It might be a bit late and I'm too tired to follow what you mean, but I can't find this official solution to the Datatracker problem you speak of. Let me clarify what I mean with "choosing which rule it is okay to break"; by proposing that a Datatracker/Liaison must be chosen and that if you deploy such that it can not and thus forcing you to posthumously accommodate for it, you are also proposing that you're allowed to break the rules which dictate cancellation on states. Instead, either make having them mandatory or voluntary (strong preference towards the prior because some missions give points to your opponent in case of Datatracker) and then not even acknowledge what happens if you deploy all possible troopers in, f.ex. Hidden Deployment, as that is a breach of the rules similar to holding back too many or too few units in "reserves"
Well, the rule says the player "must declare which (one) is the L.O." but not that the player must "appoint (one) as the L.O.".
Maybe liaison officer is supposed to be like a poor man’s strategos 2 for onyx. You deploy the malignos FO in HD, then prior to the game, you’re forced to redeploy him entirely in order to legally declare him a liaison officer. It’s a benefit, not a drawback. (Sarcasm should be inferred)
Not only the basis has been provided, but honestly unless is overturned by a FAQ down the line @ijw response is official. And for the, far too many, time you are allowed to disagree with something, but not in this way, a basic civil discussion is honestly a really low bar to pass over, we are expecting from forum members to do so.
Can someone please explain the issue with having a fo as your liaison officer? It seem like a lot of work and attention in getting around the option. It is a bonus point or 2 for the scenario, most players love taking a cheap forward observer for specialist and I think while never perfectly written its pretty straight forward. Take an fo it must be the liaison and has to be on the board. Does that break normal rules? Yes yes it it does in the same way so many card games say this is the rule unless a card says differently.
The problem is that Onyx has only 1 valid profile and it's on a (not very cheap) TO unit. Getting this question cleared up is mostly for them.
Spiral has exactly the same problem: Only one FO-profile in the whole Army, which is a TO-Infiltrator that you want to deplay hidden most of the time. So for Spiral it is even worse than Onyx, because Onyx has 3 FO-profiles in total, even though 2 are REMs that cannot be LO. What about a Brawler FO-profile? Or give Kotails to Spiral - as a second FO-profile! Asking for Sukeuls (FOs as well) for Spiral might be a bit much, even if having at least one profile with Veteran L1 would be really nice...
Didn't know that. So two factions are essentially hosed for this, but this is a somewhat common theme. One of Daddy's Fall missions has points that Onyx (as well as several other factions) can't achieve because they require HI specialists. I don't agree that Spiral has it even worse than Onyx, however. Since the other two FOs are REMs, they don't really enter into this discussion. Having your only FO option being TO isn't the worst, as being able to deploy near an HVT/objective and come out in later turns is strong.
IJW has stated that you are not required to bring a FO, only that if you do it has to be deployed on the table and not in HD, (pending confirmation by HellLois). Onyx does not really have a problem because they can opt not to bring an FO. Spiral could run into an issue as it is the only Infiltrating Specialist, but for missions with the with the Liaison you may want to either bring 2 FOs or bring a different Clipsos profile and rely on other specialists to get button pushing work done. But to have the possibility of getting that sweet, sweet extra point, some armies do indeed need to plan for it. Those missions assume the use of Spec-Ops which are specialists and are unaffected by the areas just like HI.
No, a basis has not been provided. "Because I said so" is not enough, especially when people have pointed out the grammar of the rule isn't on his side. One can't expect the community to hang on every one of IJW's words to figure out how to play the game. Until it's in the rules or FAQ, it's somewhat insulting to expect the community to consider it official.
If you deploy the Malignos in Hidden Deployment, then you are not allowed to choose him as LO at all, so no unhiding and/or redeploying. At least that's what the rules literally say. (Or is my english that bad?) They do not say that "you are not allowed to deploy all FOs from your list in a way that they are not on the table" or "if your only FO is deployed hidden you have to redeploy it" - in the contrary, they say that I am not allowed to choose it in the first place. Edit: What might solve this in an easy way is to simply add (to LO and/or DT) that you have to deploy a legal LO/DT. But "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." does not force you to deploy all/any FO in a way that is legal to choose it as LO, but just that you have to declare one (from those that are legal for you to choose from).
"Because the guy whose job is to make sure the English Rules are how the game is supposed to be played (ie, @ijw ) said so" is actually a pretty good reason, Hecaton. Go look in your rules pdf on page 3, you're going to see "Ian “IJW Wartrader” Wood" under PLAYTESTING AND PROOFREADING.
Again, it doesn't say 'must choose from the appropriately-deployed troopers', it says 'from their Army List'. If you have a legal LO/DT in your list, you must deploy one in a way that lets you choose one.
On a side note, I can't get rid of the feeling that said sentence is also constructed in a way that implies you already has at least 2 FOs in your list. Also, I don't think inability to choose Liaison from your Army list somehow automatically lifts the obligation to make that choice unless it is specifically stated (it isn't). Still waiting for clarifications, I guess. P.S. God, people, when will you finally begin applying your once-mentioned programming background to formulating rules... Been waiting for at least 2 published releases already.
If that's aimed at me, I'm an editor. That doesn't mean that I have the final say over the wording of a rule, and also this is near-identical wording to a rule that's now in it's third season without having caused rules debates.
