Specifically here I'm talking about this one on AI beacons: If the intent of this is to make it so that Engineers can't repair an AI Beacon, it fails. The most salient reason why is that Engineers aren't restricted to repairing troopers. The greater question is, how does this slip through the editing process? Should we, as a community, just quietly ignore FAQ rulings like this? Or should we make a stink?
I suggest an easy edit for the FAQ: N3 Errata Q: Can I repair troops that have the AI Beacon Piece of Equipment? A: No.
To answer your question about what to do when an FAQ ruling is clearly wrong, we: Politely indicate that you may have found an inconsistency with the rules and ask IJW for clarification. Small company, translation issues, complex subject matter. First option is wrong because you can't choose to quietly ignore FAQ rulings you don't like. The answer is pretty clear, even if the rationale is weak. Second option is wrong because 'making a stink' implies a level of antagonism that neither CB nor IJW warrant. Try the third option. We polite indicate that we may have found an inconsistency with the rules and ask IJW for clarification. Until then, you'd go with the least disruptive/clearest interpretation of the rule/FAQ. In this example: 'No, Engineers may not repair AI Beacons because the FAQ response explicitly said they couldn't.
I'm not going to comment on the particular issue about engineers and ai beacons. There are a bunch of options you don't list, including abiding by them and trying to engage in a productive conversation. @colbrook alluded to the former, above - you can treat it as an errata, even if you don't agree with the basis. For example, I played with the shock/nwi/unconscious ruling as they gave it for the duration of that FAQ even though I strongly disagreed with it, because that was how they said to play it. As for how to raise issues you disagree with for discussion, it's possible to engage in a constructive manner rather than "raising a stink". You can't force them to change how they rule it, but that's the case regardless of how you present yourself. You can, however, try to address the reasons why you disagree with the FAQ (or the reasoning it provides) so as to gain support among other posters. As I said, you can't force anything, but a well-reasoned and well-stated rationale is probably more likely to make an impact with the people who matter than just being "that guy who yells about rules being broken all the time". There are probably two facets I would encourage you to focus on, preferably in parallel: 1. How is the FAQ consistent/inconsistent with other rules 2. What is the (positive/negative) gameplay outcome of playing according to this FAQ
How is it wrong? It gives an answer. Then a reason. The reason might have issues. Both paramedic and Doctor use target and trooper differently. The answer to the question is still no. The FAQ isn't wrong, you are simply arguing for the sake of it.
I mean, the rationale isn't weak, it's flat-out wrong. And since they justified the answer using the rationale, that implies that the answer is wrong too. No. No it doesn't. What is this "may"? I would? Maybe you would. You think I should? The reason is flat-out wrong, which undermines the entire answer. It calls the answer into question.[/quote]
Maybe that means you can't repair piece of equipement like mines, crazy koala etc cause they get destroyed as soon as they suffer a wound ... Most of us just take them out of the game when they suffer a wound anyway. And do you know that expression from role playing games ? Rule 1 : Game master is always right Rule 2 : If an issue arises with the game master, see rule 1.
While in RPGs that is the wiser choice (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RocksFallEveryoneDies / https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BoltOfDivineRetribution). In a skirmish/wargame players are competing and the rules must be crystal clear for it to be fair (in this case, yes, take the "spirit of the ruling"; but these kind should be avoided in this kind of games)
Is the game master the TO, CB, or the FAQ committee? And that doesn't really apply to competitive games anyway.
[/QUOTE] Still doesn't make the answer wrong. And makes the title of this thread inflammatory. But that's your thing isn't it?
It actually doesn’t imply the answer is incorrect, only that the justification is in conflict with the engineer rule as worded. You seem to be reaching here.
So I'm only able to play Infinity if i got a third dude as Judge for us? That sounds really boring for the third guy.
The problem with the FAQ, I don't have the less idea when it was wrote, is the AI Beacon aren't troops anymore. So, the FAQ don't make anything wrong, only is "outdate". << Can I repair troops that have the AI Beacon Piece of Equipment? No. The bearer of the AI Beacon is considered a piece of Deployable Equipment, and not a trooper. >> Yes, the better, as oders says before me, is indicate the problem and wait for Corvus to fix it. And yes, this kind of things are a little enervate. In this case, the AI Beacon was "a troup", "a piece of Equipment" and if you read the AI Beacon for SSA and the others Aleph, ones have Electricpulse, and others don't.
Still doesn't make the answer wrong. And makes the title of this thread inflammatory. But that's your thing isn't it?[/QUOTE] But it’s not the answer he wanted, in the way he wanted, and with the rationale he wanted, so of course he’s inflamed, just like a mosquito bite! Or is that swollen?
Yes. More specifically, everyone uses CBs rules, the FAQs provide us all with a consistent base to apply the ones that aren't clear and the TO declares which of the optional ones will be in play. Theoretically, since everyone knows the rules before hand it should be relatively fair, since everyone will be playing the contentious ruling "wrongly" and in the case of an FAQ dropping the day before a tournament etc, the TO should make the call as to which version to use for their tournament. Tldr, it feels wrong but if everyone is wrong together then it's still fair.
But it’s not the answer he wanted, in the way he wanted, and with the rationale he wanted, so of course he’s inflamed, just like a mosquito bite! Or is that swollen?[/QUOTE] If this was his real intention, them, this kind of answer don't do any good if not same applies ;) But I think the question is genuine. I found myself more than one thinking "This FAQ hasn't any sense according the rules, as they are wrote. Somes even the FAQ go against one or two rules. In this cases we have only a few options. One. Take the FAQ and apply without more considerations. Is a FAQ which describes how to do something not clear or wrong. Two. Don't take the FAQ, and continues playing with your friends as nothing what ever happenned. This only could bring us some troubles in caso of real competitive game probably outside our local place`s game. Three. Write to the "rulemakers" and wait for an answer or clarification, if it comes very well, if not, very well too :)
The ‘reasoning’ is wrong, but even if you ignore the FAQ entry you still can’t get an AI Beacon functioning again. Not because it’s not a trooper, but because it’s not a Scenery Item. As Equipment, an AI Beacon that goes to 0 STR enters the Damaged state and everything stops working. The problem is that cancelling Damaged state with an Engineer only applies to Scenery Items and there is no clause for Equipment. So you could repair the AI Beacon back to 1 STR but it would still be in the Damaged state and therefore ineffective. Personally, I think it would be much more consistent if you could cancel Damaged state for Equipment in the same way as cancelling Unconscious state for troopers with STR (and from memory I argued for that when this FAQ was published), but that’s not what CB decided on.
@Hecaton What to do is... save this reference for the next time someone wants to back their argument with what a FAQ implies based on its reasoning.
Raise a polite objection, offer a constructive reasoning and wait for a change if it happens. Please do not assume the reasoning behind a decision you think it is is the reasoning it really is.
