Hidden Deployment Lts taking themselves out of HD with invalid ARO into Idle closing in on end of turn - working as intended Guard invalidating CC Skill on the defending side and forcing Normal Roll BS Attacks if someone tries - working as intended CC troopers engaging a troop around a corner with CC Attack+Move, denying BS AROs - not working as intended - now illegal thanks to this thread Random not-a-rule-change of the week You don't have LOF while Engaged in CC while in a Zero Vis Zone (who knew?). As a result you now apply the -3 penalty for not having LOF to Dodge in that situation. Did not see that one coming. Have fun remembering those for the time being.
Agreed. But, I wouldn't necessarily say that's what is happening here either. Because Dodge doesnt target or inflict a wound on anyone, I'm inclined to say it should remain free of requirements. Like BS or CC Attack. Also, I havent read the interaction for clearing mines, could you tell me? Gamey in that it triggers an ARO, suuuuure, but Dodge is targletless. Making a requirement for Dodge to only be allowed when you're in LoF or contact of silhouette CoS or target of attack ToA also makes the game gamey because Dodge often a preemptive defensive action now has an intent of making some troops faster dependent on a single Dodge roll of the dice. we can't say we know what everyone's been doing though and a fair amount of players do like to play RAW... Dodge is more universally applicable than CC Attack and doesnt harm the other player... it does make sense to have thought about Dodge effecting AROs because of how universally applicable it is and the fact that it's targetless.
More specifically, that ARO baiting with CC-Move *while at the same time denying the chance of a BS Attack ARO* is not intended. Not allowing CC-Move is just the temporary fix.
And this is why, I prefer a blanket statement of not being able to even declare a skill unless its requirements are met. It saves the game soooooo much.
That would require them to allow measuring ZoC before Declaration, which isn't something I'm against (quite the opposite) but seemingly not something CB want.
If it were my game I would make LOF and ZOC open information and make at least one a requirement for generating an ARO. Then all ARO skills would be permitted as ARO declarations, with validity checked at resolution. This would entail shelving the LOF requirement to declare a BS attack. What problems does this create: Enabling pig-disgusting ZOC kiting by active troopers (we'll get over it, we already have it with LOF, and it can be solved by limiting the timing to before declarations as @colbrook suggested). Sometimes enemies wont walk into AROs they could have avoided if they were better at judging distance, or declare BS attacks with the wrong weapon on 8 inch corner cases. (I don't feel entitled to mistakes, nor do I feel like they improve the game). What problems does this solve? All forms of ARO baiting, and there are a great many. Bad faith ARO reveals
Another option is to allow measuring of ZoC only by the Reactive player at steps 2 and 4 of the OES, that way they know what AROs are eligible but still prevents Active hackable troopers "skirting" ZoC that unrestricted pre-measuring allows.
This. Took a much bigger test group to argue over a bunch of different shit, plus an extra FAQ, for like nearly half a year before the penny dropped on this one.
In software and games, there's a big difference between "Working as designed/built" and "Working as intended" hahaha. @ijw isn't explicitly saying it's how it was intended (last I recall), but is explaining the implications of how the rules are written.
Simply put? @HellLois specifically saying that the only official documents are FAQ > Rulebooks. It is not. You pretend to change ALL interactions requiring S2S to check first requirements, like in BS attack. There are more skills requiring S2S that could be affected, and it directly changes entirely how Guardian interacts, specially against other melee specialists (they can't declare Melee, so they either shoot against a CC20+ specialist, dodge, or do nothing). In my experience, a lot of N3 players have not fully read/interiorized the changes to N4 (a clear example, remotes being now able to go prone). Simple answer: while he is part of the rules TEAM, he is not THE rules team. You yourself mention this issue has been in the unsolved list for months, with no answer, and suddenly, when CB is on vacation, "an urgent ruling" is made. I fail to understand how piling up exceptions to general rules means "cleaner, more intuitive"... Because it's so cool to have a Hidden Deployment Lt that pops out into the table if you go second to avoid 1st turn Lt loss... as long as you have one available, that is. "you can Dodge/Reset if you have LoF, an Order (sans Stealth, limiting it to non-movement... sans Sixth Sense) is spent by a non-allied troop inside your ZoC, or you receive the tender mercies of an enemy unit (comms attack, BS attack, Melee attack, etc...)". Decided by the rules team, on vacation, or by yourself? Problem is, you change one exception for another. And force a player to turn around while the other measures... He has explicitely said "CB has told me that thing is intended, but CC+move negating template weapons is not". And the implications have already started to be listed. A change such as this generates a domino effect.
@xagroth What's the real use of challenging Ian's official but non-final rulings? Do you really want to split the community into a part that plays with the rulebook/wiki only, a part that accepts FAQ, a part that accepts Hellois rulings, a part that accepts Ian's answers, etc? Do we really need this crap?
I would call neither IJW nor Helllois a "document" ;) The unsolved list is not a document of issues that CB has to address. It is in equal part a guidance for people to make informed decisions about their own answers if it comes up and a way for people to find threads that already have discussions on the topic they were going to ask about. As far as I remember, I put the issue up on the list when IJW made a clarification on how the rules worked and people started getting really upset about it. I then altered it about a week later when IJW made this interim ruling.
CB's stance is that ONLY the FAQ, then Rulebook (in that order) are official. Anything else, is words in the wind. And I'm not the one splitting the community. Leaving aside that the community has been split (and not precisely in two camps) for a long time, I'm stating a fact. It's not as if Infinity is like Blood Bowl during the time GW left it alone for the fans to self-organice. I didn't intend to do so. I was specifying the company's official stance. Which is also logical, since a game in which you have to intensely read the forum twice a week (at the very least!), and then carry that to tournaments... not really serious, is it?
Press X to doubt. Do you have a link? I have a feeling that wording and/or context matters a lot, as it goes against what has been communicated so far.
There was a very specific moderator warning on challanging Ian’s rulings a few days back in the topic that triggered this whole dumpsterfire, soooo yeah... pressing that x hard right now :D
Hi! This is a temporary ruling, this is for several reasons, Eastern Holidays notwithstanding, this is a complex interaction, complicated by the BS attack FAQ that creates an unintended interaction, this will demand investigation on interactions and it is something that cannot be done in a short notice, that been said since the community at large decided it was a pressing interaction that needed expedited resolution, the rules team gave a temporal ruling until a more permanent solution can be researched. @ijw is a CB employee and part of the rules team, and he is here tasked to give answers to rules questions, as you may have noticed some important questions asked here that need to be addressed, for example Berserk, get their way into FAQ (and errata if appropriate) so questions asked here answered by @ijw or @HellLois are answered by CB rules staff, be advised that answers here are given purely under the rulebook interactions, if a change is needed, again for example Berserk, then such errata will appear on the FAQ. Finally I would like to ask that while I understand the members of the community that feel this is a no issue and are upset that it had to be addressed in such an expedited way, to respect the members of the community that felt it was a big issue that needed to be addressed. Thanks
I see that PsychoticStorm got here before me, but to expand on his post... Any rules staff making a ruling on the forum does so with the full authority of the rules team. That doesn't mean that it's going to match what appears in the FAQ after further debate, but it's still a ruling made by the rules team. Note that any posts I make with a ruling of this type will be marked '[Rules Staff Post]' from now on, and I will be more rigorous about creating Provisional Rules Answer threads to make them easier to find. Note also that CB are not happy with the way my rules authority is being constantly questioned. This announcement was edited in collaboration with other rules staff. It is an official announcement by the rules team. The announcement was released while CB are on vacation because CB are on vacation - the sheer volume of discussion called for a faster response than waiting an additional week without any communication from CB.
It is a glaring hole in the rules that can be easily successfully abused by anyone who has a CC-capable unit in the army. Simply put, it makes the common interactive battle situation (high CC unit charging and trading to a template) non-interactive by knowing a magic spell of declaring your order backwards. No matter that there are no big tournaments outside of Australia, you dont want anyone doing that to you in a random TTS match. Massive respect to ijw for providing an authorative statement in time.
Hey, Ian. As something that might help with this "IJW / Hellois / Rules Staff / CB" perception issue, would you guys consider creating a special anonymous Forum account that would be called "RULES STAFF" or something to that effect and which would be used to post those official threads / replies? This way it couldn't be challenged on basis of "it's just Ian" or "Hellois said it, but it's not an official FAQ" and all of such fallacies. If RULES STAFF account posted it, it's 101% official, you know.
