correct. There is actually nothing about such infusions lapsing unless you choose to make them lapse the way things are written. The problem in a lot of ways is that everything is heavily magical in the artificer despite the fact that it's sense of flavor is supposedly more the mad tinkerer or clever machinist. So it's infusions work more similarly to changing your prepared list of spells for the morning than actually being representative of your work over your entire rest period. Except that even preparing your spell list actually takes you more effort than the way infusions are actually written as working because then you at least need to spend a minute per spell level to switch them in and out of your prepared spells as part of your morning routine.
i will admit that i prefer your way of looking at it and flavor as i think the tinkerer/creator aspect should have been played up way more than the magical aspect in a whole number of areas about the class and I would approach it in much the same way myself. it's much more fitting to the idea of what an artificer is and does and it's subclass options mostly support the idea heavily. But the reality is that when you break it down the class works almost entirely on magical touches and "poof it's created" factors than actual time spent tinkering which i feel like is a dis-service to the class and the ideas behind it sadly.
Infusions (including attunement) aren't even the only thing that suffer from this kind of issue in the class. Almost every subclass main feature suffers from the same kind of thing in some way. Armorer and Battle Smith are some of the most blatant about it. But it's true of the others as well. Most of them are simply stated as an action or a touch to make affects that should reasonably take some time to create for the artificer. On top of that the Battle Smith can of course use the mending cantrip to keep their Steel Defender Healthy at lower levels and it will do plenty of healing. But at higher levels rather than using your turn casting a cantrip to keep it going over multiple rounds it becomes just far more efficient to just spend an action and return it to tip top condition if it falls to 0 hitpoints because there is no real work repairing it to bring it back within the first hour, just a short time investment before it's fully usable again. You can flavor it that the minute that it takes for it to return to be a matter of it mystically pulling itself back together but it's no real work on the Artificers part to make it happen. I may be missing a feature or two but the only one I can think of off the top of my head that actually embraces the idea of spending your down time tinkering to make these affects on an object is the arcane firearm feature of the Artillerist which actually states that you take woodcarvers tools to actually carve the special sigils that make the feature work rather than just simply saying you touch it or use an action while simply holding a certain type of tool.
The infused Items column in the level progression chart makes no distinction that it is per Long Rest. It just tells you the number that you can have at any given point period.
The Sage Advice has made it clear which way things are intended, and you are right in that regard, but I couldn't help but notice this argument you made which is a rather weak one. Spell Slots are also not specified as per Long Rest, it is in the body of the text about spellcasting where this is made clear; the table is only intended to give a quick overview of the values at different levels of features that are explained in more detail in the text. And I do agree with robmathes that the language is ambiguous, but the use of the semicolon makes it lean towards that being the number of infused items that could be created per long rest. Without the sage advice, both as a player and DM, I would have likely ruled it to be the number of infusions that can be created per long rest based on how the text was written.
One of the indicators that this is the case for further clarification is actually within the Armorer subclasses in the Armor Modification subclass feature because it increases the total amount of active infusions that you can have at one time (using that specific language) by 2 (and specifying where specifically they can be used). But it does not in fact alter the total number of infusions that the Armorer can know. This bonus to do 2 more active infusions would be meaningless and thus have to be replaced with something else if it was simply a matter of that's all you could do per long rest and still get up to your total known infusions because it would not actually be any kind of advantage to that particular subclass that with the same ability actually increases the number of places they can also use those infusions (the attunement total still being a limiting factor).
With robmathes' interpretation, the bonus would be weaker but not meaningless, it just means in one long rest you can infuse more things rather than having to wait till the next day, it makes it easier to change up the which items are infused and which infusions are active, and when you initially get this feature to infuse multiple separate elements of your arcane armor, you can more quickly charge up the entire thing if you like. So again, not that strong of an argument.
The language of the older Infusion disappearing in favor of the newer infusion is also another plain indicator that this is the case because you would not need such wording if you could simply activate infusions up to your known number. They would simply limit the number you can have at a time and rely on the fact that you can only have one infusion on a single item at a time and simply state that placing that infusion on a second item would remove it from the original item rather than stating that there is an order that they can be removed ass you exceed the limit. Which clearly means that you can actually know more infusions than you can actually have active at any one point in time if you can put a completely different infusion from the oldest onto an item and the oldest will still disappear.
This is easily your strongest argument, as at first glance it may indeed seem like an odd way to word things if you can use all your known infusions (given enough long rests to do so), but even here, I would argue this way of wording just easily covers multiple situations:
reusing an infusion you've already used -> the oldest item with that infusion loses that infusion
infusing an item that was already infused -> the oldest infusion in that item disappears
infusing more than your infusion limit within one Long Rest -> the oldest infusion you made that long rest disappears
Your sense of ambiguity in the language is actually created by your effort to rules Lawyer the system into getting more than your allowed rather than the actual language of the class features and level progression chart involved.
No need to go personally attacking people and accusing them of things they aren't doing. You can disagree, you can even feel good about yourself that your interpretation matched the sage advice, but don't go trying to drag others down because you disagree with them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I want to point out some confusion with the description of item infusion. The infusion feature states:
"You can infuse more than one nonmagical object at the end of a long rest; the maximum number of objects appears in the Infused Items column of the Artificer table. You must touch each of the objects, and each of your infusions can be in only one object at a time. Moreover, no object can bear more than one of your infusions at a time. If you try to exceed your maximum number of infusions, the oldest infusion ends, and then the new infusion applies."
People seem to be taking the rate at which infusions can be created to be the same as the limit of how many infusions can exist and be active at any given time. As per the language in the description, I'm not sure this is correct. Let me explain.
It states first that the Artificer can create more than one infusion at the end of a long rest and then pauses the sentence with a semicolon (this is important). It then goes on to state that the maximum number of infusions the Artificer can create at the end of a long rest is listed in the table. The semicolon is important here because it means the latter part of the sentence applies to the former part. Which means the limitation expressed only applies to how many infusions can be create at the same time (at the end of any given long rest). As written, this has no bearing whatsoever on how many TOTAL infusions can exist at any given time for the Artificer, but rather, it only states the RATE at which infusions can be created. For example, a 4th-level Artificer can create 2 infusions at the end of a long rest on Monday and can create 2 more infusions at the end of a long rest on Tuesday, totaling 4 known infusions.
The next sentence states that you must be able to touch the object you infuse. That's pretty clear. No guess work there. It then states that each infusion you know can only exist in one object at a time. Now, this is a very important sentence because this actually establishes a limit to the TOTAL number of infusions an Artificer can have active at any given time. If our 4th-level Artificer knows 4 infusions, then only 4 infusions can exist simultaneously (within 4 different objects, as stated). And, as per the first sentence, it would have taken at least 2 long rests for our 4th-level Artificer to create these 4 infusions (2 per long rest).
So the first sentence states the RATE at which the infusions can be created and the second sentence establishes the limit to how many TOTAL infusions can be created over time.
The third sentence states that no single object can hold more than one infusion. That's pretty clear. So, in our example, our 4th-level Artificer can have 4 infusions in 4 different objects.
The fourth sentence determines the behavior of your infusions if you exceed your limit (i.e. oldest one ends). Of course, the "maximum number of infusions" referred to in the sentence harkens back to sentence #2, which is where our maximum number of infusions at any given time is established.
So, here's the disclaimer. I know a lot of you reading this are going to say that I'm lawyering the description of this feature... and you'd be right. But I'd rather the language be crystal clear than leave room for ambiguous interpretation. The Artificer level progression table has 2 columns pertaining to infusions: "Infusions Known" and "Infused Items". Neither of which clearly define "Active Infusions Allowed". "Infusions Known" clearly defines total number of recipes an Artificer knows. "Infused Items" is ambiguous. Does it mean "Infused Items" per long rest? Or does it mean total "Infused Items" allowed at any given time? As per the language in the description, it only defines the rate at which the infusion recipes can be carried out.
I'm not specifically arguing for it to be one way over the other. I just want it to be clear. The root of this confusion really boils down to the use of the semicolon that I mentioned. If you replace the semicolon with a period, the entire meaning changes. I know the folks who write up these classes spend countless hours pouring over minute details to arrive at a balanced, fun, and engaging option for the players and I'm very appreciative of their work. Understanding the level of detail they strive for, I trust that they chose that semicolon carefully and this is why I'm so specific in my analysis. In this particular case, I think a little extra clarification is warranted. That's all.
We could go round and round all day long arguing about the spirit of the description versus the language of the description and nobody would be wrong. I just think it would be great if we could put this question to Jeremy Crawford. What is the actual maximum number of active infusions allowed for an Artificer by level? It would also be great if they would adjust the language in the description to alleviate the ambiguity.
The infused Items column in the level progression chart makes no distinction that it is per Long Rest. It just tells you the number that you can have at any given point period. The fact that the part after the semi-colon puts a limit on the part before it does not in fact make it so that it necessarily applies to the long rest Caveat. It merely is mentioned as a total cap of items. What the level progression chart is giving you is the option to know more infusions than you actually have in existence.
One of the indicators that this is the case for further clarification is actually within the Armorer subclasses in the Armor Modification subclass feature because it increases the total amount of active infusions that you can have at one time (using that specific language) by 2 (and specifying where specifically they can be used). But it does not in fact alter the total number of infusions that the Armorer can know. This bonus to do 2 more active infusions would be meaningless and thus have to be replaced with something else if it was simply a matter of that's all you could do per long rest and still get up to your total known infusions because it would not actually be any kind of advantage to that particular subclass that with the same ability actually increases the number of places they can also use those infusions (the attunement total still being a limiting factor).
The language of the older Infusion disappearing in favor of the newer infusion is also another plain indicator that this is the case because you would not need such wording if you could simply activate infusions up to your known number. They would simply limit the number you can have at a time and rely on the fact that you can only have one infusion on a single item at a time and simply state that placing that infusion on a second item would remove it from the original item rather than stating that there is an order that they can be removed ass you exceed the limit. Which clearly means that you can actually know more infusions than you can actually have active at any one point in time if you can put a completely different infusion from the oldest onto an item and the oldest will still disappear.
Your sense of ambiguity in the language is actually created by your effort to rules Lawyer the system into getting more than your allowed rather than the actual language of the class features and level progression chart involved.
Sage Advice with an absolutlely clear answer:
Click me.
No more arguing needed. The wording is not perfect, we all know, but they didn't change it in Tasha's so the Sage Advice is all we have (that and a bit of common sense).
Thank you, Sutlo.
Wrong. Please read my analysis of the language. The wording is unclear. The best indication that it is unclear is that Jeremy Crawford already had to clarify it, which Sutlo was kind enough to provide the link to.
These are good points of reference. However, the ability to change an infusion from one object to another would be a reason to specify that the oldest infusion ends if you exceed that limit. A moot point, regardless.
As I already stated in my post, very clearly, I'm not specifically arguing for it to be one way over the other. I just want it to be clear. My analysis of the description is academic. I appreciate your thoughts on the subject but I can do without your judgement, thank you very much. The language in the description is definitely not clear. If it were, this question would not have come up from multiple players as it has.
I'm not wrong. Your trying to make it wrong. It is already clear. your purposely muddying the wording to create the potential loopholes your speaking of.
The oldest one also would not disappear with the one at a time limit. Let me give an example.
Let's say you can have 4 infusions active. For the sake of ease. You did the Infusion of Butt-Kicking, the Infusion of Bravery, the Infusion of Artificers don't suck, and your fourth one is the Infusion of Repulsion on a shield. You can move the Infusion of Repulsion, your newest one on the list, every time you take a long rest to a different party members shield. It will NEVER affect the Infusion of Butt-Kicking that you did first. No matter how many days, no matter how many times. Nothing will happen to Butt-Kicking until you actually take the action to move it.
Now Let's say you know a 5th Infusion on top of these 4 that your actively using. Let's call it the Infusion of Overload. When you have the other 4 already active. It doesn't matter on what rest you choose to activate the Infusion of Overload it will always deactivate the Infusion of Butt-Kicking automatically because Infusion of Butt-kicking is the oldest. This scenario can ONLY exist when you know more infusions than you can have active for yourself or the party and not under any circumstance where your known Infusions can match your total active infusions.
Also, jeremy's words aren't so much a clarification as a flatout restatement of what i already tried to tell you and others would have tried to tell you. The only amibuous nature to them is purely the creation of those trying to get more out of it as I said.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersFor clarification, the Artificer Table has a column labelled, "Infused Items" which is the maximum number of items that Artificer can have infused at any given time, based upon their level.
Whilst at 5th level, for example, the Artificer has 4 "infusions known" but they only have 2 "infused items" - this means they can have 2 items with an infusion on.
Stated directly in those rules, "If you try to exceed your maximum number of infusions, the oldest infusion immediately ends, and then the new infusion applies."
Pun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
Sigh
(be advised i didn't read the whole thread)
X=number of infusions
An artificer has x infusions know based on the level that you are in the artificer class. You can, at any given time half of x infusions active at one time. Hard capped.
(8 infusions know = 4 infusions active) = (8 infusions know = 4 infused items)
Rules as written (RAW) vs rules as implied (RAI) (or in English, the translation of RAW)
RAW: you infuse items when you finish a long rest. This does not mean that you infuse items 2 hours after you 'wake up' from a long rest.
RAI: while you are taking a long rest is when you are doing you infusions. While the argument could be made that you could do all your infusions during this time, rotating from oldest to newest, while keeping only the maximin number of infused items allowed active at one time. However, that is not what is implied and therefore incorrect.
What is implied is that you, as a character, must chose what infusions that you want to be active after a long rest is completed up to the maximin number of infused items allowed to be active at one time. This implies that you must make this choose before you start your long rest, so that during your long rest your infusions are being completed, and are completed after the long rest.
If the long rest is interrupted, the infusions that you were trying to do during that long rest will not become active and the infusions you had active before your attempted long rest will remain active.
When you do a new infusion to replace an old one. For the sake of argument. Any infusions that you have active that want to stay active will have to be re-infused during the uninterrupted long rest. For the sake of convenience, you can say those just stay active instead of having to roleplay that every time.
At least this is how I play artificer.
While this is a perfectly logical and legitimate way to approach it. it's not entirely correct. There is actually nothing about such infusions lapsing unless you choose to make them lapse the way things are written. The problem in a lot of ways is that everything is heavily magical in the artificer despite the fact that it's sense of flavor is supposedly more the mad tinkerer or clever machinist. So it's infusions work more similarly to changing your prepared list of spells for the morning than actually being representative of your work over your entire rest period. Except that even preparing your spell list actually takes you more effort than the way infusions are actually written as working because then you at least need to spend a minute per spell level to switch them in and out of your prepared spells as part of your morning routine.
i will admit that i prefer your way of looking at it and flavor as i think the tinkerer/creator aspect should have been played up way more than the magical aspect in a whole number of areas about the class and I would approach it in much the same way myself. it's much more fitting to the idea of what an artificer is and does and it's subclass options mostly support the idea heavily. But the reality is that when you break it down the class works almost entirely on magical touches and "poof it's created" factors than actual time spent tinkering which i feel like is a dis-service to the class and the ideas behind it sadly.
Infusions (including attunement) aren't even the only thing that suffer from this kind of issue in the class. Almost every subclass main feature suffers from the same kind of thing in some way. Armorer and Battle Smith are some of the most blatant about it. But it's true of the others as well. Most of them are simply stated as an action or a touch to make affects that should reasonably take some time to create for the artificer. On top of that the Battle Smith can of course use the mending cantrip to keep their Steel Defender Healthy at lower levels and it will do plenty of healing. But at higher levels rather than using your turn casting a cantrip to keep it going over multiple rounds it becomes just far more efficient to just spend an action and return it to tip top condition if it falls to 0 hitpoints because there is no real work repairing it to bring it back within the first hour, just a short time investment before it's fully usable again. You can flavor it that the minute that it takes for it to return to be a matter of it mystically pulling itself back together but it's no real work on the Artificers part to make it happen. I may be missing a feature or two but the only one I can think of off the top of my head that actually embraces the idea of spending your down time tinkering to make these affects on an object is the arcane firearm feature of the Artillerist which actually states that you take woodcarvers tools to actually carve the special sigils that make the feature work rather than just simply saying you touch it or use an action while simply holding a certain type of tool.
The Sage Advice has made it clear which way things are intended, and you are right in that regard, but I couldn't help but notice this argument you made which is a rather weak one. Spell Slots are also not specified as per Long Rest, it is in the body of the text about spellcasting where this is made clear; the table is only intended to give a quick overview of the values at different levels of features that are explained in more detail in the text. And I do agree with robmathes that the language is ambiguous, but the use of the semicolon makes it lean towards that being the number of infused items that could be created per long rest. Without the sage advice, both as a player and DM, I would have likely ruled it to be the number of infusions that can be created per long rest based on how the text was written.
With robmathes' interpretation, the bonus would be weaker but not meaningless, it just means in one long rest you can infuse more things rather than having to wait till the next day, it makes it easier to change up the which items are infused and which infusions are active, and when you initially get this feature to infuse multiple separate elements of your arcane armor, you can more quickly charge up the entire thing if you like. So again, not that strong of an argument.
This is easily your strongest argument, as at first glance it may indeed seem like an odd way to word things if you can use all your known infusions (given enough long rests to do so), but even here, I would argue this way of wording just easily covers multiple situations:
No need to go personally attacking people and accusing them of things they aren't doing. You can disagree, you can even feel good about yourself that your interpretation matched the sage advice, but don't go trying to drag others down because you disagree with them.