That's not necessarilly illogical : In the case of the emplate weapon aimed at a miniature (and not randomly on the ground in case of a speculative fire), it can be considered that the active shooter has focused on his target, maximising his chances of hitting but putting aside the optimisation of the area of effect. In the case of the multi-dodge, we could say the trooper focuses on dodging the chain rifle. But this is not RAW
That situation was one I was pondering yesterday. Add in G-sync'd attack from a Auxila and Auxbot and you've potentially got 3 different target brackets to aim for (two set, one with an added variable). Honestly, as I read/learned the rules I simply assumed that critical hits with templates applied their effects to all targets, auto-wound included. The main target clause limiting the auto-wound to one model, when I got to it/read it, I took to be a balancing effect to limit the damage potential of templates, nothing more. It never occured to me that a critical success on the one dice wasn't a critical success against all the targets, I thought that was a fundamental basic for the game system.
This interpretation has been ruled against in the post Stiopa linked (http://infinitytheforums.com/forum/...d-the-effects-of-the-critical/#comment-680887) Changing the case of the first letter of an ordinary (non proper noun) word does not change the meaning in English. I've seen you make this kind of argument before and I'm not sure why you believe it holds a special meaning. Unless 'Effects' is formally defined as having a different meaning in the rules than 'effects' there's no intrinsic basis for claiming a semantic difference. I understand the effects of something are generally defined under a heading of that name in the rules, which would usually incorporate first letter capitalisation, and even that that might define a series of formal gameplay effects which are more strictly defined than the broader general usage of the word. However even then the headings are generally in ALL CAPS, so the distinction you are trying to draw is essentially meaningless. The rules should ideally not rely on those sort of tricky word games, especially when they're not even formally correct.
To be blunt, I'm not taking much notice of old-forum ticks unless someone from CB explicitly explained how it worked, or it made it into the FAQ. It's the difference between referring to a specific game term and the common usage of the word.
It is a possible solution, though the eventual deletion of the old forums will be another form of long term solution. Personally I was never happy with the old forum system, the only advantage it had was speed of resolution, but the amount of wrong answers or unsatisfactory answers/ not well defined answers it generated was for me not worth the speed in resolution.
I guess it's a matter of perspective more than anything else. Personally I'd rather an issue had an official solution quickly and then get correct in the yearly FAQ update than have an issue fester in the community and eventually spawning large amounts of house rules. Like the issue with doors, which still hasn't been resolved. The only real problem was when an issue was answered and then re-answered differently on the same "level". Also, I wouldn't ever accuse the old forum usage to be quick in answering other than for very limited periods of time, also that much like FAQs, short events that happened at best once per year.
It is an important debate, the old system preferred a quick answer and fix it later approach, for example base to base contact, is it important to have an answer quick and a revision down the line or the correct answer in the first place?
I believe the old forum solution was adequate if it wasnt so sporadic for answering. For instance, if there was someone with still authority responding to questions, this current question wouldn't much of a problem as it would be answered by them as well. This assumes that they are skilled in the rules and also have contact with developer on occasion.
Could we also have @HellLois rulling on this subject ? We have discussed the subject to death and noone seems ready to change his/her opinion To resume Subject : critical rolls on BS impact template attacks. Two different opinions (for arguments => see above) : the crit count as a crit for the main target for all purpose, as a normal roll for all other targets for all purpose (today most comon opinion) the crit count as a crit for all target for hitting purpose, as a crit for the main target for wounding purpose, as a normal roll for all other targets for wounding purpose (old forum 2015's interpretation brought back by @Stiopa and @Cartographer ) Secondary question : are old forum solved thread still valid ?
Our entire gaming sphere changed how we played templates because of this ruling... and honestly CB hasn't ruled on dozens of interactions beyond a forum post. Fairly sure you pointed this out as the right way to play within the last year elsewhere on the forum. This is getting rather silly with the flip flopping and consistentency issues.
http://infinitytheforums.com/forum/topic/31475-solved-critical-effect-faqs/ It was pointed out in Aug of 2017 and reference was made to this post.
I don't see how anyone who isn't CB staff answering in that capacity, including IJW, can fairly claim to overrule an official answer by CB staff on a rules question (or how meaning is constructed in English for that matter). Has IJW been given the authority to do so by CB? If not, attempting to do so seems pretty counterproductive to the clarity of the rules, which is already quite problematic in many specific instances like this IMHO. And to my mind, makes answers IJW gives less credible. If so, great then many outstanding rules questions can be resolved on his say so. If this is true questions where he gives an answer might be marked 'solved'
Ultimately what is desired is clarity and good game play. I'll take the first at speed and the second at a slower pace. The way @HellLois dealt with the Smoke, MSV and Xenotech is actually a decent example: interim ruling to provide a solution to the pressing issue, impending FAQ/ITS Update to resolve any long term issues and to formalise it. There's plenty of examples of this on the Aresteia forums: rapid initial answers and then revision and formalisation in an FAQ. Coherency to the process can be provided by a clear heirarchy of authority. Which is why I advocate FAQ > Palanka/HellLois > IJW > consensus. I'm sympathetic to the argument that threads which were simply marked solved without Palanka posting in them may well be suspect; but as @dlfleetw points out, that's not really the case here. As to the actual question: A Crit wins a FTF roll then applies its effects: these are the crit effects of the ammo to the main target, and the normal effects of the ammo to secondary targets. How this applies to Symbiomates I'm not sure.
... do you think Corvus Belli have any idea what a great advert for GW’s Killteam it is to have knowledgeable players arguing in good faith about a relatively common emergent situation from the rules in their official forum? I mean, no offense to you guys at all - good arguments on all sides; but for the Love of Bostria when’re CB going to wake up to the fact that their rules are complicated, bloated and very fucking far from widely understood? </rant>
I think that’s a little disingenuous and extreme. I haven’t played Kill Team, but I played 40k and Kill Team still has the same problems. The reliance on mass numbers of d6, the aesthetics, the fluff, model materials and prices, wildly imbalanced profiles, etc. Kill Team and Infinity are similar, but appeal to slightly different audiences and I don’t think we have to fear a mass migration at this time. And GW doesn’t even have a forum to argue on. Would it be great if there was an answer? Yes. Is it the end of Infinity? No.
I exported the discussion to the French forum and one of the warcor made the following point : the rules of the impact template on critical are saying : "Other troopers affected by the Template do not suffer the effects of the Critical, but they still suffer the regular effects of the Template." This implies that secondary target are hit by the template and receive "regular" damage
Further discussion is kinda irrelevant: we know how it works. Palanka confirm it in a post (see the link dlfleetw) placed. What's worth discussing is what side of the line Symbiomates fall.
Given the Palanka confirmed ruling, my feeling would be the following: Palanka indicated it only counted as a critical against the primary target: Given that is the ruling, generally, it would seem that the Symbiomate gets to function normally: Importantly, if it only counts as a critical against the primary target as per Palanka, then if there is a symbiomate target with the same target number, I think the Symbiomate on the non-primary target is still functional. Full disclosure: I'm a Tohaa player, but do I think this is correct.