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. ijw

    ijw Wargaming Trader, Freelance Editor (UK)
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    5,111
    Likes Received:
    10,419
    I did read it all. As far as I can see, you’re basing it all on a misreading of the text.
     
  2. Barrogh

    Barrogh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2017
    Messages:
    1,843
    Likes Received:
    1,571
    Like I said, it's entirely possible I'm not familiar with some nuances of English.
    So, are you saying it's option 1, a present FO must become Liaison, but there is not obligation for player to declare a Liaison?
     
  3. ijw

    ijw Wargaming Trader, Freelance Editor (UK)
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    5,111
    Likes Received:
    10,419
    Almost. I’m saying that a present FO must become Liaison, but there is no obligation for players to include an FO in their list*.

    However we’re already waiting on confirmation from @HellLois on this.

    *EDIT - re-reading your post, I think this is what you meant to type, so yes that’s what I’m saying. I thought I had already said it earlier in the thread, sorry if I didn’t. :-(
     
    #23 ijw, Sep 5, 2019
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2019
  4. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    6,038
    Likes Received:
    7,556
    But a trooper that's not deployed in a valid way is just as eligible as a trooper that wasn't included in the list? If a trooper must be chosen, then a trooper must be made available, which logically means the list must include such a trooper which must logically be deployed outside of HD or AD. Or it means you only must choose one if there is one eligible.
     
    toadchild and Hecaton like this.
  5. Chade

    Chade Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2018
    Messages:
    50
    Likes Received:
    22
    Agreed completely.
     
  6. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    4,526
    Likes Received:
    4,409
    I'd think not, because you can't retroactively un-Hidden Deploy a Malignos to make them the liaison.
     
  7. RaidenSA

    RaidenSA New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2019
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    In the wording, it is said that the player must choose at the end of the deployment fase. So, in my opinion, troopers in hidden deployment are already hidden and set aside, while all other trropers are already on their start position. Then, we try to declare th liason offices just because we must do it. We look on our models, and it is said that we can't choose the hidden one.
    May be there is some trouble of understanding the timing of the events, but "Players are not allowed to choose troopers in Hidden Deployment." seems to say that we do not have to place our To unit without hidden deployment just because we later will need somebody for liasson officer.
    Anywar, let's wait for an official answer/
     
  8. ijw

    ijw Wargaming Trader, Freelance Editor (UK)
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    5,111
    Likes Received:
    10,419
    I disagree with the logic in your first sentence. You have to choose one from your list, not from appropriately-deployed troopers. So if there's one in your list, you can't try to get around the requirement to pick one from your list by putting them all in Hidden Deployment.

    But...
     
  9. xagroth

    xagroth Mournful Echo

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    5,634
    Likes Received:
    4,493
    Assume I forget totally about this and my only FO is a Malignos I deployed Hidden (because Onyx), we finish deployment and my opponent nomintates a FO, and asks for mine (or asks for mine directly, whtatevs), so... I need to un-hid my TO? Redeploy him?
     
    Hecaton likes this.
  10. ijw

    ijw Wargaming Trader, Freelance Editor (UK)
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    5,111
    Likes Received:
    10,419
    Yes.

    EDIT - just like you have to if you deployed all your valid Datatrackers in a way that doesn't let you pick one of them as a Datatracker (in a Fireteam or marker state, for example).
     
    A Mão Esquerda likes this.
  11. Foxbringer

    Foxbringer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2018
    Messages:
    101
    Likes Received:
    75
    Could you show an example?

    There are no irreg-lieutenants nor rem-lts, as far as I know. So you will always have datatracker option.
     
  12. cazboab

    cazboab Member (phrasing)

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2017
    Messages:
    888
    Likes Received:
    1,121
    Ariadna doesn't need remotes to make up the numbers of forward observers, practically every line trooper, HI and their granny has the option, until you get into CHA then you have exactly 3 options and 2 of them are Scots guards...

    It's not the end of the world but I can't help but think either CHA is way too specialised in murder or that @HellLois just hates us :p
     
  13. xagroth

    xagroth Mournful Echo

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    5,634
    Likes Received:
    4,493
    No, I meant that Ariadna is the one without those remotes. But as you say, FO is the most common specialist they have XD
     
    cazboab likes this.
  14. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    6,038
    Likes Received:
    7,556
    That sounds a lot more like you're choosing which rule it is okay to break instead of making sure not to break a rule.
     
    BLOODGOD likes this.
  15. cazboab

    cazboab Member (phrasing)

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2017
    Messages:
    888
    Likes Received:
    1,121
    Yeah I know, I was saying that they don't *need* forward observer rems, but CHA gets bilked out of the bonus points and scoring as a tag because nothing has heavyweight and the forward observers are going to be at risk due to their utility in killing other things...

    Now there are advantages to deleting your opponent's army in short order if you do it at the right time, or in annihilation, but when the other missions are based around button pushing, having less options for button pushers kinda hurts.

    I'm sure CHA isn't the only sectorial that has few options in specialists, but it's the only one with few specialists, no TAG/heavyweight that has less options for limited insertion than Henry Ford offered colours on the model T...
     
    xagroth likes this.
  16. daszul

    daszul Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2018
    Messages:
    662
    Likes Received:
    788
    3 options? That's 2 more than Spiral has. And about our REMS, well, yeah...
     
    cazboab likes this.
  17. AdmiralJCJF

    AdmiralJCJF Heart of the Hyperpower
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2017
    Messages:
    2,840
    Likes Received:
    3,804
    That's my point.
     
    Foxbringer likes this.
  18. Kyle Katarn

    Kyle Katarn Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2018
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    9
    Let's suppose that someone has AD lieutenant, because he wishes to start in LoL for some reasons?
     
    Robock and AdmiralJCJF like this.
  19. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    6,038
    Likes Received:
    7,556
    You aren't required to start with the AD trooper in AD, you can deploy them on the table, so arguably if you have an AD LT as your only non-REM trooper you'd be forced to deploy it on the table
     
    AdmiralJCJF and Foxbringer like this.
  20. solkan

    solkan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2017
    Messages:
    688
    Likes Received:
    1,147
    You're leaving out two facts:
    • Data tracker had the same sort of issue
    • The proposed interpretation assumes that the same issue with the similar rule is the solution to the same situation with the new rule