The N4 FAQ 1.1 has considerably reworked the underlying ARO mechanic with the inclusion of pre-measuring ZOC to avoid uncertainty, and updated the BS Attack. As before the FAQ, all requirements are checked at resolution. Noting that they did not make it into the FAQ directly, do the interim rulings with regards to checking requirements for BS and CC attacks at declaration to prevent being these skills used speculatively either in active or reactive turn still apply? For example: can you declare CC attack from outside LOF, then move into base contact? Can you declare BS attack against an enemy in ZOC that you suspect is about to move around a corner into LOF (perhaps having just declared CC attack as their first short skill), or shoot you through smoke? Perhaps more generally - am I missing anything in asking the above question?
The FAQ still states that LOF has to be fulfilled at declaration. I don't see why the interim ruling on CC Attack should be discarded.
To note, we do still need clarity that the interim CC Attack ruling (that silhouette contact is also checked at declaration) still applies. I also assume it does, buuuut it isn't in the FAQ.
Problem is the FAQ addressed many of the issues the interim rulings touched. Several Skills got errata'd to adjust stuff in the same ballpark. Why is the Speculative CC Attack ruling still relevant if it wasn't fixed? That kinda really needs confirmation either way from CB/Ian.
Arguably because the FAQ didn't touch anything that the interim ruling did. I mean, it's a new FAQ version, it's not an entirely new edition of the rules. The interim ruling was made because there was a need for it in this edition of the rules and that need hasn't gone away with the FAQ addressing other issues. Or what are we? Sheep dazed into inaction because the truck's headlights are now a slightly different colour? Still need to move off the road, just like before.
Sure. Keeping track of the rules, still potentially relevant interim rulings, potentially irrelevant interim rulings, last version of FAQ, this version of FAQ and whatever I missed should totally be up to the individual player - not to like the people managing the rules, right? How did I not see through this easy to manage construct with clear guidelines that's clearly laid out and easy to follow. /sarcasm I did not comment on what should be changed or not. I'm saying we need an update on which interim rulings are still relevant and which are obsolete. To claim we "just know" is a bit of a stretch. Fortunately the hard work has already been done and it only really requires a minimal update on CB/Ian's side.
Why the sarcasm? Did what I wrote make you feel attacked or something? Yeah, they need to purge the obsolete rulings from the "solved rule questions" subforum, no doubt, but maybe we should give it more than two hours before declaring that entire category of posts dubious or obsolete.
Mostly because the communication of the interim rulings is so obscure it's downright obnoxious to begin with. And even if you're willing to go the extra mile or five to keep track, it's all out of the window yet again and wasn't deemed worthwhile to update with the FAQ. Call me a fool for expecting that to be organized when the FAQ is a month overdue and there has been plenty of time to align. The inane sheep comment really didn't help your case in that regard. Seemed a bit out of touch with reality.
Ugh. Reality sucks for clarity and in reality the sheep never learn what the headlights mean. So yeah, please let me be a bit out of touch with reality so things can make sense.
Anyway. For your benefit, and any one else' who might find it beneficial, I went through the interim rulings and specifically the CC Attack ruling on Base to Base contact is one small part of the ruling that caused a massive amounts of tables to be flipped. So yeah, as it turns out it does need updating a bit more than most rulings! https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threads/n4-questions-answered.39595/#post-407389
