Avatar [Lieutenant: +1 Order] in ISOLATED state

All you said is correct but for one thing: an isolated LT is still the LT until another one appears (via end of turn declaratoin or CoC hability). The LT special order generation is not linked in anyway to the LoLT state, it's only linked to a LT in a non Null state.

 

Ah, I see what you're on about. I think any bookmaker would give you fairly predictable odds for how an faq on this will go, but I'll defer that to said faq.

Keep in mind, however, that the LT will be irregular and irregular troopers never add their orders to the order pool, so Strategos won't work for generating Regular Orders even if the LT is allowed to generate LT orders.

 

I still like my RAW scenario where Buffy the Lieutenant becomes isolated but doesn't stop being the Lt, next turn you appoint Faith the Lieutenant and now you have two Lts at the same time. It's definitely what CB intended.

 

That's the tricky part, I agree. Yes, we have an Irregular LT Trooper generating a LT Order (orders, maybe) that can be transformed into a Regular Order. And yes, also, an Irregular Trooper does not add his Order to the pool ... and that's a singular "order" in the text.

What you said souds pretty reasonable, but one may argue that "that singular Order" is only referred to the Regular/Irregular Order a Trooper may have, as LT special order is always out of this binary codification. So, I think it is also reasonable to think that those Regular Orders from the Stretegos combo could be added to the pool.

 

Intention is quite clear, and I agree with you in that. I think the whole point is about to know whether there's a sentence missing or it just needs a little FAQ.

 

It's not singular order, it orders. See below where I have not added any emphasis of my own.

Irregular Troopers do not add their Orders to the Order Pool of their Combat Group, but instead keep them for their own use. Bear in mind that these Troopers can still receive Orders from the Order Pool.​

 

Interesting then, in Spanish appears in singular ... : "La Orden que la Tropa Irregular proporciona no se suma a la Reserva de Órdenes de su ejército, conservándola exclusivamente para su propio uso. No obstante, puede recibir Órdenes de la Reserva de Órdenes del ejército." (p.19)

 

It's plural in english because troopers is plural. Multiple troopers have multiple orders. My Spanish is pretty weak, but it looks like in that version the entire sentence is singular - an irregular model's (singular) irregular order.

 

Also, I know that singular usage was cited in the Minelayer question, but there's enough natural language stuff going on that I really don't think it's a generically good basis for a strong rules argument.

 

The translation (skipping the "troopers" plural) is something like: "The Order that the Irregular Trooper(s) provides ..."

And I agree with you in the "natural language" issue, but what bothers me is that "the" instead of an "a". In spanish is singular and determined, and therefore my previous arguments.

 

That was mentioned in relation to a different topic and such minutea is crucial for Minelayer to work as intended.

Also to keep in mind is that the Spanish rules were translated from English.

That said, I don't think that matyers in this case, as I very very highly doubt having a lieutenant during loss of lieutenant will survive an FAQ. Like we shouldn't even need to have this debate.

 

Strategos is optional and your Avatar can use his Lt Orders fairly well by himself.
If you're expecting to walk into Jammers, Hacking etc and want some additional security I'd recommend turning Strategos off start of turn so the Lt Orders do not go into the Regular Order pool and can be used while Isolated (together with the Tac Aware Order).

Ideally you'd get the Avatar somewhere next to an Engineer, but 3 attempts to Reset on a -9 or -12 with a WIP17 has decent chances at success.

 

That's not what I've been told.

And so do I, but having a nice debate like this should be interesting for anyone willing to know better the game.

Besides, I've been directed to a particular part of the "Loss of Lieutenant" rule, in p.23, that changes my point of view:

That "lacks", as "has no", should imply that having an isolated Lieutenant would mean "having no Lieutenant", and therefore no LT Order would be generated.

 

Right. Dug up IJW's exact quote. Not entirely sure either language can be called the original language, tbh, or at least it's not clear enough that either language can be deemed to contain the correct meaning when they're at odds as in some cases the Eng version is newer and got translated back to Esp, apparently.