Lets close the issue with Disengaging Strikes and Df Triggers

[AndreyF]

There are a lot of discussions about this matter on the forum. But none of those discussions have official answer.
Some even point to old FAQ:
 

Quote

M2E FAQ 7-01-15:

Q: Can a model defending against a Disengaging Strike declare Triggers?
A: No. Neither model may declare any Triggers during a Disengaging Strike.

But this entry is not in the FAQ at the moment, so this adds to confusion a lot.
In the rules Errata there is this one now:
 

Quote

Pg. 29, “Triggers” Section: Add the following text to the last paragraph: “Models may not declare Triggers during Disengaging Strikes or while Buried unless explicitly noted otherwise.”

But it is still ambiguous. During Disengaging Strikes means model performing disengaging strike, or both models involved? Some defensive triggers look like they were added with disengaging strike in mind. Like the Doom Ward on Oxfordian Mage for example.

[santaclaws01]

It doesn't say performing a disengaging strike, so it doesn't just mean the attack, and it doesn't say when defending against a disengaging strike, so it doesn't mean just the defender. It says during.

[Franchute]

I think it is pretty clear that none can declare a trigger.

[AndreyF]

Ok. Thanks. I still wonder why they removed the clean answer from the FAQ. It does not help when ppl come searching the forum and find the reference to the non-existing FAQ entry.

[solkan]

59 minutes ago, AndreyF said:

Ok. Thanks. I still wonder why they removed the clean answer from the FAQ. It does not help when ppl come searching the forum and find the reference to the non-existing FAQ entry.

Can you explain what you expect would fix the issue?

Because your complaint appears to be that the developers took a previously patched over rules issue and errated it to fix it properly.  After all, most of the time a FAQ is used to explain how a rule is supposed to work when there isn’t an opportunity to rewrite it more clearly.

 

[AndreyF]

The old FAQ entry was clean and it is referred from this forum. Returning it would be logical. Other solution would be to delete topics which refer to now non-existing FAQ entry.

Regarding argument, that it was removed due to it being patched. I don't think FAQ is done this way. For example there is this entry:
 

Quote

7) Does a model have Line of Sight (LoS) to itself? Yes.

This is not even clarifying the original rulebook, it just answers Frequently Asked Question, which has clear answer in rulebook.

[santaclaws01]

31 minutes ago, AndreyF said:

The old FAQ entry was clean and it is referred from this forum. Returning it would be logical. Other solution would be to delete topics which refer to now non-existing FAQ entry.

Regarding argument, that it was removed due to it being patched. I don't think FAQ is done this way. For example there is this entry:
 

This is not even clarifying the original rulebook, it just answers Frequently Asked Question, which has clear answer in rulebook.

It was removed due the the errata. There were quite a few things that were removed from the FAQ at the same time because of errata.

[AndreyF]

Strange decision. FAQ has F for reason.

[Adran]

The answer in the faq was no longer true. There is now an occasion when you could declare a trigger during a disengaging strike, when the trigger says you can. And it would have to explicitly say it can be taken during a disengaging strike.

Regarding removing old posts, that refer to old faqs I don't think it's a good idea. Two reasons. One most of the time the threads are still relevant, and two it would take a lot of time to find everything that refers to old answers. And I don't have that time.