Except what we are really arguing about is an example of how some things work for HOLO1 that is 1) not identified as a general exception; and 2) not repeated for CAMO. Basic rules is that Examples are NOT supposed to be rules text, but Infinity has been using them as rules text since N1. Examples are supposed to be answers to FAQs, basically, a clarification to how the rules operate.
Agreed that examples should never add rules (or worse, exceptions to rules) to what you already have in the given rules structure, but we have what we have.
I fully understand what has been said and support what @ijw has said, as badly written to write exceptions in the examples it is what it is for now. Beyond that, is this a reason to have such a heated discussion about it? I am sure one can discuss it in a more civil manner.
What isn't clear in this thread? AFAIK It's clear how this works (ijw confirmed it before). We are only talking about that example should be part of the rules text instead of an example: HOLO 1 doesn't get canceled for declaring in fireteam. CAMO does get canceled for declaring in coordinated order.
HOLO 1 does/doesn't get canceled for declaring in coordinated order? More specifically, is the example an exception for HOLO 1 in fireteams only, or HOLO 1 more generally?
I would also appreciate some clarification on if other states with similar cancellation clauses break in a fireteam or not. Camo (Jacques Bruant), Holo 3 (Patrocles), etc. It’s hard to tell exactly where the boundaries are.
That example is an exception, only for Holo 1 and only for fireteams (that's what that rulexample cover) It was clarified here:
It is not clear to me that that is the case. Edit: more to the point, I don’t see why those same exceptions wouldn’t apply to other skills with identical cancellation clauses.
Let's put this in question form. A trooper in a state that hides it participates in an order when BS Attack is performed while this trooper has no LOS. Does the trooper lose the state? A) Yes the trooper will lose any state, including Holo1 B) Yes, the trooper will lose any state except Holo1 C) Yes for any state, except Holo1 in a Fireteam order D) Yes for a coordinated order, no for a Fireteam order E) Yes for Camouflage and Hiding states, no for Holoprojector states F) No, all cancellation (whether CH2+ or Holoprojector) clauses are the same and they care only about what is perforned
That shouldn't be in an example because it creates this kind of uncertainty about the consistency of the rulebook. I totally agree with you. However that example is a rule (rulexample!), and it's ruling only when a Holo 1 is forming part of a fireteam; anything outside that isn't RAW.
The only thing I would say is that it's more of a similar problem to the recent FAQ "explanation" problem. It doesn't just say that HOLO 1 isn't dropped in that example. It actually tries to tell us why. And the problem there is that the why makes it seem more general than just HOLO 1 in a fireteam.
That's why this thread was created, because it was confusing. But we have an answer, that ruling only applies to that particular situation (Holo in Fireteams). The fact we have an answer doesn't make that example any better tho (it's still a perfect example of how NOT to include rules), and should get fixed; but at least we know how it is supposed to work.
Allow me to be a bit of a nuisance regarding the answer given, if we accept that the example provides an exception and that it is RAW. "Does this apply to Patroclus or Sforza FTO as well, or is it only an exception that Hafzas can use as the example deals with a Hafza?" Or the slightly less TFG question "Sure, but does that work for coordinated orders and Holo1 as well?" There's a reason why I greatly favour D) over B) or C) as the correct answer (referring to my suggested question up there)
There is no prior example ruling one particular unit; we can very safely asume it's talking about Holoprojector L1. That example is supposed to be an exception to a rule about Holoprojector L1. So we can't extrapolate anything; it is only talking about Holoprojector L1 and Fireteams; hence that only applies to that particular case. If they want to rule that for coordinated orders, then an extra rulexample is needed (god no...). In your Q&A the right answer would be C But it's true this might be confussing and some cases could not be clear, so let's summon someone to get a final confirmation. @ijw, could you help us to clearly delimit the exception of the rule about Holoprojector L1? Fireteams only or also other kind of coordinated orders? Expected answer: Fireteams only Holo 3 state included (Achilles patroclus duo)? Expected answer: Holo 3 not included (He will lose the Holoecho state AND the Holoprojector L1 state)* Any other state included? Expected answer: Only for Holoproyector L1 states Spoiler: * Why Holo 3 not included It is a different state and the following rule: The Holoecho state of a holographic decoy is canceled, whenever: It is successfully Discovered. It enters base to base contact with a model. It receives a successful hit that forces him to make an ARM/BTS Roll, or a Critical hit. It breaks Coherency with the other Holoechoes. The real Holoprojector L2 bearer's Holoecho state is cancelled for any reason.
After some reading, I think your question can also apply to impersonnation and Holoechoes I would correct @Mahtamori question like this : A trooper in a state that hides it participates in an order when BS Attack is performed while this trooper has no LOS. Does the trooper lose the state? A) Yes the trooper will lose any state, including Holo1 B) Yes, the trooper will lose any state except Holo1 C) Yes for any state, except Holo1 in a Fireteam order D) Yes for a coordinated order, no for a Fireteam order E) Yes for Camouflage and Hiding/impersonnation/holoechoes states, no for Holoprojector L1 states F) No, all cancellation (whether CH2+, impersonnation or Holoprojector) clauses are the same and they care only about what is perforned
Yes, it was meant for all of them. I'd suggest you make the edit in the question instead of just one answer, though, if you think it needs writing out (otherwise you'd need to make A, B and C equally verbose) A trooper in a state that hides its identity (such as IMP-1, CH2 or Holo1) participates in an order when BS Attack is performed (by being part of a Fireteam or Coordinated Order) while this trooper has no LOS. Does the trooper lose the state?
So like this ? A trooper in a state that hides it (such as CH2+, Holoprojector lvl 1, holoechoes, Impersonnation level 1 or 2) participates in an order when BS Attack is declared (by being part of a Fireteam or Coordinated Order) while this trooper cannot perform it (no LoF on the target and/or not the Fireteam leader). Does the trooper lose the state? A) Yes the trooper will lose any state, including Holo1 B) Yes, the trooper will lose any state except Holo1 C) Yes for any state, except Holo1 in a Fireteam order D) Yes for all state for a coordinated order, no for a Fireteam order E) No, all cancellation clauses are the same and they care only about what is performed (not what is declared)
Looks clear enough, but you removed E which is good as I accidentally made it logically the same as C it looks like. To reiterate, here's an alternate summary below (where I try to be concise and consistent) A Trooper is hidden behind a state and participates in a multi-unit order but canyt perform the skills declared. In what situations are the state preserved; A) All states cancelled B) Trooper may keep only Holo1 regardless of order type C) Trooper may keep only Holo1 but only if in a Fireteam D) Trooper may keep any state but only if in a Fireteam E) Trooper may keep any state regardless of order type
