At least in Army, Patroclus actually has the annotation about Achilles on his profile. I’d need to double check the PDFs.
I think those annotations are the same ones that get carried across profiles regardless. Vanilla also shows all the Enomotarchos options and they certainly aren't allowed. given that Both members of the Fireteam: Duo must belong to the same unit, or those combinations of units indicated on their Sectorial Army List. specifies "Sectorial List" as the exception to being the same unit (which they obviously aren't) it would seem to follow. note that TeamPro also reinforces this reading "Creation of a Fireteam rules are applied as usual."
Yes, it's accepted that her Sectorial profile skills are coherent. OP raised questions about the Duo skill in her Pan O ('vanilla') profile.
Yes, and it’s been answered. Because Patsy Garnetts have AVA 1 in vanilla PanO, they cannot form a duo fire team.
Sure, but in which case why is the skill on her Pan O profile? These statements appear to be contradictory to me; can you explain why they're not, please? Given the other replies that followed IJW's post, I'm sure I'm not the only one that's further puzzled, thanks.
Same reason that Kornak has Fireteam: Haris on his profile, and the same reason the Kriza has Fireteam: Duo on it's AVA1 Vanilla Nomads profile, because they have the skill. They can't use the skill, but their profiles still have it, so it is shown.
There are a whole bunch of troops that have the same problem across all factions. I’m guessing it’s because the books/PDFs, and by extension Army, show only a single version of the stat block. They can either trust the player to apply the rules to see if the skill is usable or not in various lists, or they have to issue multiple versions of the profile, which in a printed list (book/PDF) would be a huge mess. Army can, and I would say should, filter out unusable Duo, Haris, etc. skills. However, even then, you still have unanswered questions in cases such as the Campaign: Paradiso upgrade that lets you increase the AVA of one (non-character) unit. Does the Duo suddenly become usable? Army can’t readily know about that. The alternative, of course, is to have a published fireteam chart for vanilla factions as well. A whole lot of “Duo (TeamPro)” notes, but at least it avoids ambiguity.
This is Patrocles in the PDF - he’s the only unit I know of with a special Duo baked into his profile. Seems specific enough I’d allow it in Vanilla, but I’m open to persuasion.
As a note, they do already filter out profiles which are identical to an existing profile but with a Fireteam skill (such as the Marauder Haris profile) but I can see the logic behind not wanting different database entries for the same ISC in Sectorial and Vanilla.
I can see that justification, but as I noted above (and you did in your previous post), I'm not sure about it. That Duo ability is tied to the Mimietism Profile so that you can't duo the ODD versions. As Pat is a character they need to identify who he can Duo with, hence the Achilles V2 note. It doesn't feel like that counters the other requirements for a Duo though. Which the rest of the conversation here has pretty much defined as limited to generic troops for TeamPro in Vanilla purposes.
Yes, but in the PDFs there are similar notes that will say "x loatout is for sectorial only". That's different than a skill that's in the stat block.
Ok, thanks for the good answers @toadchild, but as you might appreciate, this is a very confusing thread, and I'm sure there are plenty of other regular forum readers who find it strange, let alone those who're new to the game and come here looking for answers to their questions! We can reasonably consider IJW authoritative for Fireteam questions, but he says there's nothing wrong with the Duo skill being listed on the Pan O profile, and then also that there are no units with which the unit can legally form a Duo (which we all knew all along, of course). This frankly makes no sense, and was yet upvoted by several readers, including yourself ... Your further explanation is that in fact the skill is incorrectly listed, which entirely makes sense, and is what we'd been presuming all along. Can anyone make a coherent conclusion to this thread so we can all leave it well alone and get back to our mince pies and whipped cream?
You appear to be mixing up separate issues. She has the Skill. It doesn't magically disappear if she's being used in a generic list instead of a Varuna list, and doesn't disappear on units that are only AVA1 in generic. That doesn't mean that it has any use in a generic list, because her ability to join any Fireteam is linked to the Sectorial.
Well, whether magic is involved in Corvus Belli's rules is an interesting suggestion. They do seem to believe think the only thing they have to do for others to easily understand their rules and mechanisms is to repeat the mantra "We've explained it; we've explained it; we've explained it" over and over again.
Hmmm. I'd like to step out of the thread for a moment to say I'm always rather uncomfortable when I find myself debating with more experienced and knowledgable players, and there's no obvious reason why we'd disagree. I'm also often mis-characterised as someone with a slavish adherence to rulebook play, which I rather resent, because what I think is important is that we distinguish how things are supposed to work from how we choose to play them (signature checks out ). Thus, only last night in an ITS mission game against an experienced Warcor, I used an explicitly sectorial-only link in a generic army list. We both knew this was incorrect and sinply distinguished the rules from their application in our casual game. And I lost anyway. I think the virtue of an internet forum is that as clunky as it is, it doesn't suffer the same problems as say Facebook, in which people can say pretty much anything they like because it's almost immediately lost in the ether. Rather, we not only get answers to things fairly quickly, but the conclusions we reach are preserved here in perpetuity for others to discover at need. Hence, whilst I'm always happy to take the word of my betters (if rarely elders) there is still a dearth of information that would make useful sense of the thread. And thus endeth my First Christmas Sermon
Krizas also have a Duo they can't use (AVA1). So even if we take your reading that Patsy is an Orc we still have the issue you're complaining about. Basically it's inconsistent. The Hollowman Duo profile disappears in Vanilla: that's a profile that you could Duo with TeamPro but can't because it doesn't exist in Vanilla. SoF Druze also lose their Duo when compared to non-SoF Druze. Emily and Uahu are weird. They don't actually appear to have the Fireteam: Duo skill on any profile (StarCo or SoF). Rather they just get the Special Fireteam: Duo Handleman + Uahu on the Sectorial chart (and as a Fireteam notation). Conclusion: you can't draw any conclusions from the presence or otherwise of the Duo profile on Patsy. Edit: or what IJW said, just less succinctly.
@inane.imp Emily has Duo in her main statline in Starco. That skill is required to form a Duo at all.
Well, her Fireteam: Haris skill does indeed disappear between profiles, whether magically or not. That's signal because Duo can be facilitated by TeamPro in generic lists, whereas (correct me if I'm wrong) Haris is only available to sectorial lists except when additional information is provided. It's more than reasonable for a player to conclude that the disappearance of Haris, and the persistence of Duo is deliberate and meaningful, and find the namespace issue puzzling, as per OP. What are we missing?
