newfrenchy83

> > Must i repull DEP_LEVEL::PREEMPTIVE in code? > > I can't tell what that means. > > Can you explain why you're doing this? Are you aware of the...

> @newfrenchy83 Is soliton's suggestion something you'd be able to do? i don't tkink, ,no, and i don't see interest to modify boolean backstab for put in the wml. For...

> If it's easy to replace in WML why can't the engine do it? Why doesn't the deprecation message say explicitly what to replace it with? It seems we're making...

> > If it's easy to replace in WML why can't the engine do it? Why doesn't the deprecation message say explicitly what to replace it with? It seems we're...

> I merged #7024 (the PR that changes it from `PREEMPTIVE` to `FOR_REMOVAL`) thinking that there was support from @CelticMinstrel for that change, and now I'm rereading this I just...

> > And I could definitely see an argument that it presents an obstacle to further development, since it's a special case in the ability system that everything needs to...

@CelticMinstrel i cannot write the formula code in massage because a quotation marks problems in formula, this why a added refrence to abilities.cfg and WEAPON_SPECIAL_BACKSTAB for whatdevelloper know what sepcial...

> This seems like it could be done by adding `is_enemy` to the existing [filter_side] tag instead of creating something new? it write [filter_location][filter][filter_side], with that the side allied or...

> I don't get the point of this? The diff seems to show that this is already possible. Possible but imperfect, because camp changes are not taken into account, if...

@CelticMinstrel could you review this PR, please?