Stormwall and Compulsory Covering Fire

[quindraco]

Stormwall has a rule on its card called Covering Fire. This rule is not a *action or *attack, and does not use the words 'may' or 'can' or similar in its wording. Is there any legal way Stormwall can choose NOT to use Covering Fire, provided the relevant Metal Storm Gun is not crippled?

[Crate123]

Its obviously a mistake on PPs behalf, that is supposed to say "may".

[Lanz]

Would crippling the gun even stop it? I don't have Colossals yet to check the rules, but as far as I know, the fact that it would normally be a *action is why crippling the gun in the first place would stop it. Passive weapon rules aren't lost when the weapon's crippled unless Covering Fire specifically says in its rules that you can't use it while the weapon's crippled.

[jandrese]

Crippling the arm does nothing to covering fire.

Edit: Nevermind, I apparently cannot read.

[quindraco]

Crippling the arm does nothing to covering fire.

"This model cannot place an AOE for this weapon while it is crippled."

[PG_KestrelM1]

As the card reads, Metal Storm is compulsory. I'm 99% sure this is simply a typo, however.

[Maudlin]

Yes, of course the "instead of making attacks" part is optional.

[Jestor]

Yes, of course the "instead of making attacks" part is optional.

It is not worded as such. Will there be an errata to this?

[OniBeowulf]

It is not worded as such. Will there be an errata to this?

In the book or on the card? I was looking at this exact thing yesterday on my card and the first thing that caught my attention was "instead of making attacks"

[Jestor]

With no * action like normally is on covering fire it just says "Instead of making attacks you do this". It does not say "Instead of making attacks you MAY do this". It is a very important distinction. As it is currently written it is compulsory.

[Crate123]

Does it really matter about getting the errata ?
We have word from an Infernal (along with common sense) that it is a missprint and its not compulsory.

[Jestor]

Crate - While this is off topic and a philosophical conversation, I think anything like this should be an errata, yes. There are so many rulings around the boards that I can not possibly memorize them all. When a ruling directly contradicts the wording it would be cool if there was an errata.

[Lanz]

Does it really matter about getting the errata ?
We have word from an Infernal (along with common sense) that it is a missprint and its not compulsory.

If it is indeed a misprint, then it would absolutely need an errata in order to make sure the correct use is official.

Crippling the arm does nothing to covering fire.

Edit: Nevermind, I apparently cannot read.

"This model cannot place an AOE for this weapon while it is crippled."

It didn't actually occur to me until I was looking at my Stormwall's Card just now that it doesn't actually have cripple-able arms. You either cripple that entire side of the warjack, or you cripple nothing. All three weapons are tied to the same system.

[Valander]

Question answered. Let's try to keep threads in the rules forum on the topic of the rules question asked, please.