At the Conclusion of an Order, the Engaged state can be cancelled when all of a trooper’s adversaries are in Null or Immobilized state. When this happens, the trooper’s player must decide whether to keep the Engaged state, or cancel it by separating the trooper by 1mm from the adversaries. If all of an active trooper’s adversaries are in Null or Immobilized state the trooper can also cancel Engaged state by declaring Move (but following the structure of the Order) to separate from the adversaries.(From FAQ 1.4, Sep 2018) At the conclusion of any (friendly or enemy) order (anywhere on the board) can be used to cancel any engaged state assuming that all melee enemies are unconscious. Correct?
The engaged ones, yes. It is not spelled out but it should be. I'll bring it to attention to the FAQs team.
Why they should be activated? "At the Conclusion of an Order"... If the order was shoot to the Close Combat dont complain with the requisite? If all the troupos of one side go into a "null state" don't complain the requisites? As far I understand the FAQ, in the conclusion of an orde, if the requisites are achieved, them, one or some "troups" in engaged state could loose it". If we apply the FAQ in this way, the trouper should be activate, the trouper will be still "engaged" after other shoots into the combat and kill (lucky one) all the enemies... because it wasn't activated by order or ARO. Don't have any sense
Because, in primis, you cannot activate a model if not by an Order or an ARO. This let you disengage at the end of the order you put the enemy unconscious.
At the Conclusion of an Order, the Engaged state can be cancelled when all of a trooper’s adversaries are in Null or Immobilized state. When this happens, the trooper’s player must decide whether to keep the Engaged state, or cancel it by separating the trooper by 1mm from the adversaries. Let's break this down. It's not if all the adversaries are Null/IMM, but when. When this happens, you have to choose. So it can't be done at the end of any Order, but only at the end of the Order in which things changed. So it's the end of any Order in which the last of the trooper's adversaries entered Null/IMM state (or simply died). The trooper does not have to have activated, and cancelling Engaged state doesn't activate them anyway.
It's true "when" marks the event that triggers the condition, however it's not well worded. The first line is a conditional, the best way to avoid these missunderstandings is puting the whole condition before the first comma. Right now part of the condition is inside the main clause; so the reading of "At the conclusion of the order" being the only condition is understandable. Something like this would create less doubts: At the Conclusion of the Order when all of a trooper’s adversaries are in Null or Immobilized state, the Engaged state can be cancelled. If clause, main clause.
@Ogid is every enemy model in the game board an adversary? Or just the ones the model is engaging? :)
I'll take that as a compliment! Probably because I tend to pay close atention to both the RAW (code) and the RAI (how the code should work); I also like to look for patterns, solve problems looking for different solutions, and unraveling mechanics to bits. And all those skills are also important for programmers... or maybe for this other thread :P I do like programming tho, I got into it because it's a very useful tool; but that's not what I do for a living.
Welcome to the equivalent of "We (the compiler writers) fixed the bug in your code, because it's a common coding error to make." Seriously, not even code operates according to what some people claim "rules as written" means.
Look at it from this perspective. The code operates exactly as written - after the editor, layouter, compiler, local dialect (i.e. machine), etc has adapted it for execution. It's up to the coder to figure out how to get the code to do what it's meant after it's been through that compilation process. (And then there's a few limitations to keep the CPU from literally killing itself imposed by both the OS and the firmware, which roughly translates to laws that'll hopefully reduce the number of game rules related homicides - i.e. why we only talk about Maghriba socks and don't actually use Maghriba socks)
Pretty much this; if a programmer doesn't take the time to plan the code and prevent events that would break it, that code will suck and have a million of bugs.
This FAQ entry isn’t great, and still requires some interpretation. The previous version was, however, totally unplayable. Sadly the old forums are gone or I could link you to several threads where I get frustrated.
Bonus Question / Hot Take: I had a game recently where my Speculo was engaged with Hunzakut. Enemy fired into the melee in their active turn, and took out the Hunzakut, rendering it unconscious. Because the Speculo had not been activated in ARO, I assumed that there would be no option to remove the engaged state (and so the opponent continued to shoot her until she fell over) Is this right, or would the Hunzakut going unconscious have allowed the Speculo to disengage (and therefore react with ARO to being shot at from then on)?
I would word it like this: At the Conclusion of the Order, whenever any of the Engaged trooper’s adversaries enter Null or Immobilized state, if there are no other Engaged enemy troopers in a non-Null state, you may cancel the Engaged state of that Engaged trooper. If you do, <...>