New FAQ is here :-)

Hmm, so silencing Bachmann's Immunized doesn't make him explode. Oh well

 

I still find weird they haven't addressed why Bachmann imposing taunts doesn't make the enemy taunted by him. The transfer the FAQ mentions isn't sustained in the rules. I'm surprised this FAQ didn't come with an errata for either Bachmann or the Taunted state.

P̶S̶:̶ ̶I̶ ̶j̶u̶s̶t̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶i̶c̶e̶d̶ ̶s̶o̶m̶e̶t̶h̶i̶n̶g̶.̶ ̶T̶h̶e̶ ̶a̶r̶t̶i̶c̶l̶e̶ ̶s̶a̶y̶s̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶E̶r̶r̶a̶t̶a̶ ̶w̶a̶s̶ ̶u̶p̶d̶a̶t̶e̶d̶,̶ ̶b̶u̶t̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶t̶i̶m̶e̶ ̶b̶e̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶c̶u̶r̶r̶e̶n̶t̶ ̶E̶r̶r̶a̶t̶a̶ ̶u̶p̶l̶o̶a̶d̶e̶d̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶1̶.̶4̶,̶ ̶d̶a̶t̶e̶d̶ ̶D̶e̶c̶e̶m̶b̶e̶r̶ ̶l̶a̶s̶t̶ ̶y̶e̶a̶r̶.̶

PPS: I sent them a tweet, and it appears the Errata wasn't updated. It was an errata about the errata in the article.

 

@-V- Any chance to get the FAQ stuff as PDF as well? Sometimes you don't have an Internet connection. ;)

 

Probably to save having to make a load of bachman taunt tokens and distributing them separately to the box he is in

 

I believe I'm not the only one thought this was an Infinity FAQ

 

FAQs are part of the rules, so it's indeed sustained, as long as they explain how it works.

Not likely...

:3

 

They would, all the other characters that taunt have their own tokens with their image on. Bachmann doesn't, so if he suddenly get the ability to do so via FAQ they'd need to make a token for him. Which would be in a different box/blister to bachmann and would be a faff.

 

FAQs aren't part of the rules per se, they are explanations on how rules are used or interact with other rules and certain situations. They are used for guidance. Hence why a FAQ can't just add new rules.
Here we have a new "impose but actually transfer" mechanic that clashes with the rest of the rules. And it only affects taunted states because the rules say that a taunted character can only use Attacks against whoever imposed that taunt. While also saying that the token helps to keep track of whoever imposed it. The problem comes when Bachmann (as written) goes around imposing the state, since that triggers both rules.
This calls for an errata, not a FAQ.

I understand CB wants to simpify the wording of the ability by just saying "impose" without having to add more text or a new keyword, since it only affects taunt. But that leaves the issue up in the air. ​

 

From the Reference Guide:

Which comprise every text you need to play (rules, FAQs and erratas).

From the Wiki itself:

Furthermore, from AGL Normative:

So, it seems that FAQ are indeed part of the rules, and in Bachmann's case they are explaining why tokens "transfered" by him doesn't change to "Bachamnn tokens" (clarification/new rule, take it as you want). The point is that Bachmann doesn't .

Oh, BTW...

But they can... Don't you remember which rule stated that you can't activate a "After the Resolution of..." Switch more than once per Action? Yes, it was a FAQ.

:3

 

All those examples you are posting just state that the FAQs with the intended clarifications are the official ones, and not any other interpretation or forum based post. Nowhere says they are rules. Furthermore, if FAQs are rules, why does the wiki say "Welcome to the Aristeia! Rules Wiki, the ultimate source of rules, FAQs, and errata for Aristeia!."? Why does it keep separate rules and FAQs in it? The only logical explanation is that they are indeed different.
When you look up the "Solving rules contradictions" in the first page of the reference guide, the FAQ isn't even mentioned. You have Scenarios, tactics, character cards, and "this guide" which refers to itself. It's only logical it doesn't appear because the FAQ doesn't contain new rules, merely clarifications.

Is it really a rule? It seems to me that's more of a clarification for how "after the resolution of..." works. Since there is no stack, whatever happens "after the resolution" can only happens once.

Anyway, it seems CB doesn't care as long as Bachmann is played as intended, so I'm already dropping this issue.

 

Yeah, I think dropping it is the correct response here.

CB have shown MANY times in their Infinity FAQs that they don't care about this kind of rules detail.

We know what to do with Bachmann when he has a Taunt and then "Imposes" it on someone else, and that's all we need as far as they are concerned.

 

Hmm... don't know. I like the FAQ and the solution is just about how I thought CB intented this.

I wouldn't hang on something like a single word to be honest if they made it clear by another document. I really hope, they will release the FAQ as PDF as well to be available even without (mobile) Internet.