Engineer allow to repair a not-damaged REM (only requirement is to be base to base). If I do so and pass the roll, do I pass my test run classified objectives or not ?
I don't have them to hand right now, but seem to remember the wording of the cards can a bit ambiguous as to whether the actions are supposed to used exactly as normal, or if the Objective is a special case. Is this the crux of the question? (I'll go find those cards).
No, you don´t. As stated in the ITS9 document / on the card you have to repair a STR point. However you can succed by repairing a damaged Tag. Your friendly target however has to loose a STR point first. TEST RUN Requirements: Engineer. Objective: To succeed at an Engineer Roll on any allied trooper, getting it to recover 1 STR point
you can't try to repair an undamaged bot in order to try to fail... then repair it to try and succeed... either since the engineer skill requires the model to have less than full STR By declaring Engineer the user may make a Normal WIP Roll to repair the target and have it regain 1 Structure point. The user may declare uses of this Special Skill until the target has recovered its full STR.
I agree that repairing a non-damaged REM is not enough to pass Test Run But I don't see anything in the RAW forbiding me to fail-repair a not damaged REM in order to damage it then repair it. Engineer allow you to repair a not-damaged REM or TAG. Did I miss something in the rules ? If yes, can you show me which one ?
The line highlighted in red in the post you quoted... The user may declare uses of this Special Skill until the target has recovered its full STR The inverse of this statement is that The user may NOT declare uses of this Special Skill AFTER the target has recovered its full STR. I.e. if it's on full STR you can't use the skill.
The bit in bold beforehand? May repair to regain, if it hasn’t lost it can’t regain. Pretty sure you can’t engineer an undamaged trooper.
Yes, the effect of using the skill is that it cannot be used... so using the skill is null and void... and this isn't the first time where CB have effectively put requirements/constraints in the effects section of a skill :/
As usual, the skills are written inconsistently. However, that line is a clause of termination, so yeah, you can't declare Engineer to repair STR on a target that is at 100%. You can, however, declare Engineer to remove a status like IMM2 from an allied trooper in base to base. Truth be told, the "lawyer's way" of writing Engineer would need to break the skill in two parts, one to repair and one to recover from statuses )or overcomplicate the Requirements part).
