No reason to complain if the two charts (because it is right to be separate charts) were on the same page of the wiki and the same page of the rulebook (because it is right that they are on the same page). Problem solved . No confusion. It really took very little. Mask
@Mask there are some people who'd take CB's side in an argument even if they stole the identity of everyone who used their online store and drained their bank accounts.
This! Clarified rules are allright and I can accept logical deficiancies better than holes in the rules (S0 camo for seed embryos but S2 for mines...). But this is another example of a non game breaking thing (at least from what I can see), that was worded pretty consistently and hasn't bee a problem so far. N3 was a big improvement to N2, but I fear that we are approaching a point at which the game becomes hard to play without having the faq at hand...just as N2 was unplayable without faqs.
I mean I don't even mind "we wrote the rule wrong, it should be this" like the Shock / NWI thing which is now finally well clarified. But in Regard to FO, this isn't that. This contradicts the rules while acting like it doesn't and adds a justification which doesn't make sense and would break the game if applied more widely (i.e., if fireteam burst bonus doesn't apply to skills it doesn't apply to anything at all) which makes it even more confusing. All the other new answers seem really well considered, it's just a pity this one could be better.
Also the FAQ says they don't get a burst bonus, not that they don't get any fireteam bonuses. They'd likely still get the +3 BS, +3 PH and +3 WIP from having a 5 member team.
you need to read the FO rules, like literally the first rule point, just like we told you before and had you ignore us all. right @Tristan228 As to everyone else here, dont try and extrapolate from this, Consider it as much an errata for FO as it is an FAQ. but trying to take from this ruling and apply it to other things will just lead to confusion
I get your logic (FO is listed as a skill not a weapon like Flashpulse is etc), but it requires you to accept that " a BS Weapon " (from Forward Observer) is not "his BS Weapons." (from Fireteams). In English, that's simply not what those words mean.
@ijw @HellLois @psychoticstorm Congratulations guys, Already have players asking if FO now doesnt get the +3 WIP bonus from links because of this ruling. Well done on the inconsistency guys, top shelf thinking there
This really needs a review, especially if the 5 man +3 WIP bonus is still meant to apply to things like FO, it just makes no sense as it stands: The use of Forward Observer is a form of Attack with a BS Weapon that uses the WIP attribute This is how FO is defined, it's an attack, it's made with a BS weapon, it's presumably safe to assume it is a BS attack then. 3 Man: apply a +1 bonus to the Burst (B) value of his BS Weapons. 5 Man: gains a +3 MOD to the Attribute used to perform BS Attack Rolls The wording isn't identical, but the functionality is similar enough that they essentially both work in the same way. I don't care what the intent was, but as the FAQ exists it's a real mess. If it's really only meant to apply to the burst mod and not the WIP bonus it shouldn't be a FAQ, it should be an errata which adds a bullet point to the 3 man bonus rules saying it doesn't work for this finite list of items, without any "because they are equipment and skills" language.
Exactly. Then the secondary concern is that burst bonus to FOing (but not Flashpulse) seems a weirdly complex counter intuitive exception that doesn't fix any problem that needs to be fixed. Actually Forward Observing Troopers seems to be (counter intuitively again) one of the most marginally used features of Forward Observers (who are otherwise often quite good) anyway, so why add this to specifically nerf it? Most of the time the flashpulse / specialist part of Forward Observers is the part that is actually used. The only place I can see it really being an issue is in missions like the Grid FOing multiple objectives at once. But then it'd be a lot better to fix the design problems with that mission than to add confusing, inconsistent, unintuitive, self contradictory complexity of negative gameplay value counter to how people have been happy playing the base game for years to try to patch over problems with very specific situations like that. Just fix the situation itself.
FO also has the BS Attack trait. We know from the co-ord BS Attack FAQ that you can co-ord say a Surprise Shot, a 'regulation' BS Attack, Triangulated Fire and FO because they are all considered to be BS Attacks. Unrestrained extrapolation: Can a Bandit FO who's scavenged a Sensor, Triangulated Fire a Surprise Shot? Can you even Surprise Shot an FO still? Do the negative Burst mods from Sat Zones affect FO? Can I Deactivator/Minesweeper Tinbots because those skills are not BS Attacks anymore? ;) #canofworms
None of those are affected. Sensor is a Special Skill, so can't be Scavenged. Surprise Shot only cares about BS Attacks (or Hacking), not about BS Weapons, so still works with FO. As above. Saturation Zones only care about it being a BS Attack. Deactivator and Minesweeper are still BS Attacks.
SMH, why this needed to be "clarified" when there is so much more pressing matters. This has just confused everyone i have spoken to about it.
So does FO get the wip bonus or not? Thats a core question. Its a skill but its also a bs attack with a bs weapon. Does it qualify?
So co-ord still functions because they're both still BS Attacks, but the Fireteam and Triangulated Fire don't because a Flash Pulse (for instance) is a BS Weapon whereas FO is not? So FO should actually read:
The +3 MOD to the attribute is applied to BS Attacks. FO is still a BS Attack. So long as you assume that FO is not actually a BS Weapon (see above) it actually makes sense.
Honestly guys it's not that difficult FO is a BS attack so it benefits from 5 man bonus It is not a weapon so it does not benefit from 3 man bonus I understand it could be clearer, but it's really not as convoluted as you're making it
Effectiveky, CB has distinguished between: *BS Attacks with BS Weapons, and *BS Atttacks with Skills/Equipment that aren't BS Weapons. AND moved FO from the first group to the second. They've just explained that REALLY badly.
Re-read the rule first bullet point. im sorry but us having to work out a "rough workable shit how do we rationalise this crap" conclusion for an FAQ they were warned about but release anyway is utter crap
