Ginger wrote:
Evil and Chaos wrote:
And against Ginger's theory is:
A - That the FAQ very clearly refers only to barrages, not all weapon types.
B - The ERC has said a number of times over the years that A is so.
Ben, you really must read my posts before rubbishing what I say - I am actually agreeing with you on many points here.
HOWEVER the FAQ answer starts by saying
"Special Weapon abilities are only used if all the units firing have them."
So it clearly
DOES refer to all weapon types (it then goes on to refer specifically to barrages in answer to the particular question).
The point is that both the initial rule and the FAQ are apparently presenting a position that is far more restrictive than most people play including you, Zombo, the E-UK tournament goers and myself.
Carrington presented the question as a means of getting around the "firing as a Barrage" definitiion, which we all agree is one possible reading of the FAQ, while I am referring to the initial statement (and the rules) which states "All units firing" and does not refer to Barrages except by example - and they might just as well have used the IG SHT company as a different example.
So I really want Neal's views on this, and preferably a revised definition or FAQ to cover the current practice - hence my tentative suggestion for an alternative.
Agreed, an ERC ruling would be helpful. That said, I'm more troubled by the initial rule than the FAQ.
One point I'd make organizationally is that it's dangerous to confuse rules and answers to questions: one is text, the other is authoritative clarification/commentary on the text. In the case of the FAQ, were the answer intended as a rules 'clarification' with wider significance, it'd be foolish to submerge it in a response to such a specific question, not least because readers of FAQs can/should be expected to skip over the text of questions that they don't find to be of interest.
Given that basic principle, In the FAQ I'd take that first sentence as applying to a barrage, because it's a response to a question about a barrage -- this would seem to make sense, no?
