Done. FAQ 1.3 and 1.4 are partially added to the wiki: FAQ: Introduction FAQ: Basic Rules FAQ: Combat FAQ: Characteristics and Skills Plus related pages.
FAQ 1.3 and 1.4 now added to the rest of the wiki. See: FAQ: Weaponry & Equipment FAQ: Advanced Rules FAQ: Fireteams FAQ: Infinity Tournament System (ITS) And related pages.
Shock Army of Acontecimento Fireteams Chart is updated: http://infinitythewiki.com/en/List_of_Fireteams#Shock_Army_of_Acontecimento
The Engaged errata from FAQ 1.4 has now been corrected on the various wiki pages, the second sentence (marked in red) was missing: Q: The second bullet of the Engaged state the text should be: A: At the Conclusion of an Order, the Engaged state can be cancelled when all of a trooper’s adversaries are in Null or Immobilized state. When this happens, the trooper’s player must decide whether to keep the Engaged state, or cancel it by separating the trooper by 1mm from the adversaries. If all of an active trooper’s adversaries are in Null or Immobilized state the trooper can also cancel Engaged state by declaring Move (but following the structure of the Order) to separate from the adversaries.
Is there a way to contribute to the Labels Reverse List (which I think would be extremely useful if it was complete)?
Not easily, but I'm hoping to do something about that over the Chrsitmas break. THIRD OFFENSIVE FIRETEAMS are now on the wiki: http://infinitythewiki.com/en/List_of_Fireteams
FUSILIERS are still listed as a core fireteam for Military Orders, but Fusileers are no longer in Military Orders.
Whoops, I was just hitting F5 and it was reloading my cached old copy. Sorry to bother you guys. Thanks for the updates.
That should be all the Third Offensive content updated on the English-language wiki. List of new/updated rules from Third Offensive: http://infinitythewiki.com/en/index.php?title=Category:Third_Offensive
Marksmanship Level X has been updated after some different versions made it through to different places. http://infinitythewiki.com/en/Marksmanship#MARKSMANSHIP_LEVEL_X
So now that the FAQ about LoL and fireteams is gone... what does happen when an army goes into LoL? I'm not seeing any language anywhere that it gets cancelled, but the line on the "Fireteam Integrity" page still says that if a trooper is irregular and spends its irregular order, they leave the fireteam. This seems to be identical to what the FAQ said, so why was it removed? Did something change? Also, on the FAQ page for fireteams you linked above, that particular FAQ is still there (it was removed on all of the other pages I checked, though).
The FAQ about loss of lieutenant and Fireteams was removed because it was made obsolete when HSN3 revised the Fireteam rules to create things like the Fireteam Integrity rules. The wiki is only presenting official rules and FAQ entries, so that FAQ entry was marked obsolete when it was removed. Loss of Lieutenant in 3rd Ed does not automatically break Fireteam links. That happens to still be a true fact that the FAQ was pointing out. The rest of the answer, "Should a member of a Fireteam expend his Irregular Order, he automatically and immediately abandons the Fireteam and forfeits all its bonuses." isn't true, and was a mechanism contained in the N3 transitional rules for Fireteams. So if you're not seeing any language anywhere about a Fireteam being cancelled by Loss of Lieutenant, you're not missing anything.
But this is still what the Wiki says: If nothing changed, why remove the FAQ? I'd understand if it were errata and the rules were updated to account for it, but as an FAQ it seems like it's still relevant. If something did change, then it's not apparent what.
As solkan says, that FAQ entry was from before the Fireteam rules got updated to N3. The rules Effects of the FAQ are now included in the actual rules, making that FAQ completely unnecessary.
Redundant? Sure... Unnecessary? We'll see :). Like I said, if it were an errata, then I could see getting rid of it as it's now in the rules proper. As an FAQ, though, it's job* is to clarify rules that might be difficult to follow. I don't see any reason to get rid of it if it's still true. *I say this as something an FAQ should be, of course. It seems CB does often use their FAQ as errata, however....
