Twin Weapons is stated to be explicitly a bonus to burst. Full-Auto explicitly forbids its burst bonus from stacking with other burst bonuses unless they explicitly says otherwise. Twin Weapons doesn't say otherwise. Why would there need to be a ruling or how does current logic change these two to stack?
Because the wording emphasised by IJW suggests Twin Weapons combines two identical BS Weapons into a single weapon with +1 burst. So you don't have an HMG with burst 4, and then add a +1 Burst modifier for Twin Weapons. You have a "Twin HMG" with Burst 5. The only way this can come up is a Multi or HMG Kriza getting a 1/20 result on Booty2 from a Panoply though. It also breaks the unspoken Burst 5 cap which suggests it is not intended to stack.
While this is very obviously a modifier because it explicitly says the weapon has a modifier in Twin Weapon rules, as IJW has put it elsewhere when a specific value was given (that time regarding Total Reaction) - "how is this not a bonus?"
I was working out the ramifications of the "combined weapon" theory, but yes I agree that they shouldn't stack.
I understand and appreciate wanting to follow a clean internal logic to the game. Ad-hoc rulings aren't something that you can count on to inform you of how other future rulings will be made. However, I also feel like this is a case of making things harder than they need to be. Twin weapons + Neurocinetics works, to my mind, exactly how you think it would. On a normal model dual missile launchers has burst 2 in active turn, burst 1 in reactive. Neurocinetics inverts that, and so the model with dual missile launchers has burst 1 in active turn and burst 2 in reactive. In this particular instance, trusting your intuition is perfectly safe and you don't need to deeply parse minor interactions between rules.
I completely disagree. Absolutely nothing should work as we think it should it work... everything should work exactly how we're told it should work. The wording of the Twin weapons and Neurocinetics rules is irrelevant at this stage, seriously. Nothing in the rules says to apply Twin weapons first causing whatever to happen, and then apply Neuro causing something else to happen. See how the wording or what's obvious and intuitive is irrelevant? So I don't care if twin weapons is like a single higher burst weapon profile... that still doesn't entitle that skill being applied before Neurocinetics. There is only one thing that breaks this infinite loop. And it's not something that tells us what to apply first. It's a separate rule making the order these skills are applied irrelevant. We're told one rule overrides the other, thus breaking the loop. This rule is the red box in the Modifier rules.
What attitude is that? I love deep and complex games. I love skirmish games. I love the aesthetic. I'm just surprised the integrity of Infinity's rules isn't a higher priority. Excluding the players, the rules are what makes the game tick. No matter how beautiful a car may look and sound, if it's having engine problems I'm not going to drive it. Others may choose to drive it but i bet there is complaining from time to time. I doubt Infinity players are much different. I'm also confident in saying it impacts the games reputation.
Infinity's rules aren't (akways) closely written. There are numerous cases where they're played a certain way that isn't necessarily supported by the text, because the closest reading of the text is functionally unplayable. The example I usually use is a Surprise Shot Redrum (or any other Hacking Attack). This attack will have the BS Attack trait, so it's perfectly legal to co-ordinate it with other BS Attacks . Nobody plays it like that, but it's technically the rules. There's a whole bunch of this sort of stuff. Consequently it's less sanity impairing to, if in doubt, play what makes the most sense rather than what the most technically correct reading of the rules say. That limits rules issues to interactions where the rules are ambiguous and players can't agree on what makes sense.
@Ginrei You should check out that thread on climb rules. You would have fun with that one. https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threads/how-exactly-is-climb-supposed-to-work.22873/ Infinitiy is full of weird rules that need interpretation. I doubt that is gonna change anytime soon.
Anytime the intention of a rule doesn't match the structure or written word it is a problem. Each person has a number of exceptions they will tolerate. Infinity just seems to be so far beyond any reasonable number I'm amazed how many people defend it. Trust me... I want to defend it and tell everyone to play, but I can't in good conscience do so. I completely understand the community trying to play what makes the most sense in these cases. But sticking our heads in the sand doesn't make these issues go away. History and tradition may be reasons to continue with the current approach to the Infinity rules, but it doesn't change how effective the rules actually are. The Infinity rules are rusty and without proper attention the rust spreads and things deteriorate. I'm not familiar with how the rules have improved over editions. But I am certain that regardless of any previous improvements, they still have a long way to go.
@toadchild Following intuition and intent for rules was something i was done with after that shock ammo ruling.
If you really want some fun, technically full auto doesn't stack with the negative modifier for saturation zones...
Saturation Zones are incoherent though. They're basically not like other MODs (in that they don't MOD the trooper/weapon, they mod the attack). Which is why MM:X through a Sat Zone should work... /o\
Besides, even if your Full Auto +1B to your HMG can't be taken away, there's still the other 4 dice that Saturation can apply to. ;)
No, it's not that the +1 can't be taken away, it's that you don't even get to apply the +1 if you are applying other MODs, such as the saturation zone one. By RAW at least.
As written, MODs aren't supposed to affect Burst anyway, but somebody who was writing more rules didn't pay attention and now we have this clusterfuck.
I'm not seeing anyone defend it ("it" being the ruleset). On the contrary, I'm seeing almost everyone in agreement that the rules can and should be tighter, FAQs should be more frequent, and unofficial-official* rulings maintained in some easy-to-access place until they can be incorporated into the rules. I mean, wasn't having the ruleset online for free as a .pdf so that it could be updated easily and in a timely manner the whole point? If you meant defend the game as a whole, well then I actually think it's pretty easy to defend. The miniatures are exquisite. The general flow of gameplay is active and intriguing. The aesthetic (while not for everyone) is fun for many. And any holes in the ruleset at a casual level are actually quite easily plugged with a few words with your opponent before the game starts. Now, on a competitive level, I'd agree. I wouldn't partake in anything more than a Store Champs within my own well-known meta without a lot of these holes getting plugged in an official capacity first, but there's so much this game has to offer that I can't see that as big enough reason to not support it. *i.e. rulings on forum posts, not official documents.
