So IMHO these are the questions that have to be clarified: Do you have to have a legal LO in your list if the mission includes this special rule? (It isn't stated, but may be required) Do you have to deploy at least one FO in a way that it is legal to choose it as LO? (It isn't stated, but may be required) What happens if you didn't deploy your only FO on the table (Hidden or AD)? - Redeployment? After reserve models? What happens if your list does not include an FO at all? - Does this make the list illegal for such a mission? While it is much harder to have an army deployed without viable Datatracker, those questions are the same for DT, I guess. And while @Mahtamori states that it would be unfair to lack a Datatracker in missions where the opponent gets Objective Points for killing the DT, you have to consider that a list without specialists would be legal for firefight, right?
Keep in mind, though, that there are benefits to bringing specialists when interacting with panoplies. However, arguably for sake of such balance Panoplies should only be lootable by specialists so that you're forced to surrender a potential point to guard against another. Also arguably, for Liaoson Officer, as long as there is only a benefit to bringing one, it doesn't hurt if it's an option rather than a requirement.
It's a fallacy. A point is a point in any case which doesn't involve complelely stomping over your opponent with a score of 10-something. At which point you won't potentially care about more than one point, as long as it's still a Major. And yeah, this point can up-tier your victory, turn a loss into a draw etc, just like any other point.
There is a small issue with ITS missions how missions are often decided on single objectives which for casual play makes single points like these largely irrelevant unless you're trying to harvest points at a tournament. Some missions can even be described in terms of primary, secondary and bonus objectives. I can't quite tell if this is intentional or not since it's inconsistent.
Well, my point is that Liaison VP is, for practical purposes, no different than, say, that single classified being completed in some scenarios. So basically it's as considerable as 1 point can be regardless of wheter it is being added to score of player 1 or subtracted from score of player 2.
Pure invention. It says you cannot choose troops in HD, and does not say that you are prevented from deploying FOs in HD. Given that the rule is vastly different in terms of the scope of who can be declared O-12 liaison vs. datatracker, anyone who plays Infinity regularly would have been able to deduce this would cause a problem, especially when worded so imprecisely.
You must choose a troop that is undebatable, also TO models are ineligible, if you only have one FO and that is the TO model well either you must choose it and reveal it or not have a Liaison Officer at all, I do believe the "must" holds more weight than the no Hidden deployment, but if you want to be brutal enouph I am fine with penalising players who forgot their only FO in hidden deployment. And @Hecaton please stop trying to discredit posters, it only hurts your position.
The problem with revealing a Hidden Deployment trooper in order to facilitate this mission specific rule is that it breaks game rules without giving permission to do so. I don't think this is a matter of discussing whether "must" has priority over the list of ineligible models. As TO I find how to solve it pretty easy (if your only FO is a TO trooper, you're not allowed to deploy it in HD - simple as that), but it would be good if the ITS document would handle this situation.
That’s my take on it as well - it’s not that you’re revealing an HD trooper without permission, it’s that the player had to deploy it out of HD in the first place. This is currently under discussion for the next FAQ.
There's no rule that lets you reveal it. If you say the "must" holds higher weight, that's a personal opinion. I see a rule that was written without an awareness that running HD FOs was even possible. I'd say the same thing about @ijw making stuff up and then claiming it's in the rules.
There is no "making up stuff" @ijw makes rules clarifications, please do not make his job more difficult.
@ijw has always been a subject matter expert on the rules, but has had no prior ability to give us official rulings on these questions, only his best suggestions. While his suggestions have been generally very logical and the best interpretation within the rules, he has never had the power to answer rules like an infernal from warmachine or the lawyers guild from guild ball. Because if this is still the case, then do not try to flaunt his authority that he doesn't have. If it is the case that he can now officially answer questions, please get koni or helllois to post as such, give him a separate rank from warcor (such as those two have) and have him please start answering the unknown question thread because we could really need that.
