@ijw , will we be able to get a Provisional Rules Answer on this? I hate to nag, but I do think it's important :-( Otherwise it seems that we will be stuck with two different games, the majority playing Infinity N4, but a few events playing a sort of Infinity N3.8 which uses most of the N4 rules, but the N3 ARO system. Schism is bad for the game.
Closing the loophole, then having a mechanic which explicitly allows this interaction would be FAR better for the game than having to read between the lines to know you can do it. As it is currently it's going to lead to some really feel bad moments of gotcha-hammer.
Has he not already provided his ruling? For something which the "majority" are doing, it sure seems to catch a lot of people totally off guard. ;)
YES he has, but you're refusing to accept it. Hence the need for a Provisional Rules Answer. It shouldn't be necessary, but you're making it necessary.
Honestly, until it's in a FAQ, I probably won't play by it or enforce it, for all the reasons I've already stated. It sounds like a lot of west-coast Warcors are on the same page. It's too complex of an issue to be buried on a forum thread.
It should be necessary because it's going to catch people off guard. Not everyone who plays Infinity hangs on IJW's every word, and some of his answers are extremely unintuitive and directly contradict examples in the rulebook.
Oh for God's sake. You claim to want your players to be able to find the ruling easily, but you won't accept a Provisional Rules Answer which is exactly the method that CB uses to make rulings easy to find between FAQs. I give up. I just hope you label your events Infinity N3.8 so that participants aren't misled into thinking they'll be playing N4.
Except its not a houserule, thats the official ruling that was explicitely discussed by IJW with the rest of the team as being intended.
I LOL'd. I mean, I think I've been pretty consistent about my lack of desire to enforce this ruling until officially FAQ'd, I'm surprised it's a surprise to anyone at this point, lol. It has nothing to do with liking IJW or not (I'm quite fond of IJW and the work he does), and more to do with not wanting to put players though potentially very negative play experiences based on a fairly drastic (perceived) rules change, which can only be found on a thread which will be buried in a few weeks.
Considering that IJW's previous answers have directly contradicted the rules and then been overriden later, I find that to be speculation that I don't buy into.
Has this happened in N4? This is a genuine question since i didn't closely follow IJW's track record. Weren't they also not in the rules team before N4?
IJW previously ruled that you could not declare Berserk if you were already engaged with an enemy, the FAQ allows it. I don't want to hold his feet to the fire saying this one time it changed and he should be flogged... but his answer was inconsistent with the eventual FAQ. I suspect he was ruling RAW (which is fine), despite the intention that it should be allowed and was then changed in the FAQ.
The FAQ erratas it. Prior to the FAQ, the rules didn't permit it. It's labelled as errata in the FAQ for that reason.
The entire point of having a Rules Staff answer questions on the forum until a FAQ comes out is that it can help a player settle rules question in the meanwhile. I assume FAQ are longer to be released because there is more staff involved that need to discuss it in depth. The point is not that all of his answers will be correct and future-proof, it's just so that you can cut a debate in a non-biased way that's verifiable independently by any players. There is a few rules precision that I disagree with, but I don't know how I could justify ruling against them at one of my event and just go "I just didn't like that interpretation, so we do it differently here".
So its happened in the past that a ruling was changed after they clarified how it worked pre-change. I don't think that means their initial ruling was wrong, before the errata, thats how the rule functionned. So right now, thats how the HD revealing with an invalid ARO ruling works. Yeah, its a way to know if (at the time it was answered) thats how the ruling should be applied. Any rule is subject to change in the future tho, next Errata could give all of Pano wip 14 for example.
Speaking from experience, I said something along the lines of "Pinning engaging models to walls is fucking retarded, so we're not doing that here." and that was the end of the conversation.
Please don't put words in my mouth, I picked what I said carefully. I didn't say IJW was wrong in his ruling, I said it was inconsistent with the eventual FAQ. This was in reference to a question about his rulings being inconsistent with the FAQ, that is all. I don't want to throw him under the bus about it.
Yes, the FAQ allows Berserk to be declared in Engaged State. On my insistence, specifically because RaW didn’t allow it.
