Hidden lieutenant and LoL

We're going to have to agree to disagree at this point, I think you guys have enough info to decide among yourself

 

You can't ignore the second part of this clause. It's taken together. It is deployed, but not on the table. Thus, LoL triggers per the Lt. rule.

Is it a problem that Lt. and LoL rules are slightly inconsistent here? Yes. Hopefully this can be cleaned up before the revision change, but it hasn't caused much of a problem before and we have about a year before the rules get a nice overhaul (HOPEFULLY!).

 

As previously mentioned:

That's a proviso stating that it has to be on the table.

 

Vor being not fully confident about this provio stating argument.
I write CB a mail. I don't get a clear argumented answer. But a clear "Yes loses of Lt applies" .

Thats enough for me. but I hope this will be better writen and more consistent in N4.