XDD I see your emphasis and raise to coordinated orders, check it's the same. Also your emphasis is refering to orders he can't declare (like trying to use a program in a non hacker) When they declare move, they move, when they declare BS attack they don't attack but provide bonuses. It's the declaration what break these states, and in fireteams the skills are declarated unless it's impossible for the model to declare it (hacker example)
We must I think in that case agree to disagree that a Fireteam member other than the Team Leader is capable of performing the BS Attack skill during the active turn.
That's a different thing, as it's explained in that same page support skills are only performed for the team leader, in fact: All members declare it, only the team leader performs it (unless they can't even declare it like the hacking case). The declaration is the cancelation clause (which is ignored in this case for the rulexample of "Holoprojector L1 and Fireteam Example")
They're both states with identical cancellation clauses. If they work differently, it's honestly a failure of the rules implementation. Why not? Where in the rules does it say that specifically? Get off your shit. CC skills have rules that say what they apply to. Holo1 and marker states have verbatim, word-for-word cancelation clauses.
I agree, but that's not what CB is doing. It's more than a little frustrating to professional rules-writers like me.
Again, i'm really annoyed by your attitude. You keep insulting people, and this should totally not be allowed in a public place. And again. The rules tell you what you are allowed to do and what you are required to do. Not the other way round. If the Holo1 rules DO NOT states that it is a Marker state, then it is not. BTW, a "Marker state" is a state you can delay your ARO against. And Holo1 is not. More over? A Holo1 model is represented by A MODEL and not a marker. If you use the perk of Holo2+1, you need to notify to your opponent that those MODELS are in reality a MARKER, because it is a requirement of Holo2 (and not, who could have said that, of Holo1) And again and again. Keep going please. You will ignore anyway whatever anyone says. May it be a player, a warcor, a game designer, CB staff or god himself. I still wonder why I bother
If you keep saying stuff that betrays a lack of reading comprehension, then I'm going to keep pointing it out. It's that simple. If you consider it an insult for the accuracy of your contents to be called into question, no matter how justifiably, that's a reprehensible attitude. Why do you bring up Surprise Attack/Shot? Nobody's saying that Holo1 is a marker state. We're just saying that the rules say that anything that would cancel a marker state also cancels Holo1, and vice versa.
If there is anyone here who has problems with comprehension, sorry for you but it is not me. So, let's play your game. Please, feel free to quote the exact line of the rules where it DOES say that Holo1 is a marker state. Please, feel free to quote the exact line of the rules where it DOES say that all the marker states have the same cancellation clauses. Please, feel free to quote the exact line of the rules where it DOES say that Holo1 and Camo have the same exact cancellation clauses. Because the rule DOES NOT say that. If you wanna keep arguing for the sake of arguing, please go ahead. If you wanna for once stop beating a long dead horse, i'd rather.
From the Camo state rules: A trooper's Camouflaged state is canceled, and its Marker replaced by its model, whenever: The Camouflaged trooper declares a Skill other than Cautious Movement or a Short Movement Skill that does not require a Roll (except Alert). From the Holoecho state rules: A trooper's Holoprojector L1 state is canceled, and its imitated model replaced by its real model, whenever: The trooper in Holoprojector L1 state declares a Skill other than Cautious Movement or a Short Movement Skill that does not require a Roll (except Alert). Nobody is arguing that Holo is a marker state. But both camo and holo do have nearly identical (simple change in word order) cancellation clauses. This is why the example in holoecho needs to be labeled as an exception unless you want people thinking the same applies to camo states.
So are saying that thermonuclear energy and solar energy are the same because in the end they both produce energy... Guys, stop it. They are different things. They works in different ways.
Even if they are different things, the same cancelation clause will apply to both unless there is any exception that say one of them function differently. In this case there is an exception, included in an example that doesn't say it is an exception. That's the problem. Include that in the fireteam rules or in the Holo1 rules and it's all fine; nobody would be saying anything. But if it is included it in an example of a cancelation clause that more than 1 state share, that can be easily extrapolated. We are not saying CAMO works like HOLO 1; we are saying that exception needs to be added to the rules text so it's crystal clear.
Well yes they are both electromagnetic radiation, I mean the sun is a huge fusion reactor... but I agree there is a distinct somatic difference in the rules here but you shouldn't have to argue somatics in a game so it would be nice if the rules were more clear on this loophole
That's the worst analogy ever. Sorry, but it really is. It doesn't even come close to the issue. If you're going to go for the energy thing at least try. He's saying that if in the instructions for a wind power plant it says that you need to hook up a capacitor to account for drop in production due to wind shortage, it is analogous that a solar power plant needs a similar solution because it, too, is subject to production shortages that are sometimes unpredictable. I.e. we have an example giving instructions for how to interpret a particular situation. If the situation is the same with the only difference being - not even semantic - that it involves a different skill then by the definition of what examples are it should also instruct us how to read the same situation when it occurs in other rules. Otherwise, I might add, shooting blast mode shotgun while moving in to close combat with the target of the BS Attack is something that only troopers that started their order in Impersonation 1 (specifically 1, not 2) can do. That said, this particular example is buried so far from the rules concerned I'm not sure whether we can actually interpret this as an actual rule that applies to templates at all.
Yes, both are different things, nobody argues that, the matter here is when the question of if a camo marker state participating in a Coordinate Order do nothing (inaction) as the second part of order (because the troup can't do the second declaration) should lost or not the camo marker state. The answer if I remember correctly was yes because is the declaration what triggers the cancelation clause, and most of people support the argumentantion on how the fireteam rules are wrote in this case. The stranger thing here is, what we should do, for example, in the case of a holo level 1 trouper participating in a coordinate order? Should or not should us cancel the holo level 1 state. The answer was yes, but this almost hasn't any sense when in first place to support the "cancelation of camo state" in a coordinate order people use the wording in fireteam and "declaration and real action". So, we will have a troup with Holo L1 which don't reveal himself in a fireteam but yes in a coordinated order, because the example only covers the "fireteam interaction". In the end, all of us, players can easily accept a FAQ which do a clarification on how to apply, or not to apply, a rule. The problem comes when other rules (a different one) bring to us the same case of application, so what should us do? Yes is another thing, forget about that... Or Not, is pretty much the same case, so we triying to do as we do with the other rule. And too that the wording used maybe isn't the best and made some confussion into the players comunity. Still, according to the rules, FAQ include (I believe 1.4) a camo participaing in a coordinated order reveals itself even if he do nothing as the second order, because the "declaration of the order" is what really counts to the cancel clause.
@Urobros made a good point, this also matter from a rules consistency point of view. You don't want the exact same rules behaving differently for random reasons.
And that is the full coverage of it. A Camo is discovered, a Holo1 is not. Why? Aliens... (insert meme)
It's literally the identity property. A=A. You have two entries in the rules that are written entirely the same way, and you're arguing that they should be interpreted differently. You're attacking the idea of coherent language itself. They have exactly the same cancellation clauses. So you can see for yourself that the cancellation clauses are the same, @tox . If you're arguing that they're not you need to get your eyes checked, dude.
