The fact that you don't get to move when you ARO Dodge while in the Foxhole state is clear. That wasn't what this thread was about in the first place, the question of this thread was actually about something that lacked clarity. Nowhere has anyone said the entire rule set is perfect and amazing and couldn't possibly be improved. However, there's a whole lot of people on this forum who actually play the game (which you have repeatedly said that you don't), saying that you're being ridiculous. You are continually invading rules discussions about X to talk about Y which happens to be tangentially related to X, but only as part of your crusade to convince us that the entire cartesian plane is garbage. I'm beginning to think I should write you off as a troll. Purposefully derailing a thread about a specific question to further your own agenda isn't helpful to that rules discussion. We all already know that there are places the rules need to be cleaned up. OK? Got it? Mission accomplished, you can go home now!
When you can't debate the points expressed you call me a troll invading threads? How many times have I done this? How many threads are there in this rules section? I also didn't know the number of people who think something gave weight to it's validity. How many people thought the world was flat? This Infinity rule is not clear, and the repeated quoting of the terribly written rule isn't changing that.
You are, by your own words, not interested in the actual correct ruling. You're causing noise, not adding to productive discussion. There's nothing to debate here.
No: he's calling you a troll because you have no interest in clarifying the rules. Your only concern - as you yourself point out - is to go 'the rules are unplayably unclear'. We've discussed that on it's merits. We've disagreed with you in this instance while agreeing that there are specific interactions that are extremely unclear for someone who doesn't participate in the rules forum. But that's not what you're after. What you want is acknowledgement that your special interest is important. You're going 'look at me I'm right' at the expense of useful discussion. That certainly seems trolling to me.
I have every interest in clarifying the rule. I swear you don't listen at all. I don't care if the ruling lets me move 2" when dodging or not. I care that the rule is clear enough that anyone playing the game KNOWS they can or can't move the 2". I'm sorry you can't see the difference. If everyone says the rule is fine as is, why would CB change it? But if you pulled your head out of the sand and looked at the rule without the fanboy glasses on, maybe things could improve.
You can't move 2" on the Dodge while in the Foxhole state. The rule tells you you can't as explained above. It's the correct interpretation as pointed out by @ijw. It's how everyone with more than a passing familiarity with the rules plays it. That should clarify it. Honestly though, I don't see how you can read the rule and reach the conclusion that you can move as part of the Dodge. You don't get more clear than 'are not allowed to move'. Also lol at calling us fanboys.
We have different understandings of the word to clarify: I use it to mean to explain, you're using it to mean 'completely rewrite'. But it's almost like I actually dealt with your point in the second half of the post anyway, I'm helpful like that. Do go on ignoring when we disagree with you and cite really clear language to support our case. In the interest of actually useful discussion: how would you change that sentence to be clearer? I'd change it to read: "but can declare Change Facing or Dodge. Troopers are not allowed to move in the Reactive Turn, only to avoid the Attack)." I don't think it's a necessary change, but it makes the distinction between declaring a Dodge and 'to dodge the attack' (a single aspect of the Dodge skill) more explicit.
Actually that seems to be the biggest issue: it's not an assumption about what is intended that we're making its that we're recognising the distinction between a Dodge and a dodge. CB is essentially consistent on that type of distinction, once you understand that it's clear. It's actually coherent with how@Spleen interprets movement as distinct from skills with the Movement trait earlier (but that's confused by the partial list of skills with the Movement trait which we all agree could be improved).
Your language is clear, but none of it changes the fact there is more than one interpretation. You can continue to argue that one interpretation is more obvious than the other but not every ruling in Infinity is the obvious choice. Once that precedent has been established there are no longer obvious rulings or common sense. Leaving us with the RAW. The rule explicitly said Dodge is an exception, meaning you can use that skill even though the original statement says you can't. The exception allows you to perform a movement skill, Dodge! Why would another movement skill within that movement skill be different??? The argument that the rule says you can't move is in direct opposition because the exception says you can. The implication that 'you can't move' applies to the movement within the Dodge skill, is assumption and not fact to begin with. The wording just isn't clear.
The only way to move in Reactive is Dodge or Guts. That sentence can only be referring to Dodge because Guts is nonsense in that sentence: only Dodge allows you to dodge the attack, Guts requires you to have been hit by the attack.
The assumption that it must be referring to Dodge is faulty. CB make plenty of statements that have no relevance in the rules. Why does the first statement give examples of movement skills that can't be used? If you can only use the exceptions then all others can't be used. The list/examples serve no purpose. Just because the statement is there doesn't mean you should infer extra meaning. The line says troopers can't use movement skills in reactive... why are you reading into that further? Future proofing is a thing too. The line does say you can only Dodge the attack. Great, they've given an exception to Dodge attacks. Dodge is usually used to Dodge attacks... again, why are you assuming it means anything more? There are plenty of ways to write the rules to eliminate these holes/interpretations. Pretending the rule is fine because you'd never consider the alternatives valid yourself seems biased.
Fuck sakes, mate, just look at the actual text. You're not allowed to move in the the reactive turn. Full stop. No exceptions. No specific skill. You're not allowed to move in the reactive turn while in this state. And it's written after permission to declare Dodge, so you know that this also applies to Dodge as well. Should they introduce another skill that allows movement but isn't a movement skill, you won't be able to make movement in the reactive turn because of hypothetical skill because the rules explicitly says you're not allowed to move in the reactive turn. As has been suggested, this hill of yours; only the Flemish would call it a hill, it's that low.
Maybe you should read again the skills. Dodge is a SHORT SKILL / ARO with the Movement label It totally differs from a SHORT MOVEMENT SKILL You can declare a Dodge because IT IS NOT a Short Movement Skill, but you cannot claim to use the "movement trait" of that skill, so the model MUST STAY IN HIS FRIGGING HOLE.
if that was also your approach in other threads, i think we should make a new subforum. This one is about rule questions where we want answer on how to play a rule and you have no interest in discussing that. Everyone else here is legit interested/concerned in knowing the correct ruling.
How exactly does the rule differentiate between the exception to allow the Dodge skill but not the movement portion? What exactly does no movement refer to? Is it movement skills, movement labels, movement effects, everything, nothing at all? If it's everything then what does that mean for Change Facing? The rule is you don't move, only turn around... that's a type of movement. So when declaring Change Facing I can only conclude you can't turn around either. Fair enough, but how do you tell when rules are referring to Movement Skills, Movement labels, movement effects, everything, nothing at all? How do we identify a specific one? There is more to improving the game than a correct ruling. If every single rule needed its own ruling would you admit there was a problem with how the rules are written? How about half? At what point is there a problem with the way Infinity's rules are written? *** No matter how much everyone says no movement means no movement as part of Dodge, it just isn't clear. It's clear Dodge is an exception. The other statements are not clear. Make whatever conclusions you want about them, but that still makes them an assumption. When the ruling matches your assumption, that still means it was an assumption. It's been proven not every assumption the community makes is correct. So why have rules that rely on us making the correct assumptions when there is a better way? And yes, this rule is an example of how CB got it wrong.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but failing a Guts roll can cause you to move in the reactive turn as it's not technically the move skill.
It will never be possible to have a teaching material (be it a university course, a high-school class, or a complex game ruleset) that is written in a way that all english reading person across the numerous countries and languages (which affect how they understand english) and professions (which also affect how they parse english sentences) be able to all equally understand the true way it was meant. Heck, the rule writer could include helpful example of how to play a rule and yet players will contest the example and ask more clarification. If you add too much clarification text inside the rulebook itself, you run the risk of players seeing contradictions inside the text because two sections that meant the same thing is understood by some reader as two different opposing points. So ruleset quality is not a straight line going up but more of a curve, where you factor in how many people can reasonably understand the rules, with text, bullets, and added examples versus how many words you need to add and proofread; and how many gamer will quit (or not start) due to large page count in the rulebook, and also how many player will stop playing due to a large number of individual FAQ. There is an optimal point somewhere in there but i don't think a precise exact formula for it exists.
