The difference introduced by FAQ, not pointed (normally it's called an errata, but for CB everything is "FAQ", even when it flips the RAW upside down). Before, as per RAW, you would ignore straight-to-dead effect, meaning that for all intents and purposes Shock ammo would be the same as Normal, except inferior against some (hypothetical only) 2W units with Bio-immunity, which is entirely unrelated. So, basically, that was equal to having Shock Immunity. So, since you wouldn't go to Dead and remain Unconscious, you could always activate "V:" skills as it was their normal "trigger condition". Kinda the same way you can do now with Viral - it was unaffected by the FAQ, the only reason it's played differently. So, to clarify my question: why bothering suggesting changes to original rulebook wording that would ensure 2W models are fully immune to shock when CB clearly stated (by releasing FAQ) that they explicitly don't want 2W + NWI troopers to be completely shock immune? Because they were exactly like that before FAQ, I mean, and FAQ itself is very clear, topped with example. That is, of course, unless we choose to go with OP's premise suggesting that whoever wrote FAQ was in unconscious state himself, not knowing what exactly what he was replying to. Which I really doubt. If it's just wishlisting by owners of certain elite armies, then I can understand that. Otherwise suggesting rulings that are pretty much 180 degrees off direction taken by CB does no good.
If you do not want to read properly a rule, i won't keep arguing... They wrote a rule in a way. We ALL (included me) read it wrong for months. They reminded us how to play. This is not an Errata.
There must be a reason "we ALL" read it wrong, don't you think? In fact, so many reasons that I don't even know where to begin. I'll just say that rules as intended by no means equal to RAW, if that's what you are suggesting. But regardless, the argument is indeed pointless. I'm just saying that right now it's very clear how CB want us to play this particular interaction. The FAQ this thorough and clear is impossible to write while having completely opposite interaction ruling in mind, unless you believe in 200 character long typos that result in intelligible text.
Roughly: Q: Can you measure ZoC to determine if you're allowed to ARO? A: Yes you can. Reaction: What, so now we can use ZoC AROs to find out if BSG is in +6!? Uproar! Time: Passes FAQ: No you can't ever premeasure. Reaction: What, so now we have to guess if we even have an ARO!? Uproar! They actually did clarify that the FAQ change was after internal deliberation and revision, but oh well.
Riddle me this. What special effect does Normal Ammo have? Also, you quoted the rules for Shock Special Ammunition, Structure literally states that they treat Shock Special Ammunition as Normal Ammunition. So yes, it literally ignores that part because that red box clearly states that it’s only relevant for Shock Special Ammunition, which isn’t the case when shooting on Structure. You’re saying you shoot Normal Ammo with Shock now? PS: Also, you’re reading the last bulletpoint wrong. It gives examples of when Shock doesn’t apply instant death, in case of structure, they explain that the specific effect doesn’t apply, not because of the two former reason but because IT TREATS SHOCK AS NORMAL and that’s why it doesn’t trigger.
Are you two actually arguing about the same thing? There seem to be two related, but different, arguments going on here.
Well, surely they can change their own rules, be it because of some previously missed considerations, need to express intention more precisely or because the design itself was revised. But the point that they do change them via FAQ stays. There are more than two here, and we like arguing :P
It's all down to the formatting here I think. It's very easy to make it read as intended(or at least as FAQed) with just a few minor changes: Effects Each ARM Roll failed against Shock Special Ammunition causes the target to lose one point from his wounds/STR Attribute. *red box goes here* If the target has a wounds attribute of 1 on his profile and fails an ARM Roll against Shock Special Ammunition, then he enters the dead state directly, bypassing the unconscious state. This specific effect does not apply to : Units whose attributes is higher than 1on their profile (such as heavy infantry) Troopers who, during the course of the game increase their wounds attribute above 1 Units with the structure (STR) Attribute instead of a wounds attribute such as remotes tags vehicles etc against these Shock Special Ammunition has the same effects as normal ammunition. The original layout means the same thing, according to the FAQ, but it's pretty easy to read it wrong,which is why we even have an FAQ ...
The thing that bothers me about this ruling is it makes it inconsistent with viral, they have similar effects. Except now shock is better against higher wound valour troops?!?! This makes it difficult to remember these ammo types as they are similar but not in effect.
Given that there's this amount of debate, the rule clearly had some ambiguity in its wording. Like it or not, the FAQ is explicit about how Shock is to be played.
The last bullet point says that it's normal ammunition against STR, which means anything with STR and dogged/NWI (so the karakuri, unidrons and Su-Jian basically) can use them.
Really? Never, ever, seen anyone seriously argue that shock worked on multiple wound models. It seems to me that all the ambiguity and discussion only started when the FAQ came out.
Here's a rules thread from 2015: http://infinitytheforums.com/forum/topic/34891-shock-ammo-vs-nwi/ In fact, you can see @tox arguing that the red box is not canceled, and that a model like the Charontid or Asura would still fall unconscious.
It wasn't intended to be dropped, either, I don't think. But the red box under Shock ammo was interpreted differently. It can (and should) be interpreted to mean what the red box under Viral means.