OK, to sum up the discussion, IMO there are two related issues.
- How "Sniper" is intended to work given that it can be put in the unit notes.
This is broadly covered by the 2008 FAQ that states it is a 'shooting attack'. So, "Sniper" does not apply to assaults if it is in the Unit notes.
- Providing something that works in a similar way for assaults at both FF and CC.
This is the real issue. Over the years people have continuously wanted to allow infantry to 'snipe' other infantry in FF, and there are also units (eg HB) that need a similar ability against infantry in CC. However as we know the rules do not allow this distinction in assaults, which makes the use of "Sniper" in assaults inappropriate as it also affects AV targets.
"Sniper" is only applied to infantry units throughout *all* the lists, and the common denominator is giving -1 to infantry targets for both shooting and assaults. Changing the "Sniper" text is the simplest alternative requiring the least effort and reducing the FAQ entries. Adding the word "Infantry" would be sufficient, the revised text would be
Quote:
2.1.14 Sniper
Some infantry units are noted as being snipers. Roll separately when attacking infantry with a sniper unit. If they hit, the attacker can choose which enemy unit is hit from those within range and in the line of fire of the sniper unit. In addition the target suffers a -1 save modifier.
However, if we reject the approach of revising the "Sniper" text (which I completely understand Onyx, though do not entirely agree with in this particular case

), then we need to adopt a different approach.
If we are to completely fix this mess for once and all, the other alternative would be to provide a different special rule that gives -1 to Infantry targets in assaults,
both FF and CC (call it Assassin if you like

). The new ability would be applied to unit or weapon notes, replacing current "Sniper" entries as required. This approach leaves the rules alone, but requires changes to the FAQ and also needs more effort to make the relevant changes in the lists held by many people and groups.
The final alternative is to ignore #2, leave the mess alone as 'too difficult' and carry on as usual. This is the worst option IMO. While admittedly the issue has not greatly affected the game, this approach leaves the niggles in place and hampers list development in this particular direction.
(Note, changes to the FAQ for Extra Attacks and First Strike are broadly unchanged by the above, though may require small tweaks depending on what is decided.)