Absolutely, I didn't want to throw you under the bus (and tried my best not to), just answering the question about rules forum answers that are eventually not the same as the FAQ. I assumed you suggested that Errata. :) I also hope you suggest an Errata to resolve this issue as well, haha. Since it is a complex issue, it might even be worth asking the community for solutions which might work and avoid opening a can of worms.
First of all it is not house rules but official answers and this is a final statement, the only thing above them is the official FAQ and this is how it is. Secondly, if the FAQ changed the answer maybe, you should think why it has happened and maybe appreciate more the work @ijw does here.
When it contradicts the N4 rules, and isn't in a FAQ or even in a provisional rules answer, sure it is.
Jut to be clear if an answer is made the provisional answer @ijw gives is final barring @ijw himself issues a correction or it is altered in the official FAQ.
I just want to point out interactions that I believe are now permissible by this ruling, to make sure we're considering all the repercussions: If you go second, you can have a hidden lieutenant revealed to the last order(s) of your opponent's first turn so you don't start in LoL. On the last order(s) of your opponent's turn, you can declare an invalid Dodge to get models out of HD to generate orders on your following turn. You can declare invalid Dodge ARO to clear mines, which retroactively come valid. If you go first, you can declare invalid Dodge ARO off your opponents last order(s) to drop marker state to Hold Consoles in some missions. If you go first, you can declare invalid Dodge ARO off your opponents last order(s) to drop Hidden Deployment state to Dominate Zones in some missions. 4-man links and other models with Sixth Sense (like Chasseurs) can do this even against Stealth. Any more interactions I've missed?
And what's particularly relevant about this is that it's not explicitly called out in the rules, FAQ, or a provisional rules answer. Very un-friendly for new players, but great if you have this special knowledge and your opponent doesn't.
You can use it to drop an ARO tooper out of Hidden Deployment if you judge that you need its regular order in your pool for your turn, more than you need it to stay hidden.
I'm curious to know how exactly will it be ruled in events you hosts, I mean: exactly the wording of what you can and cannot do, since I don't see a way of having ARO validity check in resolution and eligibility to declare ARO everywhere on the table in any other unambiguous way. I mean, since the interaction treated on this post is a consequence of rules "as they are written", you need to have a different wording precisely written down to prevent this from happening. If it's not clear: I'm not ironic, but really interested in how you'd solve the issue :)
Yeah, I dislike secret menu rules. Technically Chipotle will make you a quesadilla, but knowing the existence of their secret quesadilla shouldn't be what wins lunch. It's something you can absolutely find on the Chipotle forums though, and their menu doesn't say you can't order one, so you shouldn't feel bad for losing at lunch.
I'm pretty sure that the mere existence of this thread (and the traction it got in various groups) means that this situation will be addressed soon in a FAQ. Asking repeatedly for it to be clarified and stating that you will ignore that ruling until its in an official document seems kind of over the top. Just be patient and in the meantime, tell your playgroup about that ruling so its known by as many people as possible. Once the FAQ is out and its either explicitely stated as legal or removed from the game, you can tell your playgroup the official outcome. Until such a thing happens, its part of the rules, even if it seems unintuitive to some people and considering it affects 5 units in the game, i wouldnt give it as much mental energy as some people here are.
I'm not very fond of the way CB publishes rules clarifications, either. I've said before that if it were up to me, the wiki would be the only rules document, and would be updated as needed. So instead of just posting in this thread that "Properly, it should say 'if a Trooper could have declared a valid ARO and failed to do so'," ijw could actually update the wiki to that wording. (And put the update in a changelog, of course!) Unfortunately, ijw has said that CB won't allow it. Their policy is that the rules pdf won't be changed, and the wiki text must be a copy of the pdf text. So we're stuck with quarterly FAQs, and in between, ijw's posts. The Provisional Rules Answers are the best posts since they're easy to find, but unfortunately not every clarification makes it into a Provisional Rules Answer. Nonetheless, those are the clarifications we have, along with psychoticstorm's reminder that they are, in fact, official clarifications.
So, as an aside, do I have that right? Sequence of rules, higher overrides lower: new FAQ / errata Provisional Rulings (the ones that a thread each in a special part of the Forum) IJW's intermediary answers for "in the meantime, until FAQ" previous FAQ / errata Wiki / rulebook (assuming they say the same thing)
Out of interest, how will you handle a situation where a unit declares an ARO from Hidden Deployment without LOF? Like... by what measurement will you decide that the ARO was declared honestly and what will the consequences be if it's out of range?
When you find yet another disappointing change to the game. Sigh, clearly HD LT2 needed a boost because it wasn't good enough to have 3 regular orders you can't do anything about.
By "you can't do anything about", you surely mean as the player who owns the HD LT2 and go into LoL as the turn starts? Even with this "change", I don't think any of the 5 HD LT available are relevant.
In all honesty, if I were looking at the board and though that my opponent was sitting on a hidden LT, I might end the turn without spending any orders just to shove them into LoL. Might start doing the same thing in my last turn if I think they have something hidden to score with. If it doesn't reveal its dead. Don't be that guy.
I'm not sure if you're trying to pull me into an argument that I am not interested in having. This has not come up once in 9 months of playing, so we will just carry on playing how we did until something is officially published in an FAQ with more instruction. None of us feel any strong desire to introduce a very gimmicky interaction which has a lot of implications to the balance of ITS missions. Not to mention how it can produce extremely negative game experiences. Some of the people on this thread talk as if everyone should know this and they're bad if they don't, yet many of the top players in the US (and presumably international as well) have been surprised by this ruling or were unaware that the mechanic even existed. To a lot of us this feels like players acting in bad faith and trying to use rules to validate their behavior. I'll deal with this the way I deal with slow play, the rules don't say you're not allowed to do it, but it's something that isn't tolerated. For a game that's often argued as a permissive ruleset, this whole discussion feels pretty off the mark. I'm happy to play by whatever when it's explicitly permitted in a FAQ, but until then I'm not going to change how I play.
