1) Does Alert break suppressive fire? 2) Does Alert from another trooper allow a model to turn without losing its suppressive fire state? 3) Does your hidden deployed model/marker need to be placed on the table in order to delay their ARO against enemy markers? 4) To discover an IMP2 marker who has mimetism - 3, do you receive - 3 mod to the discover roll? 5) If the controller of a synchronized model is in ImmB state, can it declare ARO normally or is it limited to the ARO the controller can make?
The rulebook is quite clear, any ARO declaration that is not a BS attack cancels the SF state. Alert is an automatic skill that happens at the conclusion step of the order, by a troop that has not declared any Order/ARO => RAW should not break SF. RAW yes (no roll, no order, etc...). This was FAQed in N3 as yes. I believe that in N4 it is so too, because you can't declare anything with stuff outside of the table, aside from Combat Jump and Parachutist. The Negative Feedback tag has the answer. Make yourself familiar with it and which stuff applies it, because it happens a lot. Your redaction is confusing. Both IMM states (A and B) states that the affected model can't declare any order or ARO aside from Dodge (A) or Reset (B). Peripheral states that the controller and the peripheral must declare the same order/ARO, but are allow to choose different targets. So, if the Controller is in IMM state, the peripheral is essentially IMM too.
Yes, it’s specifically mentioned in the Cancellation clauses for Hidden Deployment State: No. You are allowed to declare Skills with the Peripheral that can’t be declared with the Controller, see the bullet point after that:
I disagree. Text reads: If any of the game elements (Controller or Peripheral) does not meet the Requirements of a Skill of the Order declared by the Controller and Peripherals, then they perform an Idle instead of such Skill, while the other may actnormally. Since you are not allowed to declare an order with the controller, aside from those 2 allowed by the state, the peripheral is unable to "declare its own order". In spanish it's even more clear: Si alguno de los elementos de juego (Controlador o Periférico) no cumple con los Requisitos de una Habilidad de la Orden que el Controlador y los Periféricos han declarado, entonces se considera que tal elemento de juego realiza una Inacción en vez de dicha Habilidad, mientras que el otro podrá actuar con normalidad. In this case, the direct translation would be "...of an order that both the controller and peripherals have already declared...". In both instances, declaration of the order/aro precedes the execution, which is where you would check requirements. For example, I can declare "shoot" with my Deva + Devabot unit, even if only one of them don't have LoS.
If you're trying to imply something about the terms involved, that's bullet point three of the Peripheral automatic skill. Note that bullet point one is "Peripherals are deployed on the game table at the same time as their Controller". Yeah, CB had another wonderful word choice when they settled on Peripheral including Peripheral(Control) as an option, but Controller is still the term that applies to all of the cases. Edit: If you're trying ask "But how do the Controller and the Peripherals end up declaring the same skill that they can't all perform?". Don't you think having a bullet point explaining how to resolve a situation reinforces the point that the situation occurs?
It’s right there in your quote, as also pointed out by Mahtamori: ‘declared by the Controller and Peripherals’ You declare an Order with all of them at once.
I don't know what you're on about. I'm implying that when you declare an order on a Peripheral and a Controller you're declaring it with the Peripheral AND the Controller, not just the Controller like Xagroth wrote.
But I guess you cannot clear the imm state with the engineer servant if the engineer is immobilized as it is the engineer that is considering performing the engineer skill?
This would make sense if IMM stated that you can only execute a reset order. Its pretty clear that the only order you can declare is reset. How do you declare anything other than reset with controller then? Noting there is no sequence, or order of operations. So the implication you can declare something with the peripheral and then the controller idles is non-sensical. .
Yep, that is explicit under the servant rules that it is the doctor/engineer using the special skill 'through' the servant.
I have a migraine and it’s after midnight, so you’re going to get a blunt reply. The Order and Skills are declared by both Controller and Peripherals. Not by just the Controller. This is right there in the rules text as quoted multiple times. Your and Xagroth’s reading of it (only the Controller declares anything) has a whole bunch of knock-on effects that neither of you appear to have considered, the most obvious is that it would make all Peripherals ‘immune’ to the declaration restrictions for IMM-A and IMM-B States*. *Effectively unhackable Puppetbots, Auxbots, Devabots etc. doesn’t sound appealing to me...
Appreciate you responding quickly, but you should probably go to bed! :P I think you're misunderstanding. But you have raised an interesting, but opposite issue from how I'm reading it. Its not that the controller declares the skills. They both do, but they MUST declare the same skill. So if one of them cannot declare a skill, neither of them can. But this brings up the opposite issue of an Immobilised servant 'locks' out the controller from doing anything due to the restrictive wording of the immobilised state. I think I'm maybe taking a too strict reading of declaration vs execution. But this brings back the old spectre of uncertainty of when are you limited from declaring a skill versus just not being able to execute it. Your unhackable peripheral issue would have been easily resolved by having the bullet point about 'hacking states' being transferred to the peripheral not be worded to seemingly only apply to positive hacking states. Then peripherals could be worded as declaring the same skills as the controller, and be done with it. This introduces a weakness for Peripheral (Control) units which otherwise doesn't exist right now under your reading (immobilising the controller) But I don't see that as a bad thing given how cheap and flexible the unit type is already, and still not as restrictive as the old N3 version.
You definitely are. There would be no point of that bullet if skills had to be able to be declared by both the peripheral AND controller. Remember, you can't declare a BS attack without LoS...does that mean docs/engineers with servants tucked away prone somewhere can't defend themselves?
Yah true that makes sense, and in that context the bullet point makes sense as well. It's the awkward English that threw me.
Also, ‘Nice Seraph you’ve got there. Shame I don’t need to hack it, and can instead hack the Auxbot with WIP11 and half the BTS. Or hit it with PARA ammo and bypass the TAG’s high PH, or just lock it in combat with someone...’. P.S. Thanks for th e clarification!
Yes, both have to declare the same order. The controller can only declare Reset/Dodge (depending on IMM state). BUT, they have to declare the same. RAW you are not allowed to declare "whatever" with the controller and "something different" with the peripheral. I'm not saying only the controller declares, but that the declaration of the controller is a hard need. If you need condition A AND condition B, and A=B, you are not allowed to say A=1 and B=0. Yes, but no. See next answer: Please, go ahead. The Seraph does not have the Peripheral skill, and is thus not required to declare the same thing as the Auxbot, which DOES HAVE the skill, and thus needs to comply with the general requirements under Peripheral, and the specific requirements under Peripheral (control). In fact, RAW I could then activate the Seraph with a declaration that the Auxbot can't declare, for example Discover + BS Attack, and the Auxbot, unable to declare any of those, would not declare anything (nil value). This would make the Seraph to generate an ARO, but the Auxbot would not generate an ARO (because has not, can not, declare order). ===================================== In short: A troop with the peripheral skill has to declare the same order as its controller. The controller does not have the peripheral skill, thus not being forced to declare the same as its peripheral. The controller is limited to declare only one between Reset or Dodge (depends on IMM state being A or B), the peripheral has no states => the peripheral is forced anyway to stay limited to either Dodge or Reset, because its declaration MUST MATCH that of the controller. The controller has no state, but the peripheral has one IMM state (either IMM-A or B) => The controller is free to act as it pleases, because it0s the Peripheral skill what forcers a model to "mimic" another, but does not work in both directions. ===================================== Another option of explaining this: P (peripheral) must mimic C (controller), for which P needs to see C (both have a visual capacity similar to that of a standard human). C is free to act, and has no restrictions at all. In daylight, whatever C does P will, and C can do whatever he wants. In total darkness, C can do whatever he wants, but P can't do anything, because P is unable to see C.
Please point out where anyone has claimed otherwise. This is logically false, making the rest of your argument meaningless.
@xagroth the rules also say that if either unit can not perform the action, they will perform an idle, this without limiting which unit that can be.
@xagroth Sin mala intención y sólo por curiosidad, pero... ¿Estás discutiendo de reglas, con uno de sus creadores? Without malice and just out of curiosity, but ... Are you discussing rules with one of its creators? ( @ijw >>> Ian Wood)
