I don't understand that rule. Why should a Civilian create aros? There are enough shenanigans with aro's. Why not only cut these passus in the rules. It's the next exception from the exception. Don't get me wrong @HellLois, it's your game and you know better what to do then us, but more complexity isn't in my opinion good at all.
Xenotech uses CivEvac state and the CivEvac says the synchronized civilian generates AROs. It should be noted that under several circumstances it would be beneficial for a reactive Trooper to be able to declare Dodge or Reset as AROs to a synchronized Civilian. http://infinitythewiki.com/en/CivEvac
Ok, so for now Xenotech will be able "only" to block templates. Good enough. Btw. a question: does the "controller" of G:Sync unit (so the one without G:Sync) is a valid trooper to try to sync up Civilian/Xenotech ?
That's known to me, but it doesn't make any sense. Thats the rule I personally would change. Cause this was the first exection to civilians.
My understanding is that this is correct. I haven't found anything in the rules that prevents a Controller from declaring Synchronize Civilian. A Controller would, I think, have to meet one or more of the bullet points under "A model cannot declare this Common Skill if any of the following is true" to be prevented from declaring the skill.
Hi @HellLois , sorry to bring back this from the dead but is the ITS update done? If it is I'm sorry but I missed it. Can't find it in ITS X or the wiki.
And to resolve the conflict you have to remember that the FAQ supersedes the printed rules. And I think the thread speaks for itself as far as the unwanted consequences of having the sync’d civilian generate AROs. @ijw I notice that the FAQ entry isn’t on the CivEvac wiki page. Is that an oversight or is there another change pending?
I understand that a faq is used to explain some obscure interaction, not to re-write a rule. That is called an errata, or an update. And you normally don't leave it on your living document (the wiki in this case). It is completely counter intuitive to read two different things on 2 different documents. Even more when the FAQs can contradict each other between versions (shock vs multiwound comes to mind).
To Corvus Belli the FAQ and Errata are functionally the same thing. The wiki is also not technically a living document, it's more of an electronic version of the rulebook.
Over all my years of war gaming, the difference between a FAQ and an errata is “Does the game company want to change the text in the rulebook/Card/whatever?” It’s an errata if the answer is “Yes” and a FAQ otherwise. A lot of the time, it’s because the rule’s broken and they haven’t come up with suitable permanent replacement text. (It’s weird how errata’ing the same rule twice really makes some people mad...) So, yeah, this is a FAQ telling you that two bullet points in CivEvac are wrong. Corvus Belli isn’t using their wiki as the living rules document. There are days I wonder how much IJW had to fight to get FAQ entries on the wiki pages.
