It doesn't. But my guess is that they're in panic mode because they broke their game with the new and reworked sectorials of the last year and can't just make a rollback.
And what exactly makes the game broken, and CB in panic mode? Because for me this is an overstatement. They certainly went overboard with the links' complexity and to some extent power level, but it's nothing that can't be dealt with using the tools we already have. They're just a bit too difficult to deal with for their price brackets. Today's clarification is a step in a good direction, though for me it's still too mild a solution, and I certainly agree that a complete review - and language standarization - of fireteams is in order.
It's not even a solution. It doesn't help at all, in addition to making the precedent that podcasts are part of the rules now.
No it doesn't. Helllois posted here. This hububb isn't because the game's main rules designer said something on a podcast, it's because they actually put it out in print on the rules question forum.
not really, it makes the precedent that HellLois post on the forum (with IJW adding them on the wiki) is part of the rules now. The podcast in effect happened to be nothing more than a rule update preview that got quickly added to the forum and wiki.
The only reason HellLois posted it here was because of that podcast and people asking if it was real.
How would someone who doesn't comb through the forums obsessively know about this change? It needs to be in the FAQ to count.
Only part is in the wiki. The ruling on Rhu Shi and other non Wildcard units that join Fireteams is not.
I'm fairly certain he conferred with Interruptor before answering. Or that the answer was already obvious to them, just not to us.
The wiki appears to be the rules now. So it is in the rules. This seems to be a change from before where the wiki only reflected the rules as published, and not clarifications on the forum. I dont think that has been officially announced, though I think Bostria mentioned moving to a 'living rulebook' in a seminar. Some players have asked for that for a while, its very 21st century. As for the rule getting known, forum clarifications got known before, because players spread them. It works, not as well as a FAQ entry, but sounds like we will get that too. Slight (but not critical) problems to me are: a) The wording isnt very clear without ijws clarification that the troopers who validate a fireteam core with wildcards need to be mentioned in an entry that says core in the sectorial fireteam chart not just a special fireteam that ends up making a fireteam core. Thats not actually what the official wording says. B) A similar (slightly more restrictive) effect could be achieved more simply by requiring a core fireteam to have a trooper from the entry in the fireteam chart with fireteam: core in its profile to be part of the team when it is formed. This would also be more consistent with how Haris and Duos work. Personally I'd go even further and make it that a Core needs to include at least one Trooper of the type its listed next to in its fireteam chart. So a fireteam listed next to Alguaciles needs at least 1 Alguacile in it (including counts as). That's just less confusing. As it is, i like the idea to tone wildcards down a little, but they managed to make fireteams even more complex, and they were quite complicated already.
It doesn't? Care to explain how when literally the full extent of the rule for it can be summarised with "X can join Y" and we're told "you have to have at least one Y, not just Y replacements" doesn't follow the rules?
What if someone showed up to a tournament this weekend, not having heard about the change, and found out their list couldn't make a 5-man fireteam?
There's no fireteam to join before it's created. There's no "joining," per se. If replacing the last member of the fireteam with a trooper that isn't the same invalidates it, why doesn't replacing the first one do so? We're told something, yes, but it doesn't follow from the rules, so it amounts to new rules inserted with no warning based on an extemporaneous comment made on a podcast.
I'm pretty sure everyone here understands the intent of the rule, but this: Makes it sound like you don't like what you read and are grasping at straws. I mean you're literally trying get a rules definition for the word Joining. Take a hard step back and realize what point you're trying to make.
In the following Fireteam... Special Fireteam: Core. Up to 4 Hungries (Gakis and/or Pretas) + 1 or 2 Oznats. Can a Wildcard replace a Oznat? Is 4 Hungries + Raktorak a valid Hungries fireteam? Can Wildcard replace hard requirements, or should only be interpreted as "up to X can join" added to the Fireteam chart? I forgot about the Hungries Control Device. I assume you can't, because of the device. But what if the Device was not needed, my question is trying to illustrate the "Up to X" and "2 of Y" as hard caps.
I understand the intent of what's being said, I just think it's a major problem that a CB employee will say something about how the game should be played on a podcast, and what they say has no support in the rules, and then it's rushed into the wiki, when there are other outstanding rules questions that actually have meaningful balance implications that are ignored.
