Obviously not. In the Infinity rule set, the same statement can mean different things depending on the unstated intentions of the writers and/or...
That's just IJW making a statement.
I've mentioned this in other threads, but the fact that there are missions like Looting & Sabotaging in ITS means that there's not that much...
In general the rules don't work properly if you assume that a trooper can be affected by their own template weapon.
I think that the round ending is another step that happens after the turn ends. Otherwise you could score with Dogged troopers that are about to die.
It would help if ITS was more accessible and didn't have missions that are seemingly designed to confuse new players, like Looting & Sabotaging.
The issue is if other people don't have the same opinion, you're putting yourself at a disadvantage in game play. One can acknowledge that a...
Nah. It's a matter of what is vs. what *should be*, and what you're suggesting implies not differentiating between those two concepts.
I'd agree with you, but it's almost circular logic at that point :P
People have definitely pretended it is.
But you do see them running around with linked Tac Awareness Zuyongs. So don't hold your breath.
Making a game like XCOM would be too much like Infinity itself. Personally I'd like to see a TAG-piloting game or a Su Jian piloting game.
Wait, why not?
Well, I'm countering your idea that it was "clear" upon the TI revision. It was definitely a point of contention.
I don't think that makes much sense. We'll see if N4 cleans it up.
I think the counterargument to that is that it turns it into annihilation by default. Anybody who supports this position wanna chime in?
Their turn happens but the game ends at the end of the second active turn, which is just before the end of the first round.
Uh... no. It seems very consistent to, when using it on, say, an Asura hacker with 2 wounds remaining who fails a BTS roll against both Maestro...
No, because Maestro says that it makes the target lose "all points of his Wounds/STR Attribute."
Nah, I remember having this conversation.
