do you have a link to these previous discussions because I haven't seen any real "debunking" of the idea in this thread just alternate interpretations of the sequence.
IIRC they were on the old forum, so no... there's no link. I do remember, however, coming down on the other side last time, though I can't recall if I previously gave any weight to the "lose all wounds" part of the skill. Additionally, there should be no "sequence" since all things happen simultaneously. The point of contention as I see it is whether "lose all wounds" is the ultimate intention of the skill or if it's just "goes unconscious" and losing all wounds is just a necessary way to get there.
Yes, making a statement that this is a resolved issue which other posters have explained correctly. Your wilful amnesia isn’t my problem dude.
FFS. When have you ever been correct when you’ve argued against him? According to the rules, I mean, not merely in your own opinion.
Plenty of times. A good example would be how pre-errata Sixth Sense worked, or whether or not Smoke Grenades count as an attack.
Oh, look at that, you don't have the actual ability to show that I'm wrong so you're reduced to misquoting me. At least I can be comfortable that the tournament scene over here in the US ignores IJW's dumber ideas (like Smoke grenades not being attacks).
I agree with IJW that the rules explicitly state smoke is not an attack (poorly state this, but explicitly), but there's an official FAQ that states Nimbus and Smoke and Smoke derivatives may touch friendlies.
How does that answer the question? You are just being snarky and pretending to know better by not answering? Thanks @Mahtamori , at least that is an answer.
My point is that if Smoke isn't an attack, then you can't use it as the "Attack" part of a "Move + Attack" Impetuous order. But everyone does this; I bet IJW does as well.
No intent to get into the giant argument that occurred above however, I don't know who IJW is and i'm not sure why their opinion constitutes any rebuttal against the points raised. If you could fill me in on who this is that would be greatly appreciated :).
IJW is one of the rules tested and maintains the Wiki. Over a long period of time the standard for settling rules debates on the forum has pretty much settled on: FAQ > [Solved] Answer by Hellois (CB staff) > IJW > RAW. IJW providing an answer doesn't entirely stop debate, but it provides enough of answer for most people to get on with.
thank you very much for clearing that up. I appreciate the he's a tester but, I'm probably still gunna wait for a staff member or FAQ before i find any resolution definitive
