Is the B2 granted by Enhanced Reaction a "bonus"?

As Mahtamori already pointed out, a TR Remote with Enhanced Reaction is choosing between two bonuses - one that gives it B2 and one that gives it the weapon's full Burst. That doesn't stop Enhanced Reaction being a bonus, it's just not as good a bonus as Total Reaction.

 

I don't think the Possessed argument is going to work. It doesn't set values for stats, it is a brand new profile (akin to transmutate or dismounting) that just so happens to have several stats be the same as before the new profile.

I see a fairly robust distinction between that and TR/ER.

 

'Bonus' not being a defined game term is the point. It's the general usage meaning of bonus.

By intention, you can't stack the the Burst Support Bonus with anything else that would benefit the user's Burst in ARO, other than ones that 'specifically state otherwise'. Enhanced Reaction doesn't specify otherwise.

 

Yeah, there's definitely not going to be any issues with Enhanced Reaction being +1 Burst. :tearsofjoy:

 

There wouldn't be any issue with Enhanced Reaction being +1 burst if worded properly. Something like +1 burst granting a maximum of 2 burst, and under the heading of MOD.

In a game where the rules are ridiculously unstructured, players are going to question when bonuses are applied and what stacks with what. Using some generic term like bonus or mod and then assuming all players will apply it to things like setting a stat to a specific value may sound straight forward but it isn't 100%.

There is no clear sequence of events or headings in Infinity to eliminate the confusion caused by a simple choice of words. If CB doesn't want burst over 2 from Enhanced Reaction they should say exactly that instead of assuming players know how all their rules interact. If there is a clear sequence of events laid out where both fireteams, Enhanced Reaction, and other mods all fall within the same heading things will become much easier.

 

That is a perfectly reasonable and valid point. But after having asked the question and received an answer, all be it via someone who knew the intention from play testing rather than 'official' arguing back and forth ad nauseum is worthless. It might get an FAQ entry later or a forum official answer, but until that time this is what we have. Making pages of thread there after isn't productive.

 

But the first part would simply be speculation on everyone's part and not really add anything to the discussion. I also take issue with your assertion that the rules are "shoddily constructed". Are there certain interactions that require a bit of jumping around and less than intuitive? Sure, nested skills almost guarantee it and experience will get your through that phase without too much trouble. Are there several rules that aren't clearly defined and require some more attention? Yes, but I already made a thread for that. But the vast majority of the ruleset is pretty damn solid and fairly straightforward.

The only people who should be "expected to keep up with random posts on the forums to know how the game is supposed to be played" are those of us rules nerds that just NEED to know how and why this interaction works the way it does and tournament organizers. Everyone else should just play however the hell they think the rules allow them to during a game and only come to the forums if there was a dispute in game that they want clarified. As long as both people are reading the rules the same way, there will be no issue outside of a tournament.

That said, I think that if a CB employee has made a ruling on the forum, then the topic should be stickied until/if it gets an FAQ entry. That way you won't have to look so far (and one of the reasons I made the thread I did was to at least have it consolidated).

 

I do applaud your attempts to keep these issues consolidated in one thread. However, I couldn't disagree more with the above.

As a game that has competitive tournaments and campaigns I expect nothing less than a set of rules to settle any arguments or clear up any confusion. Frankly this applies to any game with a winner/loser. Anyone who's been on the wrong end of another's interpretation of the rules should know how frustrating it is.

Friendly game or not this really doesn't make the situation players are put in acceptable. It just becomes less annoying. If these issues don't bother everyone, that's great, but please don't pretend it's only a group of rule nerds that are affected. I expect anyone I play to know the rules. If they are learning that is different. Infinity has a long learning curve so there is a lot more leeway in this area. But these issues arise between veterans of Infinity and at tournaments. I can't see that as anything short of unacceptable.

I hope CB is simply bad at writing and constructing a set of rules. Because the alternative is they just don't care enough.

 

It could do. But it doesn’t, does it? Just goes round and round pointlessly. If you think the rules are that bad perhaps you should play another game that might be less frustrating to you. And plague their forums.

 

Not pointlessly, the squeaky wheel gets the oil.

While I might not like his attitude here I feel his frustration. The simple fact of the matter is any ITS tournament I go to is going to be full of odd house rules and interpretations. CB have a great game here but when you start digging you can find a TON of oddities and inconsistency's. The rules for the game are good but written in a casual way that I am sure made perfect sense to the people making the game but are vague to the player base.

FAQing and consolidating rulings needs to be a higher priority. The way ITS session 9 mission rulings got handled was pretty well done imo.

 

Appreciate your input.