The way the rule is written, it feels like they assume a player is going to activate the owner first. After the owner has completed his activation. Then all the player has to do is direct the Beast activation in a way that it finishes it's activation within it's leash range. Makes complete sense if you have a pet that is there to clean up, should it's owner fail. I'm fine doing it this way when I run CE Whispers. It'll give me time to get the Gheist into position so the Wyrm won't have to Nerve test to get the effect.
What I've seen in Batreps, is that players will activate the Beast First, then skip the nerve test, and move the owner so he's back in leash range. With the Wyrm, this is how I need to play it with direct Whispers. The problem is that this will sometimes take the Wyrm out of leash range to be in position to use the power, but when the Gheist activates he'll be back in range. It'll require a house rule to shift the Nerve check to the end of the Group Activation, which fixes both. I'm going to present both this and the RaW to them so they can make a decision.
-----
So far, I'm the only one using any possible 'Infiltrate' combos. So all of that clarification is only going to affect... me. Can't find any situation where an Infiltrating owner/beast and a non-infiltrating owner/beast causes a single break in the rules. (Yet.) It just slows things down while you apply the steps to resolve it just like you would a normal fighter, until we get comfortable with it.
-----
Most of the remaining possible conflicts are the result of simplifying what the rule is, and could be solved by changing
- "If the owner is removed from the battlefield for any reason, the Exotic Beast is also removed from play."
- "If the owner is taken Out of Action for any reason, the Exotic Beast is also removed from play."
Changing it to this eliminates the whole 'the Beast can't be on the board without it's owner' belief which isn't stated anywhere in N23/HoS books. It also allows the pet to stay on the board when Tactics are used, especially friendly ones that allow redeployment. By RaW these will kill the pet, which I also don't agree with. There are only a few that an opposing player would likely use that it causes a problem. Friendly one simply won't be used on either models.
-----
I still think that the 'Pets always deploy with their owners' is a good resolution, but it creates conflicts more than it eliminates. When both sides have 'Infiltrate' for example, players alternate placing 'Infiltrators' with each one controlling LoS and eliminating positions by creating a 6" void for your opponent. I don't think dropping 2 models together is going to be very fun when the opponent suddenly has 2x6" voids restricting where their models can be placed. It would also create situations where the Pet can get added to a scenario when it's owner is NOT selected for the fight. Reinforcements would be the most common, since it appears that RaW would only allow the owner to show up when drawn. Any Tactics which shift a fighter not in the battle, into a scenario would also leave the Beast behind.
I don't think I'll be advocating for this despite it being a benefit to me, but will be okay if the Arbiters choose to rule it this way.
-----
Unless someone has some other conflict that hasn't been covered, I think I can put this to rest. Thanks to everyone for chiming in, and respectfully debating on this so that I could figure it all out.
