To be fair, if the target is 'only' Unconscious, something's probably gone horribly wrong already! Especially for Calibans with D-Charges...
Hmm... that means performing Predator Classified Objective is indeed very difficult. You wouldn't happen to know if there's a re-print of the deck on the way?
It removes the option of hoovering up troopers that have been made Unconscious by shooting though :'(
Well, I guess that means Sheskiin’s Red Fury technically no longer has anti-synergy with her protheion.
There are no plans to reprint the Classified Deck in the near future. And yes, it makes it hard to hoover up Unconscious targets. :-( My preferred option would be to make Coup de Grâce optional, and let you resolve a regular CC Attack instead.
Does that mean there will be no new ITS deck for the new season as well? And if so, will the new season not use a Deck or are we forced to look for an OOP product to facilitate gameplay?
Responding here, as it's the appropriate place... No you can't, and no the rulebook doesn't. If the rules text and an example contradict each other, the rules text is going to take priority. Unless and until it's FAQed, or there is a provisional rules answer post, Coup de Grâce does not work with Protheion. In a similar way to Berserk not working while in Engaged State until the FAQ. Then you won't be playing by the rules, as clarified by a member of the rules team. Disagreeing with me or disliking my answers doesn't change the status of those answers. And also: I didn't shut up.
Didn't we recently have HellLois state (Facebook?) that it does? There was a bit of noise about that some month ago.
No, it was in the private Warcors forum, rather than anywhere public. And it required the FAQ entry for it to actually apply in the rules.
It still was leaked and shouldn't have been stated this way in contradiction to what you're telling us. You guys need to be on the same page about those rulings. Also, by this same logic - are your rulings also unofficial until FAQ then? Even the "provisional answers"?
ALL is unofficial until FAQ. But a "Provisional answer" has already been discussed, so it is very unlikely that it will be changed (maybe just further clarified)
You also said that someone wrote the example without being aware of the changes to Coup de Grace as a justification - which is incorrect as the example takes into account both the fact that CDG is something that happens when you declare a CC Attack now, and the fact that it moves them straight to dead without saves. The language of that example in Protheion is written with the N4 changes to CDG in mind. Given that your "preferred" solution is clearly going against the example in the book, and your general "Infinity c'est moi" attitude, it comes off more like you have an opinion on how that interaction should work that isn't shared by CB, and you're trying to force it. It's also worth noting that having "gotcha" rules answers that can only be known if you are active on the forums and read very specific threads (not even the stickies), and have no actual documentation in anything CB puts out, make for a bad game situation.
Please explain to me why we have to have this conversation every time you do not like an answer? On the red text side I would greatly appreciate it if you cut that attitude and worked on how to express your objection in an at least civil way.
The fact that people don't understand that having a rule that isn't in the rulebook or FAQ is a problem is worrying. It wasn't even in the forum thread collecting rules questions until I pointed it out. When TOs who are listening to IJW spring this on people, there's no way they're not going to be blindsided by it, because it directly contradicts an example in the book. So no, you're not going to get this conversation every time I don't like an answer, but you are going to get it every time there are "rules" which mysteriously contradict what's in the rulebook.
