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

Liaison Officer - lists without forward observers

Discussion in 'Rules' started by RobertShepherd, Sep 3, 2019.

  1. RobertShepherd

    RobertShepherd Brisk antipodean

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2018
    Messages:
    1,022
    Likes Received:
    1,639
    Is it legal to bring a list without a forward observer to a scenario with the liaison officer special rule?
     
  2. AdmiralJCJF

    AdmiralJCJF Heart of the Hyperpower
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2017
    Messages:
    2,859
    Likes Received:
    3,819
    Yep.

    Just like it's legal to bring a list with no legal Data Tracker option.

    I mean, it's HARD, but it's possible.

    You just won't have a Liaison Officer.
     
  3. RobertShepherd

    RobertShepherd Brisk antipodean

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2018
    Messages:
    1,022
    Likes Received:
    1,639
    That was my conclusion as well, but the question was asked elsewhere, and the rule does say a player 'must' name a liaison officer.

    Occam's Razor seems pretty simple here: you must, but if you can't, you don't and won't get any benefit from the rule.
     
    AdmiralJCJF likes this.
  4. Sabin76

    Sabin76 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    1,153
    Likes Received:
    1,395
    Just so we're clear... if there is a valid option (with TO or AD, say), you MUST choose it and abide by the rules of such a choice, yes?
     
    AdmiralJCJF likes this.
  5. A Mão Esquerda

    A Mão Esquerda Deputy Hexahedron Officer

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    1,804
    Likes Received:
    1,746
    And rather than losing points from the maximum 10, you can only lose a bonus point.
     
    AdmiralJCJF and RobertShepherd like this.
  6. AdmiralJCJF

    AdmiralJCJF Heart of the Hyperpower
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2017
    Messages:
    2,859
    Likes Received:
    3,819
    Yeah, there's no compulsion at the list building stage but there IS compulsion at the selection stage.

    So if you have ANY FO that qualifies, even if it's a TO unit, it HAS to deploy as a marker (or model) so that it can be declared Liaison Officer.
     
  7. Barrogh

    Barrogh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2017
    Messages:
    1,859
    Likes Received:
    1,587
    There is also no compulsion during actual deployment because selection stage only comes at the end of Deployment Stage, meaning after you deploy everything you must deploy. So I'd say there is no reason to treat list building and model deployment differently - they both happen before this rule triggers.
     
    Hecaton likes this.
  8. Chade

    Chade Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2018
    Messages:
    50
    Likes Received:
    22
    I'm also inclined to think that there is no rule that prevents you from deploying you TO FOs in Hidden Deployment and/or leaving your FO AD-troops in reserve. It is just that if at the end of deployment you have a model or marker on the table filling the conditions to be Liaison Officer (eq. not REM), then you must assign one of the to be that.
     
  9. Robock

    Robock Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    776
    Likes Received:
    511
    based on what happened with xeno (if every non-rem non-impetuous non-marker troopers are in fireteams; one must leave it in order to start the game synched with the xeno. even if order #1 you abandon the civevac.) i'd say that if you have any hidden FO you must reveal one to be the liaison.
     
    AdmiralJCJF likes this.
  10. ijw

    ijw Wargaming Trader, Freelance Editor (UK)
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    5,143
    Likes Received:
    10,451
    “At the end of the Deployment Phase, in Initiative order, players must declare which troop possessing the Forward Observer Special Skill from their Army List is their Liaison Officer.”

    If there’s one in your list, then as per the text you must choose one. It doesn’t say “which troop you’ve deployed in a valid manner”, so you need to make sure you’ve deployed one suitably, just like with Datatrackers and Fireteams/marker states.

    The only bit that’s in doubt is whether you need to include one in your list.
     
    Robock, xagroth, AdmiralJCJF and 2 others like this.
  11. Barrogh

    Barrogh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2017
    Messages:
    1,859
    Likes Received:
    1,587
    Again, I don't see why treat two cases differently.
    "You must chose FO, therefore you must have one prepared to be chosen" logic, if we apply one, means you must have a trooper which fulfills all requirements: having FO, being included in your list, being deployed accordingly. I don't see this text making any serious distinctions between fulfilling (or not fulfilling) any of those conditions.
     
    Willen and Hecaton like this.
  12. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    4,559
    Likes Received:
    4,434
    Yeah, by that logic you'd be forced to include on in your army list as well.
     
  13. ijw

    ijw Wargaming Trader, Freelance Editor (UK)
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    5,143
    Likes Received:
    10,451
  14. Barrogh

    Barrogh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2017
    Messages:
    1,859
    Likes Received:
    1,587
    @ijw
    I'm replying on topic, if you will :D

    But yeah, that also includes to you.
     
  15. ijw

    ijw Wargaming Trader, Freelance Editor (UK)
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    5,143
    Likes Received:
    10,451
    OK. If I’ve understood correctly, you think that you have to apply the same restrictions to list-building and to deployment?

    I disagree, because the rule says to choose from your Army List, not to choose from troopers deployed appropriately.
     
    AdmiralJCJF likes this.
  16. Barrogh

    Barrogh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2017
    Messages:
    1,859
    Likes Received:
    1,587
    In a way it does, by prohibiting us from choosing HD'd trooper, but not cancelling an obligation through usage of word "must" earlier in this rule's text. This prohibition is written in another sentence, thus indeed leaving earlier one without mentioning deployment, but it's a part of the whole rule nonetheless.

    But honestly, if I try to take this rule literally, I get confused.

    It doesn't say something like "players must choose one of FOs in his Army List to become Liaison" (which is a common way to imply "if there are any", although that's up to debate), it doesn't say "If Army List has a FO, player must choose one...". It does say "players must declare which troop possessing the Forward Observer Special Skill from their Army List is their Liaison Officer". It sounds like the writer doesn't even fathom a possibility that there could be less than several of them.
    Does this mean I must include at least one into my Army list? I don't know, but I definitely see I am expected to.

    Then this "players must" itself. The way I read the rule, I don't see a directly written clause that would exempt me from the obligation to name a Liaison under certain conditions (like not having FOs or properly deployed FOs). I also don't see clear specification that this obligation is only pronounced under certain conditions (like having FOs or properly deployed FOs).
    What I see written in no uncertain terms is that I must choose a Liaison.

    So, there are several ways it can be resolved for me that I can see ATM:

    1) "Must" means an obligation for a FO that is present in the Army List to become a Liaison, and therefore no obligation ever imposed if there are no FOs, and thus we don't need any clauses allowing us to waive said obligation. In this situation we aren't breaking rules if we don't name a Liaison if there are no FOs in the Army List, but we are breaking rule if we try to chose a HDing FO. Obviously.

    2) "Must" means an obligation for a player to name a Liaison, and therefore there is no way to proceed with the game without breaking any part of this rule if there is no FO in the army list, or is there is no FO deployed in a state that is legal for Liaison.

    3) We somehow know that we can ignore the obligating tone of this "must" altogether if we cannot name a Liaison despite fulfilling all given criteria of a legal Liaison (FO in the Army List, deployed as a model or marker).

    The problem with option 1 for me is that I don't think this is how English works. I always thought that if you use "which of these X", it means that X being present at all isn't even a question. And this is why the wording doesn't make sense to me.
    If, for example, the rule was aimed at "units that have Lt profiles" rather than FOs, then it would be perfectly understandable - at least 1 such unit is always present in a legal list (it will be using that very profile in that case), and there can be more of them. That would be a proper situation to use "which", as far as I know. But not when we don't even know if any of our target group is even preset. Maybe we need to see the original Spanish version?
    @xagroth ?

    I actually don't see a problem with option 2. Except maybe that I think this is not the most elegant way to write rules: instead of being given instructions with appropriate timing ("you must have X in the list; you must deploy one of X in such or such state; you must choose one of Xs deployed in a proper state...") you are given a set of conditions that "crash the game" unless you are prepared in advance, before the rule triggers ("you must choose X to... wait, you don't have any X? Oh.")
    But as long as there is only one way of playing the rule without breaking any and all clauses that are directly written there - eh, whatever, I guess.

    When it comes to option 3, well, I just don't see how am I supposed to know what I'm free to waive and what I'm not. Like I said 2 paragraphs ago, I don't think my knowledge of English allows me to see it directly in the text. But someone might know what was intended when these rules were written. In which case I'm going to complain about text clarity.
     
    #16 Barrogh, Sep 5, 2019
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2019
    toadchild and Hecaton like this.
  17. ijw

    ijw Wargaming Trader, Freelance Editor (UK)
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    5,143
    Likes Received:
    10,451
    Huh? That is what it says.

    “players must declare which troop possessing the Forward Observer Special Skill from their Army List is their Liaison Officer”
     
    AdmiralJCJF likes this.
  18. xagroth

    xagroth Mournful Echo

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    5,673
    Likes Received:
    4,541
    "
    Al final de la Fase de Despliegue, siguiendo el mismo orden de la
    Iniciativa, los jugadores deben declarar qué tropa de su Lista de Ejército
    con la Habilidad Especial Observador de Artillería será su Oficial de Enlace.
    La tropa elegida deberá ser siempre una figura o Marcador desplegada
    en la mesa de juego. No se permite elegir tropas en estado Despliegue
    Oculto. Así mismo, tropas cuyo Tipo de Tropa sea REM tampoco podrán
    ser designadas como Oficiales de Enlace.
    "

    To me it seems like the english version, frankly. I see no mention forcing us to align any specific troop in the Army, only that we must select a FO in marker or troop state to be the Liasion, with no mention on what to do if there is none.

    Frankly, if we were forced to, allowing remotes would be needed, because of the specialist remotes almost all factions have (Ariadna....) in good numbers.
     
    Hecaton and Barrogh like this.
  19. MikeTheScrivener

    MikeTheScrivener O-12 Peace Kepper

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2018
    Messages:
    1,913
    Likes Received:
    2,487
    sometimes it is only a point – but in some missions it can be 2 extra points which is kind of a big deal :(
     
  20. Barrogh

    Barrogh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2017
    Messages:
    1,859
    Likes Received:
    1,587
    It says that, but it is worded differently, leaving us no space to infer "...if there are any" at the end of the sentence without butchering it. At least in my mind, although I may be wrong.

    Please, read up the whole thing and tell me what I am missing there.

    My problem is that it appears to me, that English version uses structure that isn't even grammatically valid for cases when there is none.

    Again, I may be wrong.
     
    Hecaton likes this.