When looking at profiles on the army app have noticed that certain models are lacking a designation. Mainly G:synched KISS and a like AUX Bots, aux drones etc. Are they missing information or do they lack a desigation for certain reasons.
Judging from the profiles PDF the designation applies to the whole unit, not just the controller. So an Auxilia's Auxbot shares it's Garrison Troops designation.
KISS is a weapon and doesn't have a unit designation. BIT is the character. From what I can remember, the likes of Auxbot aren´t meant to have a designation at all.
G:Synchro troops are REM or whatevs, but do not share their controller's "type of troop" for mission bonuses, it was discussed to death regarding Hunting Party and the Devabots, for example, not getting an ADHL even when their controller will.
KISS is a uniquely named trooper ergo he is a character as per @HellLois ruling. An Auxbot is equipment. A Devabot is equipment. A Devabot Chaybdis is not unique and so is also equipment.
I get your argument but @HellLois answer is as unequivocal as it is broad. If it has a unique name it must be considered a character. Being a character and being equipment apparently is compatible in Infinity. Is there actually any problems with this? Moriarty and Kiss become characters. They get ADHLs in Hunting Party and access to some classifieds. Sure it's an advantage. But is it game breaking? No. It's far easier and clearer to just take Hellois at his work and move on.
I understand where you are coming from, but I think you have taken his answer out of context. He was specifically asked about ICS mercenaries and dire foe entries and other "obvious" characters prior to them fixing those entries in Army. Simply taking his answer out of that context will yield potentially false positives. As is the state of unit entries in Army, I think we should fully consider @HellLois answer on the topic obsolete since all characters now are properly labled as characters.
Campaign rules had always allowed for Kiss, Moriarty or Pi-Well's "death" and never prevented the whole unit's inmediate "back to action" in the next battle. That happening to their "owner" prevented both. Despite Pi-Well being an illegal AI with its own regular order. I agree that CB's statements are poorly worded, as always, but this goes in the realm of the bizarre ...
