What to do if a FAQ ruling is clearly wrong?

Technically none of these are weapons, some of these can "acts as" BS weapons (that was banned for the extra burst of FT and Triangulated Fire), but now they decided to include that pseudo BS weapon category again (I guess to not overcomplicate it for new players)

 

Can you justify that remark? As @Ogid points out, it was a very technical and hard to remember difference, but it seemed to me to be a valid categorization by the rules.

 

I think it was a bad ruling and I'm glad it was reversed.

However, drawing a line between BS weapons and skills that operate as BS weapons is internally consistent. It's dumb, but consistent. It has a logic to it, and I can respect that even if I don't agree with the net result.

 

The wording is mess up in this one if CB didn't want it to be a formal weapon.
I guess the deal breaker for them is that FO is listed as a skill, not as a Weapon.

It also doesn't help that non-weapon also have a weapon profile and are listed in the weapons chart in both Wiki and Army. It's easier to look for something, but not that good if they wanted to draw a line in weapon/non-weapons...

 

I do understand that it is confusing and I will accept that some skills should not have the word BS weapon in them when they are a skill, been included in the weapons chart, well one could have a separate chart for the few skills that behave like a weapon, but it is yet another chart and someone would say it looks too much like a weapon chart so...

FAQ gives a definite answer and one can debate it and maybe change it in the future, doing it in a civilised manner will get you easier to any possible changes than the opposite behaviour.

 

Fortunately this is clear and I think most player like the extra options this brings. The problem this has is the unnecessary extra burden of knowledge that the player must have to know when these bonuses apply and when not.
An extra chart for these could be an option, but a centralized one has advantages I like. However something as simple as a new weapon trait to differenciate them would help a lot. If a trait like Non-Weapon were added, CB would have a way to make clear where the line is.

• Does it have the Non-Weapon trait? You can't use it in Triangulated Fire, nor get the +1 B from fireteams.
• Doesn't it have the Non-Weapon trait? You can use it in Triangulated Fire and get the +1 B from fireteams.

 

It is a possibility in a rework, but may be accused of more "rules bloat" still it is an option.

 

Hehe, there would always be anyone who doesn't like a change. That's for granted. But I'm glad to hear it's being considered.
However I think Infinity rules, maybe for the fear of rules bloat, fails to explain a good number of mechanics clearly (and specially mechanic interactions).
You can have a complex game with very cool and deep mechanics like this one, or one with short and light rules; but not both at a time. Right now Infinity is in an akward middle point where the rules aren't that long, but learn to play well requires years of indoctrination from experienced players and forum research. And I think that point is not good for anyone.

 

Or start assigning the BS Attack trait to everything that's meant to be a ranged attack (and as such modified by stuff that modifies ranged attacks like Cover and Fireteam bonuses) and make non-BS Attack skills and equipment self-contained?

Or even better yet, make sure that Ranged Attack is the trait in next edition so it doesn't clash with the skill BS Attack.

 

Yes, a broad terminology would be necessary and welcome. In the LoF department for example, it would be nice to make a distinction between the loss of LoF for visibility or facing and the loss of LoF for obstacles; including a new concept like Line of Vision (LoV) would solve it.

• LoF to indicate there is a straight line without obstacles between model and target.
• LoV to indicate the model may see the target.

Speculative and guided ignore LoF and LoV; gear/abilities like MSV2 or SSL2 ignore some conditions that limit LoV (ZVZ, facing...) but need LoF.

Right now if one rule isn't well defined or a player missunderstand it, a model could end shoting throught a wall or you need to make a lot of exceptions to make it clear (like in the SSL2 case with speculatives and guided)

 

One can but dream :)

Line of Sight and Line of Fire separation would solve a lot of problems, particularly since it allows CB to get a bit more creative with manipulating vision. You could have a Jammer-like weapon that requires Line of Sight, which allows it to shoot through walls only when combined with stuff like MSV3 (which could be shifted to see through all impeding terrain, allowing Discover attempts on enemies in Total Cover or Dodge from essentially any enemy movement...) or Sixth Sense.

 

it gives an answer and the answer is definite, I can see and understand a debate of it not been right, but until fixed it stays...

 

Considering that Scenery (capital vs lower case) doesn't have Skills or Equipment that's a pretty disingenuous argument.

 

Trying to use these rules to support any one interpretation here is hopeless. There are simply way too many inconsistencies. Scenery can have skills and equipment because they are player built structures. I do admit there is no specific example in the rules of one possessing a skill or piece of equipment, but the door is still open for that.

Both players must agree on the Scenery Structure Profiles for their game table before the game starts
The Scenery Item Profile Chart contains several examples of Scenery Items you can use in your games or as a guide for your own creations.​

The rules surrounding this discussion are just plain terrible. The Damaged states makes for a fun analysis however.

DAMAGED STATE
Activates on three things:

1. piece of scenery
2. Equipment (Imetrons are deployable equipment and as such defined as independent game elements)
3. Scenery Building

Effects three things:

1. Scenery Items (a loosely defined term)
2. piece of scenery (specifically the Automatic Special Skills and Automatic Equipment on them, IMO different from #1))
3. Scenery Building (an effect not covered by #1)

Cancellation:

1. Scenery Items (again, a loosely defined term)

From Scenery Item definition:

• Props. These are the different and separate scenery items troopers can interact with. (Beacons are listed as Props on the chart)

​

CONCLUSIONS:

1. "Scenery Item" must include "Equipment"
   
2. "Scenery Item" also includes "piece of scenery" & "Scenery Building"
3. Engineers can repair all three.
4. Something is in error. Either RAW are in error or the FAQ is in error. Alternatively, I'm in error because CB refuses to stick to proper terminology and there is no logic to be found.

"Scenery Items" are clearly referring to some combination of those three things that can enter the Damaged state. After looking at the effects, my first deduction is that the term, "Scenery Item" must include "Equipment". Effects #2 & #3 are both referring to one specific term, neither of which is "Equipment". So for "Equipment" to be affected at all by the Damaged state, it must be included under "Scenery items".

Secondly, "Scenery Item" also includes "piece of scenery" & "Scenery Building". If "Scenery Item" only referred to "Equipment" the writers would use the word "Equipment". As it's nearly impossible to make a case for either of the remaining two not to be included in favor of the other, it seems perfectly logical for both to be included. Both are listed under the same heading, "Scenery Structures", in the rules. It also stands to reason that in addition to Effects #2 & #3, those game elements will also lose their functionality as stipulated by Effect #1.

Now that "Scenery Item" is defined here, Engineers can repair all three.

 

The FAQ clearly states that equipment can not be repaired. This resolves the ambiguity in this particular case.