i think it is vague, because it is not trying to create a new OES rule for fireteam but is trying to give an example of how a fireteam would play out using the existing and well known OES rule. "3. The Active Player declares the second Short Skill of the Order." could end "... as per the OES." but no one expect that "as per the rule" be added to every sentence in an example.
As it is said "examples are part of the rules". When I read a new annex, I get the impression that the authors carefully avoided mentioning the declaration of something by nonleader fireteam members. Whether this was done on purpose, I don't know.
Huh. Well, this muddies the waters. The examples 4, 6, and 7 all refer to the Fireteam Leader being the one to declare BS Attack, hacking, or medikit. It says that the other team members are "activated by the order" and "perform Idle" but it describes the team leader as declaring the non-idle skill. Arguably, this means that the other team members don't declare anything. They're activated by the order and they perform an idle, but that's it.
which is similar to the past when Regular Order were converted into Fireteam Order where the subject declaring the order/skill is the fireteam in general; with the leader declaring and doing a skill while the others where doing (and declaring?) "Support" thus not breaking holomask.
There have been enough errors in the examples in the Infinity rulebooks that this is not Corvus Belli's policy.
I don't think CB has a policy about how to resolve conflicts between the examples and the rest of the rules. More broadly, I don't think CB has promulgated any interpretive guidelines at all. As players and forum members, we sometimes try to identify interpretive principles, but that's us trying to figure out how to answer rules questions when CB doesn't answer them. When CB does answer questions, they just give the answer, they don't invoke interpretive principles. In cases where an example has conflicted with another rule (and you're right, there've been plenty), when CB has eventually answered the question, sometimes the answer has been consistent with the example, sometimes with the other rule. I wouldn't rely on Psychoticstorm for the proposition that the examples are part of the rules. He doesn't have the Infinity Rules Staff tag, so his statements on rules aren't authoritative. Also, he often gets the rules wrong. However, even without any guidance from CB, I don't see how we could possibly disregard the examples when trying to understand the rules. Why would CB publish examples if not for the purpose of illustrating how the rules are supposed to work?
To be precise: Examples are part of the rules unless they contradict "real" rules. This has happened alot in n4 due to copying examples from n3 for rules that have changed when n4 rolled in.
Examples are part of the rules, but I belive the first N4 FAQ established that examples are not allowed to override or contradict actual rules.
