1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hemos actualizado nuestra Política de Privacidad acorde con la nueva RGPD. +Info // We've updated our Privacy Policy to comply with the GDPR. +Info
    Dismiss Notice

Executive Order and Lieutenant Level 2

Discussion in 'Rules' started by Mahtamori, Dec 3, 2018.

  1. Ghost_from_warp

    Ghost_from_warp Classified
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    733
    Likes Received:
    525
    Yes, units like tankhunters, Bolts and Shukra makes much more sense as CoC.

    Due to current wording of XO, unit with it should be AD or TO, but such rules makes it quite expensive for backup. In most cases, it's better to make unaggressive LT and bunch of orders than use aggressive LT (with few exceptions like Lt2 without NCO in list).

    Old interpretation (when XO was able to use Lt orders in a moment he appear) was much more flexible and useful
     
  2. NorthernNomad

    NorthernNomad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2018
    Messages:
    75
    Likes Received:
    86
    As of FAQ 1.7
    upload_2019-7-12_10-19-13.png
     
    Section9 and A Mão Esquerda like this.
  3. Section9

    Section9 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    5,791
    Likes Received:
    9,127
    I am glad that the question was answered for this FAQ.

    I'm not sure I like the answer given, however.
     
  4. fatherboxx

    fatherboxx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2018
    Messages:
    203
    Likes Received:
    336
    even without the ability to use lt order immediately Hac Tao XO may have been still useful - to keep LT status on his back (being a sturdy and hard to kill unit) rather than on the infiltrated Daofei or a basic Zhanshi.
    but now YJ has Dayoing LT who has his own camo state, stays in safe place until the endgame and can find immediate use for her own orders.
    so yeah, no practical use for this skill now.
     
  5. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    6,056
    Likes Received:
    7,595
    Okay, so, new question;

    Ghulam LT gets knocked down, Hafza CoC takes over. Ghulam Doctor Plus revives the Ghulam former LT. Can the Ghulam former LT use the LT Order? This would still remove the primary usefulness of XO, which used to be super-powering a Rambo.
     
  6. Arkhos94

    Arkhos94 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    1,295
    Likes Received:
    1,165
    The ghulam cannot use the order because he is not lieutenant anymore.

    Lieutenant order can only be used by a lieutenant : "The Lieutenant of each army has a special extra Order that is for his use only."
     
    ijw likes this.
  7. Ghost_from_warp

    Ghost_from_warp Classified
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    733
    Likes Received:
    525
    As Arkhos mentioned - no. But remember that CoC - optional rule.

    while exec obligatory. Making this rule optional would be nice. It will give some usability.
     
  8. Ogid

    Ogid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2018
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    751
    At some point (and not far away) the living rulebook approach is going to be necessary... right now the RAW doesn't support that. To make this case congruent with the FAQ with just add something like this in the Lt order would be enough:
    However as I said before in this thread; for how is all worded, I still think that wasn't the intended initial functionality... Maybe some XO combos were too much and decided to limit this mechanic.
     
  9. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    6,056
    Likes Received:
    7,595
    They might've gotten cold feet at the thought of a Hac Tao getting a one-turn "2-order NCO" (but worse than NCO). I can't imagine Van Zant doing any such thing.
     
  10. Arkhos94

    Arkhos94 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    1,295
    Likes Received:
    1,165
    The RAW support that and the relevant part was quoted :
    - The Lieutenant of each army has a special extra Order that is for his use only (http://infinitythewiki.com/en/Special_Lieutenant_Order) => Only "the lieutenant" can use the lieutenant "special extra Order"

    The new FAQ only someone who became lieutenant during the turn (XO, CoC) to use the lieutenant order :
    - Can Special Lieutenant Orders be used by anyone other than the trooper who generated them in the Order Count step of the Tactical Phase? No, unless a rule specifies otherwise. => Only the lieutenant who generate the order can use the lieutenant order
     
  11. Ogid

    Ogid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2018
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    751
    No it doesn't. I mean, the rules change when the balance calls for it, and that's perfectly fine; but I don't like when the approach is "it always worked like this because FAQ"

    From the Lt page:
    From the Lt order page
    A new Lt is considered to have the Lt ability, the Lt order is for the use of the Lt, he the new Lt is the Lt.
    Also the Lt order doesn't have any rule that say the model who generate it is the one that have to spend it (like irregular ones).
    There is no conection between the model and the order. There is full conection between the user of the ability and the order.
     
    Ginrei likes this.
  12. Arkhos94

    Arkhos94 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    1,295
    Likes Received:
    1,165
    Based on this, I'm pretty sure you didn't read @Mahtamori question (the one I answered) before quoting me because the FAQ has no influence on his question (Ghulam lieutenant unconscious => CoC activated => Ghulam healed but not lieutenant anymore, can he use the lieutenant order ?)

    The rules says only a lieutenant can use the lieutenant order (straight from rules => RAW)

    => So even before the FAQ, the ghulam from @Mahtamori question (who was not a lieutenant anymore) could not use the lieutenant order because RAW forbade it. So yes my answer is supported by RAW. I would have answered the same question the same way a year ago with the same RAW to support it.

    The FAQ changed : "Can the CoC use the lieutenant order from the Ghulam" (which is not the question I answered)

    Here the FAQ says no. It's a change but FAQ is RAW. So now, RAW support the answer "the CoC cannot use the lieutenant order generated by the ghulam"
     
    #112 Arkhos94, Jul 15, 2019
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2019
    Ogid likes this.
  13. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    6,056
    Likes Received:
    7,595
    Unless FAQ directs us to shift the interpretation focus of the rules to have "the Lieutenant" as an identifying trait rather than a reference to the user of the skill Lieutenant, which is a real possibility because the rules were written with too many overlapping nomenclature and an inconsistent use thereof. This interpretation means that the ownership and expenditure of the LT Order is tied to generation rather than skill ownership, meaning the Ghulam in my example will be for that entire turn "the Lieutenant who generated this order" even if the skill has been passed off to a different trooper.
     
    BLOODGOD likes this.
  14. ijw

    ijw Wargaming Trader, Freelance Editor (UK)
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    5,143
    Likes Received:
    10,451
    It's both. As soon as the Ghulam stops being LT (because CoC specifically says they stop being LT), they are no longer "the Lieutenant who generated this order".

    Did they generate the Order? Yes. Are they the LT? No.

    Both of those have to be yes.
     
    Xeurian, Ogid and Arkhos94 like this.
  15. Ogid

    Ogid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2018
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    751
    You quoted me so I answered what I think about this rule, not about the non related question that was asked before. And I agree with your reading, even if the Ghulam generated the order he can't spend it if he is no longer the Lt.

    FAQ mean Frequently Asked Questions, the place to change rules is the Errata. For me new rules in the FAQ going against the wiki is a problem. That doesn't mean I don't consider that FAQ RAW, it means I don't like the FAQ presenting it like a clarification instead of like an update of a rule.

    EDIT: Just checked the above post and yep, I missunderstood your question; totally thought you were saying the RAW said an XO wasn't able to use the order before the RAW
     
    #115 Ogid, Jul 15, 2019
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2019
    Arkhos94 likes this.
  16. Sabin76

    Sabin76 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    1,153
    Likes Received:
    1,395
    You are not alone in this assessment. Unfortunately, CB uses the two interchangeably (i.e. everything is an FAQ) and always has. I don't see them changing this anytime soon.
     
    meikyoushisui and Ogid like this.
  17. Ogid

    Ogid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2018
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    751
    Recently they added an errata part in the FAQ, there is still hope :P
    However It'd be much better that approach in the future
    • Clarify ambiguous rules without adding anything: FAQ
    • Add new rules/modify behaviour of a rule: Errata/Updates
    I mean, it could be called "Updates" to avoid the negative implications of "Errata"
     
  18. CabalTrainee

    CabalTrainee Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    385
    Likes Received:
    566
    And sometimes some rules are only explained in examples.
     
    meikyoushisui and Ginrei like this.
  19. toadchild

    toadchild EI Aspect

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    2,499
    Likes Received:
    4,734
    The errata section is fairly short and only includes cases where they feel forced to change the wording of a rule. FAQs cover everything else where they want to tell us how to play an interaction instead of rewriting the relevant rules to be more watertight.
     
  20. Ogid

    Ogid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2018
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    751
    I agree 100% with this, rewriting some part without needing an edtion change and being clare about what is a FAQ and what a new ruling would improve the game a lot.
    But let's enjoy also the small advances in the right direction!
     
    toadchild likes this.