I've seen the community being a lot more burned out with such work, between the obscure changes in N4 and pandemic affecting us all, so I wouldn't hope for somebody picking up CB's slack. Mahtamori's thread collection and Ian's preliminary answers is very likely to be all we get.
RULES STAFF NOTICE Part of my work as a freelancer for CB is to answer and clarify rules questions. This is an important task for CB and for the forum. While CB are open to discussion about how the rules work and how the rules should work, recent behaviour and constant questioning of rules authority have gone beyond acceptable levels.
[Personal post] From a practical point of view, it causes unresolvable conflicts with a number of other rules areas, notably placement of templates. For example: Active Trooper: I move up behind the corner, outside LoF. Reactive Trooper: I shoot a Katyusha at point X that's in my LoF, in case you come round the corner. AT: OK, I Move again, but I don't pass through point X so your template placement was invalid.
You moved the details of the skills to the Declaration instead of the Resolution in your example, just keep it like it currently is. Active Trooper: I move up behind the corner, outside LoF. Reactive Trooper: I will ARO, shoot with my Katyusha. AT: OK, I Move again. Reactive Trooper: My shot is taken when you were at this precise point. (This scenario would get the same result as the game is currently played) (It would however differ a little if the first Short Skill of the active player was taken while already in LoF.)
AROs and second Short Skill declarations get really messy if you don't know where a template lands until the Resolution step.
I think it's more to prevent this: "I move out of LoF" "Every single one of my revealed troopers BS Attacks just in case they can see you with the second movement" I believe there is also a desire to keep being able to force bad AROs within ZoC to allow CC specialists to more easily get into melee.
Fair, I can see where it would cause a problem. (Mostly with the Active Player dropping the template and having models that don't know if they're in it yet not have their chance to Dodge for example) I mean, "Every single one of my revealed troopers BS Attacks just in case they can see you with the second movement" is already how we play the game. Any troopers you have that can't BS Attack (or ZoC ARO) on the first skill will always just shoot if someone enters their LoF. - - - - - As a side-note. Edit: disregard the text under this, I had not looked at the right area in the rules. Dropping a Mine requires LoF to the opposing trooper. Would that still be a valid ARO to Declare to someone Idling/Moving in Total cover? (Since the thing that prohibits BS Attack is explicitely the FAQ and now the LoF requirement?) I assume it would just void your Mine if they don't walk into LoF, but lets you put a Mine if they keep moving forward?
But that's not different from what we're seeing with other skills. It's just with other skills, theyve been given FAQs and errata. And obviously in some cases we are seeing more than just a "oops" situation.
The FAQ deals with LoF requirements for all skills, not just BS attack. So I don't think you can declare Place Deployable as the first short skill if you don't have LoF.
Ah, my bad. I looked at the FAQ wording from the wiki (BS Attack page), which paraphrases it for the context of the BS Attack.
Oh, absolutely. We need to talk about rules and questions pertaining them as much as possible, to get clarity on every single aspect we can. At the same time people claiming Rules Staff are not "rules team" or their statements being "non-binding" or whatever, yeah, that can go. I mean, you're all welcome to make "FAQ only" events if you will, that's TO prerogative, but IJW's word is as official as we get prior to FAQs / errata.
I'm actually uncertain of the validity of anyone's hostilities in any of these forums. If someone brings up some problem they see in the rules or some unintended function. I don't think anyone should be hammered, but thanked, that way somethingncleaner can be written instead of some arbitrary decision or double standard or just something is possibly so convoluted in turns people away.
Can we give IJW some coloured text so we know when he's making rulings and when he's discussing interpretations? I've had LENGTHY discussions with IJW in good faith after he's made an interpretation as we've discussed implications and detailed reasoning. There's every chance that these would fall afoul of your rule. A clear indication to know when we're permitted to disagree and when we're not would be good.
Yeah, let's establish that, say, when @ijw writes something in bold and orange it is final and an official ruling until FAQ overrules or confirms it. Ian, you OK with such a convention? It would be immensely helpful :)
The way the FAQ was written LOF isn't a Requirement but rather LOF is a necessary precondition for declaring the skill. That is, not having LOF means that you can't declare the Skill. Whereas if "had LOF to the target at Declaration" was a Requirement then not having LOF at Declaration means that the skill would fail and become an Idle. I think you intended requirement in a non-technical sense, but felt that the technical distinction matters (it adds to the sense that CB treats LOF as special).
I don't agree. The rules and the FAQ calls it a literal Requirement (inc. the capital R), it just introduces a special place in the sequence where it is checked.
I think there is two different opposing behaviors here and one of them seems is of a level that doesn't seem necessary. Considering there has been record of rules declarations on the forums changing by the time they FAQ/errata, no one here is questioning anything or is saying anything along the lines of "I don't like your opinion so I'm gonna run my tournament the way I want with the rules I want". What is being said is more like "what you're saying now doesnt make sense compared to the rest of the rules, I think before I tell anyone at my tournament or league how to play it, we will wait till a fully fleshed out resolution presents itself". It basically means no one wants to play something that doesnt make sense to them which also means that if they have to explain it to someone else, they'll be able to explain it better if they actually understand what they're regurgitating. That is main reason why anyone A. wants to play anything, because it makes enough sense to be fun and B. if it makes sense it's easier to remember. ex: PEMDAS... While we are all trying to be respectful, I don't think it's acceptable behavior of anyone to act like people should stop talking about these topics or "basically" telling forumites to "shut up or else". We dont acept that behavior in real life and appalling isn't the word I'm looking for but as representatives of any company I'm interested in and have been interested in, well, it's not quite disgusting behavior either but it's something. Especially when it's clear people arent trying to cheat other people in some official capacity but just to have more solid rules. I'll stop there, I really hope those who have lashed out take a step back and reconsider some things. It's one thing for average people to engage in anything vitriolic but this is something else. What distinction do you make between Requirement and Necessary Precondition? For me they are synonymous.
I honestly can't find it without redownloading the pdf. My memory is that the FAQ prevents declaration which is weird for a Requirement: the whole point is that if you fail them you Idle. @ijw neither BS Attack nor LOF pages on the Wiki reference this FAQ.
