Not really - I don't say that Sniper *should* be anything, my position is simply that we should reflect what the rules actually say, not what we want them to say. Some special abilities explicitly state which parts they apply to (shooting or firefight) such as Extra Attack, some don't say at all (e.g. Ignore Cover) and so we are free to make a judgment on it. Others don't say in the rulebook, but the 2008 FAQ does. Sniper is the case of the latter - the 2008 FAQ is clear, Sniper is a shooting ability unless otherwise specified. End of story. Yes I agree it should have been a weapon ability, and that some form of sniper ability in assaults is a nice thing to have, but we don't have the luxury of deciding how we make that possible because we have to deal with the precedent that was set before.

Now, if we want to overrule the 2008 official FAQ, fine, but we have to clear that that is what we are doing. The side effect of that will be to CHANGE the behaviour of the units specified in the official EA rulebook and Swordwind - if we make Sniper a shooting AND assault rule when specified in the notes, then rangers and marine scouts in these official books would gain sniper on their close combat and firefight attacks. We can't edit the rulebook. I see absolutely no reason to make that change, when there is already a way of specifying CC or FF sniper attacks if it is needed - i.e. by specifying it on the actual weapon itself. Just to make it more elegant and universal.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

Again, we just don't have this luxury of changing the rules. There are lots of things we might change with Epic if we did it again, but that is not on the table and we can't hope to gain consensus on all the possible things we might change. We just have to live with it.

As things stand, we don't need to change any rules, or change any lists. It works the way it works. You can have sniper on any combination of attacks you like, you just have to specify it correctly and you can't separate out anti-infantry and anti-tank in an assault. It may not be perfect, but it is not broken. If the system is not clear then by all means refine the FAQs.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

I think you entirely missed my point, but that is fine. I will try again.

Effectively we have a choice either to clear up the mess caused by "Sniper" and possibly include some other definitions to completely future-proof this area, or to retain the 2008 FAQ that defines "Sniper" in the unit to being a ranged shooting attack (except where otherwise specified in weapon notes) and do little else.

My preference is to bite the bullet and apply the minimum possible changes required to make the rules work correctly, which will inevitably require some effort. Yours appears to stay put with the FAQ approach which does work to an extent, though it still results in some confusion and also leaves some gaps and niggling issues (eg Howling Banshees).

I might add that either way, we both agree that the proposed approach needs to simplify the current FAQ situation

------------

While it is definitely not on the table (as you put it), I also think that as a community, we *can* make textural changes to the rules where warranted such as in this case of "Sniper". I am not suggesting a re-write or even a major change, merely changing the current definition of "Sniper" to work as it was intended.

Primarch can give guidance on this from the Net-Epic perspective, but AFAIK we are hosting the rules, giving GW all the appropriate credit, providing guidance on their use, FAQ etc and presenting the holistic EA game through the tournament pack and Compendium. Indeed we have made textural changes in the past, and I see this as the same thing.

But I just don't see how we do have a choice. We can't edit the rulebook, which unless you want to give sniper to SM scouts in CC you would have to do if you are to redefine sniper as a shooting-or-CC-or-FF ability.

And even if we were to do that, I honestly don't see the point. What would it actually get us compared to what we have now? Without severely changing the rules we can't make sniper only affect AP targets like you want, so what else is there? It is already possible to give sniper to either CC or FF attacks, so what is the problem?

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

What is wrong with howling banshees anyway? I'm sorry, I don't understand what change you are actually looking for.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

Sorry - posts crossed, see my reply above regarding changes to the rules which I believe *are* possible under very restricted circumstances (like these).

HB (and a few other units) would benefit greatly with the ability to inflict -1 on Infantry targets in assault. However that 'special ability' does not exist and "Sniper" is too powerfull precisely because of the way the rules are written.

I see what you mean. So just changing the rules plain and simple.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

Potentially this could be done through FAQ, or by some form of change to the text of "Sniper", or both - there are a number of options.
*IF* we go down this route we could tidy up the entire area for once and for all - but I agree that it is a big "IF", that would require some effort by a number of people.

I see no need to change/edit the rules at all and I don't believe that's our job.
We can create/edit FAQ's to help explain the rules but that's it.

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.

OK, to sum up the discussion, IMO there are two related issues.

1. 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.
   
   
2. 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 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.)

Updated the above post to make my proposals clearer.