1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Executive Order and Lieutenant Level 2

Discussion in '[Archived]: N3 Rules' started by Mahtamori, Dec 3, 2018.

  1. ijw

    ijw Ian Wood aka the Wargaming Trader. Rules & Wiki
    Infinity Rules Staff Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,331
    Likes Received:
    14,817
    Yes, we've discussed this previously. In effect, the Lieutenant L1 Skill has to be transferred.
     
  2. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    12,018
    Likes Received:
    15,302
    It doesn't matter, though, because the Hac Tao wasn't the user of the skill when the order generated and there is no distinction between Lt orders so either the Hac Tao can't use someone else's Lt order (regardless of level) or tgey can use both
     
    meikyoushisui likes this.
  3. ijw

    ijw Ian Wood aka the Wargaming Trader. Rules & Wiki
    Infinity Rules Staff Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,331
    Likes Received:
    14,817
    Why? LT L1 is not worded the same.
     
  4. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    12,018
    Likes Received:
    15,302
    The user of this Special Skill has a Special Lieutenant Order.

    Emphasis added.

    I also note that you didn't quote all of LT2, either. You missed "...This extra Order is added to the first and, like the first, it is not included in the Order Pool." Again, emphasis added.
     
    ChoTimberwolf likes this.
  5. ijw

    ijw Ian Wood aka the Wargaming Trader. Rules & Wiki
    Infinity Rules Staff Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,331
    Likes Received:
    14,817
    Yes. So the Lieutenant L1 (no matter how they became LT) is the user of the Special Skill so has that LT Order.

    The second LT Order is dependant on LT Level 2.

    EDIT - if you want to play it differently that's obviously up to you.
     
  6. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    12,018
    Likes Received:
    15,302
    Except tthe LT2 order is not distinguishable to the LT1 order and is explicitly added to the first order. How in the world do you manage to not equate the situation for these two?
     
    ChoTimberwolf, LuAn, BLOODGOD and 3 others like this.
  7. Ogid

    Ogid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2018
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    755
    I considered that phrase, "the user" there may refer to the model that have the skill or to the model that is the Lt in that moment, but after Reading the Lt order page it doesn't specify that the same Lt that generate the orders have to be the one that spend them and refer to the Lt as the model with the ability in that moment.
    It's not 100% clear but i'd be surprised if the RAI would be the Lt that generate the orders are the one that must spend them, specially with rules like the NCO.
     
  8. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    12,018
    Likes Received:
    15,302
    Just to recap, I have a preferred way that I'd like this to be interpreted both for personal gain and because I think it creates Interesting Choices, however, that does not mean I can say for certain what's it meant to be played or what's most fair to my opponent. Here's the four options I can see the rules be read as or that have been suggested:
    a) EXO can use both LT orders.
    b) EXO can't use either LT order until he generates his own
    c) EXO can only use the LT order generated by LT1, so keep track of which is which even though they are identical
    d) EXO has his own LT order, so if LT order is spent when EXO reveals, the EXO will get a brand new one to spend.

    Now, d) may look weird, but it's a product of reading the EXO rule absurdly literally. c) I find to be the one that least conforms with the logic and English grammar used in the rules, but that's the one I've been told to use by IJW. I'm left wondering whether to use a) or b), but I can equally see d) as a sort of very weird middle road of "it's weird, but it works and it satisfies everything"

    Btw, what I think creates Interesting Choices is of course a), because it creates meaning to having both LT2 and EXO in the same list.
     
  9. Ogid

    Ogid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2018
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    755
    I like that, let's check the rules 1 by 1 to see what is the most probable:

    Lieutenant
    Here, the user may refer to the model or the the rank. If it refer to the model we would be in the case b, if it refers to the rank we would be in the case a.

    Lieutenant Order
    Here It's always talking about the Lt as the model with that rank, and never make a point about who generates the order.
    Note the big diference with irregular orders or Impetuous orders that have this stated clearly:
    The rules doesn't state a clear relation between the Lt that generates the order and the one that have to spend them, nor make a distinctions between the order generated by the Lt1 and Lt2 or state that the order generated by Lt2 have to be spended by a Lt2, so for me the one that makes more sense is the a. It could be other, but in that case the it should have been stated more clearly.
     
    ChoTimberwolf likes this.
  10. toadchild

    toadchild Premeasure

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    4,262
    Likes Received:
    8,073
    As stated by @Mahtamori my concern earlier in this thread was how you are supposed to tell which of the Lt orders is which. Given that they are identical, I feel like the rules need to treat them equally. To me, this seems the same as NCO - if you have two Lieutenant orders, you can spend them both.

    By my reading, Lt and Lt2 differ only in the order generation phase of the turn.
     
  11. Section9

    Section9 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    6,148
    Likes Received:
    9,666
    Agreed.

    If the XO doesn't get to generate a new LT order when he shows up, he should be able to use any LT orders still on the table. regardless of how many there are.
     
    meikyoushisui likes this.
  12. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    6,040
    Likes Received:
    7,177
    Why is it necessary to know which Lt order is which?

    Lt 1 generate 1 order
    Lt 2 generates 2 orders
    Lt 2 can spend up to 2 orders
    NCO can spend any number of orders
    Lt = Lt 1 and can spend up to 1 order

    Yes, this isn't precisely what the rules say because they assume that the Lt who generated the Lt Order is the one who will spend it (except NCO).

    Basically you read 'the user has' as 'the user generates and may spend up to'.
     
  13. Section9

    Section9 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    6,148
    Likes Received:
    9,666
    Because it isn't clearly stated that if you have an XO or CoC take over, they can spend the LT orders?
     
  14. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    6,040
    Likes Received:
    7,177
    Not my point. I agree that needs to be clarified.

    I'm specifically addressing @Mahtamori's third explanation of how XO works where he asserts that there needs to be an LT1 and LT2 order.

    It's not necessary to distinguish between LT1 and LT2 special orders to achieve the outcome of LT2s can spend up to 2 LT orders and LT1s can only spend up to 1.

    Rather you need to specify that XO can becomes an LT1 and interpret that 'has' is supposed to mean 'generate and may spend'.

    Basically, this:

    LT1: "The user of this Special Skill generates and may spend a Special Lieutenant Order."
    LT2: "In addition, Lieutenant L2 grants the user the ability to generate and spend a second Special Lieutenant Order."
    XO/COC/LOL: "When a trooper becomes an LT throught these means they gain the LT1 skill."

    There's no requirement to tract which order is which, but the limitations @ijw describes are preserved.
     
    #54 inane.imp, Jun 5, 2019
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2019
  15. Section9

    Section9 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    6,148
    Likes Received:
    9,666
    What I think @Mahtamori is getting at is that you still aren't explicitly allowed to use the LT order(s) generated by someone else.

    I mean, arguably, if the LT2 got replaced for whatever reason before spending either LT order, the new LT could only spend one of them because the new LT is only LT1. And because of that, you'd need a way to know which order was generated by LT1 and which was generated by LT2.
     
  16. toadchild

    toadchild Premeasure

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    4,262
    Likes Received:
    8,073
    So I'll take the unusual step on an internet forum of undercutting my own argument for the sake of understanding and clarity.

    Scenario 1

    1. Lt2 Asura is on the table and wants to shoot people. A Shukra with Chain of Command is chilling out somewhere as well.
    2. The Asura spends a regular order to march up, but dies to ARO fire.
    3. The Shukra becomes the new Lieutenant.
    4. As a Lieutenant level 1, it can only spend one Lt order of the two that are left.

    Scenario 2

    1. Lt2 Asura is on the table and wants to shoot people. A Shukra with Chain of Command is chilling out somewhere as well.
    2. The Asura spends a lieutenant order to march up, but dies to ARO fire.
    3. The Shukra becomes the new Lieutenant.
    4. As a Lieutenant level 1, it can only spend one Lt order; fortunately only one is present, so there's no conflict

    This is a reasonable stance to take if you think that I'm wrong, and it works even though the lieutenant orders are indistinguishable.


    However, it really rubs me the wrong way and I don't think it's well supported by the rules text.

    From Lt1:
    From Lt2:
    • In addition, Lieutenant L2 grants the user a second Special Lieutenant Order. This extra Order is added to the first and, like the first, it is not included in the Order Pool.
    There's nothing in that text that says it has any extra effects or limitations outside of the order generation phase.

    From the linked Special Lieutenant Order page:
    The Lieutenant of each army has a special extra Order that is for his use only. This Order is not included in the Order Pool, but kept separate for the Lieutenant to use.​

    This is the same rule referenced by both levels of Lieutenant; therefore they both have the same restriction ("for his use only") placed on them. The way I read this, either neither of them can be used by XO/COC ("he" refers to the generating lieutenant) or both of them ("he" is whoever the current lieutenant is).

    Now, I don't think CoC breaks down in that first case where spending the Lieutenant order is not possible until you generate a new one on the next turn, since it still saved you from entering LoL. However, I do think it makes XO even more niche than it already is.
     
  17. Section9

    Section9 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    6,148
    Likes Received:
    9,666
    Exactly.

    That's why I think XO and CoC can spend any or all unspent LT special orders when they take over, even though they're LT1 and will only generate one LT special order next turn.
     
    Berjiz, Robock, Mahtamori and 2 others like this.
  18. Ogid

    Ogid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2018
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    755
    What happens here is that the rules for Lt are written before the others and asume the Lt won't change, but then the general rules about Lt orders doesn't seem to restrict that, and saying that "The user of this Special Skill has a" means that the Lt can only spend 1 order if it is Lt one is clutch.

    If I have to defend that the second Lt order cannot be used by a LT 2, i'd need more support from the RAW to say to a player: "No, you can't use that second order you paid for with your Lt2 because this line might mean that, even if that's not supported in any oher place"
     
  19. Ginrei

    Ginrei Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    428
    This statement tells me the term Lieutenant is referring to all levels of the skill, not the trooper:
    Lieutenant
    The user of this Special Skill is the officer in command of his entire combat force. This Special Skill has different Levels, but any time a rule mentions the term 'Lieutenant' without specifying a Level, the statement applies to all Levels equally.
    This statement now tells me the user of that special skill has the order to spend, not a specific trooper.
    Special Lieutenant Order
    The Lieutenant of each army has a special extra Order that is for his use only. This Order is not included in the Order Pool, but kept separate for the Lieutenant to use.
    The Lt skill's effects links the order to the trooper, in what way we do not know:
    • L2 - In addition, Lieutenant L2 grants the user a second Special Lieutenant Order. This extra Order is added to the first and, like the first, it is not included in the Order Pool.
    This rule below provides nothing of value to this discussion. Which is unfortunate because Regular and Irregular orders are very clear when it comes to their matching rules.
    Special Lieutenant Order
    The status and expenditure of the Special Lieutenant Order is Open Information. Players must place their Special Lieutenant Order Markers where all players can see them.​

    This is where the Lt order is generated:
    Start of the Turn: Tactical Phase - Order Count - Special Lieutenant Order
    The Active Player, unless he is in Retreat! or Loss of Lieutenant, places a Special Lieutenant Order Marker (LIEUTENANT) on the table, being careful not to place the Marker next to his Lieutenant.​

    At this stage, what does it matter how vague the last few rules are? They may not tell me who gets to use those Lt orders, but i have skills that do tell me how to spend them. So my current Lt, no matter who they are, can spend any Lt orders I have on the table.
     
    ChoTimberwolf likes this.
  20. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    6,040
    Likes Received:
    7,177
    I actually think it's the 'expected' answer, so it strikes me as intuitive. It's not perfectly RAW, but that's a lot of Infinity. But that's almost certainly my personal bias showing through.

    Personally I think that the RAWest answer is that XO and COC troopers can't use an LT order they don't generate. This rubs me the wrong way. My preference is the err to the middle ground (XO/COC can spend up to 1 Lt order even if they didn't generate it).

    That being said, I think you guys have done this to death. @ijw has provided an answer on how he understands the rules, so that provided a lesser standard to go on with. I do agree that his answer isn't immediately apparent from the rules as written and probably isn't even the closest reading of them.

    I think @Mahtamori's 4 answers (with C modified so that you don't need to track which order is which, just limit the maximum spent) are the possible solutions and it should be added to @Arkhos94 's Unsolved questions thread.

    Can a trooper with Executive Order or Chain-of-command spend Lieutenant special orders generated by a different Lieutenant? How does this interact with Lieutenant 2?

    a) Yes. They can use both Lieutenant special orders, provided the original Lieutenant Level 2 hasn't expended them already that turn.
    b) No. They can't use any Lieutenent special orders until they generate their own.
    c) Yes. However, troopers with Executive Order and Chain-of-Command become Lieutenant Level 1s and may only spend a single Lieutenent Special Order per turn.
    d) No. Rather a trooper with Executive Order or Chain-of-command has their own LT special order, so that trooper will get a brand new one to spend on assuming the role of Lieutenant.
     
    #60 inane.imp, Jun 5, 2019
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2019
  • About Us

    We are a company founded in 2001 in Cangas (Spain), and devoted to design and manufacture games and figures. Our main product, Infinity the Game, was born with the ambition to satisfy the most demanding audience, offering the best quality.

     

    Why are we here?

     

    Because we are, first and foremost, players.

  • Quick Navigation

    Open the Quick Navigation