Pass it on to the relevant people so either they remove the second explanation to what F2F is from the Initiative roll, add the crits caveat, or move the full explanation of what a F2F is to before the Initiative roll.
Criticals are described on page 21 in the old rules and page 29 in the new rules under the super header of "Rolls". Criticals happen to all rolls that compare themselves to a Success Value, whether Face to Face or otherwise. Page 30 is the first time the rules properly explain face to face rolls. You are instructed by the initiative page on 22 to make Face to Face rolls and you're given an attribute to use that forms the Success Value of said roll. Page 8 in the new rules are introductory rules so it doesn't need to explain critical hits like the introductory rules on page 8 did in N3.
This is a nonissue. OCF has Lt NCO profiles, at least. That doesn't make any sense because you could use that argument to drive things in reverse, and add additional barriers to play like forcing players to play tiddlywinks to get a speculative fire off. Uh... you're flat-out wrong on this. There's no evidence of that; in fact, N4 has expanded the amount of tools available to kill Lts.
True, but still you would need to know who in your opponents army with given WIP can be Lt. There is a big difference between "one of those four guys" and "this guy".
If your target number is 14 and there's only one wip 14 model in the army you don't need to know what's happening to know what your opponent's LT is.
You may need to know a little bit about the opponent's army if the only model with WIP 14 is a Legate hacker and there's two camouflage tokens prone on roofs near each other in the DZ.
It's pretty trivial to take a look at Army during your opponent's deployment and check to see which profiles have that WIP.
True, but with SEF you just assume everything thats important is under a marker and focus on killing the speculo before it ruins your day. But in Phalanx you could have a handful of heroes but if Machoan is the only wip 15 on the table it's pretty obvious who needs to get introduced to a template. Or in BJC where the only 14 on the table is a custodier. Or MAF where the only 14 is kornak. Or StarCo where the only visible wip 12 is the brawler. etc. Doing this is generally considered to a dick move/poor table etiquette mid game, and will result in the TO probably beating you with a Maggie in a sock.
Yeah, but depends on the army you face. N4 is no longer like how N3 was, it's harder to make deductions based on gear; you can no longer rule out the hackers as LT, HMG LTs are even more common, and so on. It's the same thing in Yu Jing or Invincible Army; if the LT has WIP 14, you need to start making educated guesses about the camo markers and you need to know which of the WIP 14 characters you can rule out since Yu Jing has an oddly low amount of LT options among its characters. Same thing is deciphering stuff like what it means if your opponent has an extra CT, reconfigures the LT order to Regular, and so on. There's a bunch of tells for who's the LT and you need to have the information available to decipher it. I've personally revised my opinion on bringing up Army to check on profiles because I no longer think it's very fun when the game is decided by the person able to sit on the biggest trove of information - even if that's typically me doing that. It's like the big disappointment when I pull off a clever rules technical move and my opponent goes "wtf, that's not possible!" because instead I just blindsided them with something they didn't only not consider, but thought would be impossible.
This varies enormously from group to group, and is not universal. And you appear to have missed 'during your opponent's deployment' in the post you're replying to.
Personally I don't allow people to use army at any point during the game. If you looked at your opponent deploying a Moran and wanted to know how many points that was contesting a table quarter in Supremacy, then picked up their army list and had a look, that would be a breach of etiquette. If you asked someone else to look at the list and then give you the information it'd still be an issue, so I don't find a person opening up their phone and taking a look in army to find the information any less a form of cheating. The information is private. You're not supposed to be able to access that information.
I know, I'm just making the point that it's more or less cheating when you consider what the action of browsing the app during a game entails.
Only if you don't regard deployment as the game having started. Being able to look up private information at any stage invalidates the entire concept. But like you said, it varies from group to group.
Knowing the publically-available rule set? I'd consider trying to block an opponent from accessing an official resource like that to be a breach of etiquette in and of itself.
