The purpose of this thread is just to draw forum users' attention to the ruling in this thread: https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threads/can-i-intuitive-attack-an-impersonation-marker.36537/ @ijw has ruled that you can't declare the special maneuver discover+bs attack against an impersonation marker. The ruling is off-topic from the actual thread topic, so I thought it important to highlight in its own thread, since I think it is a change to the way that most of us have been playing. (There is really nothing to discuss, since the ruling has already been made. Nonetheless, I suppose we can expect the usual chorus of argument to crop up below.)
Arguably, the ruling was made with a justification that at least I can not verify exists within the rules ("Camouflaged State specifically mentions Discover-Attack as an exception to not being able to declare Attacks." - which is arguably a false equivalence that arise because of Intuitive Attack being permissible and mentioned in Camouflaged). A community ruling has to be based in the rules and be verifiable to have legitimacy. If this is how the rules were play tested, then that would lend legitimacy, but that's not what was expressed.
I don't think this interpretation will be very followed. Anywats the game continues to be more and more restricted thanks this kind of interpretations. Hopes in N4
Fortunately, TOs understand the importance of consistency and predictability even if some forum members don't. I am a player. Literally the only thing I care about in regards to the rules is knowing how a TO will rule at a tournament, so that I can learn and practice using those rules. That's what it means to have rules. Whether someone thinks the rules have some sort of abstract "legitimacy" is meaningless. I am confident that TOs will apply @ijw's ruling whether or not they (or I) agree with it. Done.
So it's blindly follow IJW regardless of how much his "ruling" makes sense? Sounds pretty dumb to me. The order expenditure sequence and discover + shoot description is pretty clear on how is supposed to work. Luckily the TOs around me are much more sane as will probably not follow this ruling until an actual official FAQ is put out.
It's also pretty clear that Discover + BS Attack can only be used against enemies as written, and Impersonators are treated as allies.
Yes, but step 1 of the game sequence of Discover + BS Attack is to Declare Discover against an enemy, not something that would be treated as an enemy once discovered, or something that might be an enemy, or something I really want to be an enemy.
This interpretation is inconsistent with biometric visors which affect discover rolls against ENEMY troopers. This this “new” interpretation would cause this function of biovisors to be completely useless in game. The interpretation is not logically consistent within the greater construction of the game and hinges on the difference between “is an enemy” and “counts as an enemy”.
What are you talking about? The rules aren't describing a philosophical dilemma for the trooper, they're setting a limit to you as a player who knows that an IMP-2 marker that will be discovered will be an enemy trooper, thus fulfilling the criteria set forth by the rules for the target to be an enemy trooper once discovered.
My sticking point is this part of the Manouevre: "Step 1 - The Active Player declares Discover against an enemy as the first Short Skill of his Order." At this point the Impersonator is still being treated as an ally. So the above is not fulfilled.
This is how we locally slice rule discussions. It's easy to have your own opinion of the rules, but I have a lot less influence than IJW when it comes to matter of ruling and players that attend our event look to the forum for answer and IJW is about as close to official as we can get without getting an official CB answer. Even if I do not agree with some of his ruling, I will still adhere to them to try and have the most consistency so that our community can try and expect a similar result when they travel to somewhere else and vice-versa for people coming into our tournament. My sphere of influence is limited to my local meta and trying to shape my meta to my personal opinion of the rules would be extremely conceited of me and would be way more damaging than not. Even if I am a Warcor and TO, I don't have any qualification to override the written rule with what I think is a "fairer" house rule. I hope that when travelling to other event, I don't have to ask every TO : "What are your house rules and how do you play them" and have them list a unique answer for every single contentious rule in the game.
By the way, you are aware that AROs are only generated by enemy troopers, right? Impersonation states without giving an exception that AROs against them are limited, thereby implying that in spite of enemies treating them as allies, they are still enemies and thus generates AROs, so even getting to the stage where the impersonator generates an ARO means you have to treat it as an enemy even if they are regarded an ally. Hell, as further complications, taking this stance means you can't delay against them using Sixth Sense
For reference, I haven’t ‘ruled’ it that way. That’s my direct reading of the rule, is shared by other people, and is the same as the last time this was discussed, although I can’t remember if that was on the forum or in a FB group.
I think he means that he's not making an authoritative proclamation about how it should be played. Just how he, as a player, sees the rules as written. I've noticed that he actually doesn't come here to tell us exactly how it should go down in the controversial threads very often, perhaps because he doesn't feel like he should have the authority we give him. Sorry if I've misrepresented here, but that's just what I see on my end.
I think theres a certain acknowledgment among all of us that reading the rule this way is extremely silly and certainly not intended, and thus, no "official" ruling is given because of that reason
I mean, it feels consistent with the rule prohibiting intuitive attacks on impersonation markers, which are in turn consistent with the rules prohibiting mines from detonating on impersonation markers, so let's not tar too widely with that brush of yours. (Not that I wouldn't mind a formal conclusion in the next FAQ)
