@tox these two threads seem to exist not because Wes is making an argument for how things should be, but because Wes seem to think the rules don't align with what you and most people think the rules mean. @Knauf because units that have +1B on Pnzrfst typically are units that used to have literally two of them before for a total of 4 disposable ammo. @thread this seems to be an argument that's feeding itself. Perhaps we should just chill and wait and see if IJW got the confirmation he requested instead of arguing?
The problem is that we know how all of this worked in N3 and it worked completely fine. N4 broke it for no apparent reason and we're left with the mess.
With Long Ya it is imo clear that B+1 is supposed to still use both uses. In n3 we had 2 panzerfausts for 4 shots. Any combination of b1 and b2 was possible as long as you had ammo left. In n4 we have 2 uses of b+1 panzerfausts and 2 uses of b+1 Flammenspeer for a total of 4 uses. Again any combination of b1 and b2 is possible as long as internal uses of particular weapons are tracked. The only big change is that in n3 you could choose to go b1 in active and in n4 you are forced to go b2. Technically changing (b+1) to (double shot) for these weapons would solve this problem and end discussion.
I wonder...if the update had been to just have Panzerfaust (+1 Burst) and no Flammenspeer, would people have come down mostly the other direction and gone with "one use of Disposable per attack declaration" as the correct interpretation?
More or less. I think the rules aren't internally consistent, and... If that inconsistency is intentional, it obviously bugs a bunch of people and is counterintuitive, and should be addressed. If that inconsistency is accidental, it is an error, and should be addressed. I genuinely don't know which way we're supposed to play it. In practice I'll go with whatever my opponent thinks is right because IRL I'm actually super chill about most things, and it's a game so the whole point is to have fun, but my job has conditioned my brain to notice inconsistent explanations and hate them. Anyway, cheers. I'm off to fight with chronic insomnia! Wooo!
Has there been any update on this topic yet? Curious to see how it plays out. I get both sides of the argument.
After revisiting this thread I have a little diferent aproach than before. Previously I was sure that Long Ya is a perfect example why B+1 on weapon would consume both charges. But now I realised that AFAIK Long Ya is the only unit that had twin disposable weapons in n3 and gained new disposable weapon in n4, all of the other guys with 2 panzer are now left with panzer+1B and nothing more. Also when I shoot once in ARO and have 1 use left, what happens if I want to shoot in active? B+1 is not optional, and I dont have extra use for both shots, can I even declare shooting in that case?
I changed my mind on this after someone (Wes, maybe?) pointed out that RAW the burst bonus in CC from multiple troops would not consume additional uses of D-Charges, allowing a thus equipped model to potentially plant 9+ D-Charges from their disposable (3) supply. That doesn't seem quite intended.
My personal conclusion is that this whole thing could use an errata, and troops with disposable weapons that have extra Burst and are intended to expend multiple uses when using the extra Burst ought to get Double Shot as a parenthetical trait on the weapon instead of (+1B).
Double Shot is not a Modifier to a piece of equipment, which is going to result in those units getting +1B in reactive as well.
There is no general rule for burst MODs that causes them to not work in ARO. There is however, a rule that makes burst MODs inside brackets next to skills and equipment not work in ARO. Note how the rule is written with the subject of the sentence outside the important box? https://infinitythewiki.com/Skills_and_Equipment_in_Infinity#MODIFIERS_.28MODS.29 If these Modifiers (MODs) affect Burst (B), they are only applied during the Active Turn. Troopers with more than one of these MODs may only apply one of them at a time.
Please be “Any extra burst will require and consume the appropriate extra charge.” Any other scenario seems like a convoluted mess that makes absolutely no sense.
@ijw Could we please get a comment on whether this is intended, or have a provisional rule that makes this function in a reasonably expected and consistent way?