No, you didn't like it, but that's not the same as that it didn't happen. It's right there. It says "they are skills or items of equipment"
You cut out the "because" part. It's saying "because they are skills or pieces of equipment." Which would imply that, if they weren't skills or pieces of equipment, the whole statement is null. Which is what appears to be the case. It's not saying "Forward Observer is not a BS Attack now." Nowhere does it say that. Instead it cites something that doesn't appear to actually be true as justification for a rules interaction. If that citation is incorrect... the whole FAQ ruling is wrong.
I think it's terribly written/structured... but I come to the conclusion FO is not BS Weapon in the sense it doesn't fire projectiles at a target. The use of Forward Observer is a form of Attack with a BS Weapon that uses the WIPattribute, I see FO similar to this: The use of Skull Smasher is a form of Attack with a BS Weapon that uses the PHattribute, the user swings the BS Weapon like a club to crack skulls. So while its an attack with a BS Weapon... it's not the kind of attack typically associated with a BS Weapon. So an increased burst bonus to the firing rate doesn't work for Skull Smashing. Nor does it work for painting a target.
I’m not defending this FAQ ruling, but I need to understand where you are coming from @Hecaton. Are you posting this thread because you don’t like this ruling or because you don’t understand how to interpret/apply it? Are there any other skill/weapon/whatever uses that you genuinely don’t know how to resolve in light of this FAQ? Do you feel like the effect of this FAQ has a negative outcome for some/all units or armies? Can you give gameplay examples? I don’t want to make assumptions about your motivations for posting this thread - any details you can give would be greatly appreciated.
Frankly, this FAQ drops Forward Observers as a way to mark targets (as opposed to being the cheapest way to get a Specialist) to being of zero utility. I'm not sure what the issue was with a linked FO getting +3WIP and +1B (and/or 6th Sense L2). That's my gameplay issue with the FAQ (in addition to potentially-confusing phrasing, which is now definitely a thing CB needs to worry about. See Ginrei's problems with Dodge)
Both. Well it's unclear as to how it's even meant to apply to Forward Observer. If you say "X is true because of Y." and Y isn't true, then X isn't true. It primarily affects the mission The Grid, I'd think.
Why do you want to make things complicated on things we (mostly) agree? is it a language barrier or something? Fine... it is a BS attack that allows you to do an attack (not BS attack) with a BS weapon and for reasons of gameplay it is decreed that it does not get B bonus, mostly because this and the other skills and equipment mentioned were never intended to get a B bonus and getting it either upsets the balance or creates side effects that kinda break the game.
I'm still not sure what the issue was with the B bonus. Why Forward Observer getting the B bonus is an issue, I mean.
But FO still gets +3 WIP? By RAW it is a BS Attack, and 5-man bonus to the attribute applies to a BS Attack regardless of the attribute used (BS, PH or WIP). The FAQ ruling was only about Burst bonus of 3-manner.
Yeah it still (confusingly) gets the +3WIP 5 Member Fireteam Bonus. Thing is, FO getting the B bonus neither upset balance or broke the game with side effects in any way I've ever seen or heard anyone mention. If anything getting things targeted is a bit weak in N3. Flash pulses may have been a bit strong, but they're not actually affected by this, and they've since been countered with Total Immunity anyway. So this rule on FO is seemingly self contradictory, and therefore quire confusing, uncessarily complex, and actually makes generally weak tactics weaker. It's hard to see what it even aims to improve.
I don't know what the problem was (i think it generated elsewhere, with other equipments/skills and the resulting list of similar items) but... What the hell you need more than an official statement that rules out that FO is not a weapon? Do we still need to argue if it is or not? The Almighty Creator (of the game) decided it is not. So, IT IS NOT. End of story.
I think it's Triangulated Fire Forward Observe that was the issue. Since both requires a BS weapon, both got axed
I suppose that might get to some crazy total numbers, but what could Triangulated Observe in a link team?
I don't think it's about fireteams at all. Both Triangulated and Fireteam burst bonus requires a weapon, so mechanically fixing Triangulated also alters/clarifies Fireteam functionality with FO. Triangulated FO would have 2x50% of Targetting an enemy regardless of range. That's pretty good. Plus we also do have "Pathfinder" REMs in fireteams and I think there's a Nomad LI who can do it as well.
75% chance of Targeted, assuming a Normal Roll. That's about what it would take to be worth spending the order to get someone Targeted now. I mean, it's not like GMLs auto-hit anymore! Oh, yeah, I guess we do have those REMs in fireteams now. Keep forgetting about those.
