This was discussed in this thread: CC Attack (-6) | Page 3 | Corvus Belli Community Forum but not resolved and I think it deserves its own thread. A Fusilier Hacker activates and idles. A Ghulam Hacker AROs with Oblivion and a Barid Killer Hacker AROs with Trinity(-3). The Fusilier's second short skill is Oblivion, distributing one burst to each enemy. The Fusilier applies a (-3) MOD to his f2f roll against the Barid Killer Hacker, because of the Trinity(-3) upgrade. Does he also apply a (-3) MOD to his f2f roll against the Ghulam Hacker? I think the answer is no, because the Skills and Equipment rule says "MODs imposed by Skills, Special Skills, or pieces of Equipment may be applied to their users, or to those enemy Troopers acting against them, in several different ways" [emphasis added]. I think this means that the Barid KHD only applies the (-3) MOD to the roll in which the Fusilier is acting against him. That's also consistent with how Martial Arts works, for example. I always thought that was universal, but apparently some are playing that by targeting the Fusilier with Trinity(-3), the Barid applies a (-3) MOD to any roll the Fusilier makes in the order. (A consequence of this would also be that if the Fusilier chose to Dodge for some reason, he would suffer a (-3) to the Dodge). Thoughts?
No, that is not correct. The MOD of Trinity does only apply to hacking rolls against the Barid. I do not think Reset or Dodge will get these neg. MOD (dodging a BS Attack from Mimetism Profile does not get a neg MOD).
The Barid's MOD applies to ANYTHING the target does, as the rules for MODs do not have anything that limits it to face to face at time of writing. The only dependency is that the Barid declares Trinity and meets the requirements for said skill.
What do you make of the line "MODs imposed by Skills, Special Skills, or pieces of Equipment may be applied to their users, or to those enemy Troopers acting against them"? Does that not mean that the negative MOD would only be applied to the Fusilier if he was "acting against" the Barid?
Does the example for dodge (https://infinitythewiki.com/Dodge) apply to this situation? In that example, even though the Zanshi has a -3 MOD against the mine, the MOD does not affect his F2F against the Fusilier.
Maybe. The problem is that the -3 MOD to Dodge may not be a "MOD imposed by Skills, Special Skills, or pieces of Equipment." I say that because although a mine is a piece of Equipment, the -3 MOD isn't found in the Mine rule. It's found in the Dodge rule (i.e. it's not a Mine(-3) ). So arguably, the fact that the MOD from Dodge works a certain way doesn't necessarily mean that the MODs from skills and equipment must work the same way.
The MOD for Trinity affects the targets WIP, right? If the Targets dodges with his PH against another attack (and ignoring Trinity), Trinity still affects the F2F roll? That does not sound right :)
That interpretation would make for a quite ridiculous situation where a Shang-Ji's BS Attack stops being Shock if an opponent doesn't shoot back since this passage is referring to MODs in general and not just negative attribute modifiers.
No, this isn't a MOD from the hacking program itself, but a general MOD. Barids have "Upgrade: Trinity(-3)" with no mention of WIP. It's entirely analogous to "Para CCW(-6)"
your comparison to Para CCW (-6) is not that accurat - If your Para CCW wielding model is in close combat with my model A and my model B (not in CC) shoots as an ARO into that CC - I will definitely not get BS -6 from your Para weapon (perhaps from other sources though) :) Checking the rulebook, it is indeed not really exactly written down, but i found the following: on MODs (p.28): - Skills, Weapons, Equipment can modify several different Attributes - A neg. MOD in round brackets (...) will be applied only to enemies on Hacking (p.61): - Opponents MOD. A MOD that is applied to an enemy troopers Attribute when performing an FtF roll. on Trinity (p.66): - The target must be an enemy Hacker As I understand it: if there is no FtF roll, the negative MOD does not apply. In the given example there were 3 Hackers: - Barid and Ghulam on one side, Fusilier on the other. - Fusilier is active, Barid and Ghulam get AROs - Fusilier decides to concentrate on Ghulam and ignore Barid, preventing a FtF against the Barids ARO, making it an unopposed roll - thus applying no neg. MOD to the Fusiliers actions against the Ghulam - Fusilier and Ghulam roll the dice with their respective modifiers (Fusilier does not take the MOD -3 from the Barid as it is no FtF roll), Barid gets his MOD +3 from Trinity - When the Barid is successfull, the FAQ kicks in and the Fusilier has to apply the MOD -3 for his BTS roll - If the Ghulam is successfull against the Fusilier, there is still no MOD -3 from the Barids Trinity to the BTS rolls of the Fusilier That is how I interpret that situation.
You are reading several different rules for different sources of MODs The line on Hacking MODs is specific to how to read the MODs on the hacking program chart. This is not the same as a MOD gained from other sources, such as from skills on unit profiles.
yes, that are different sources of how to use MOD. But I was under the opinion that Trinity (-3) alters the Hacking Programm Statline of Trinity from Opponent 0 to Opponent -3 (including a MOD -3 to the BTS roll if successfull). What you are saying is, that, in our example of Fusilier vs Ghulam and Barid, the neg. MOD of Barid's Trinity is jumping over to aid the Ghulam (because even the Fusiliers rolls against the hacking program of the Ghulam suffer the Barids neg. MOD). To my knowledge there is no other MOD that does that... Maybe it is again an example of poorly phrasing in the rules? :)
In the same rule, we have this: "BS Attack (Shock) means that the user adds Shock Ammunition to all their BS Attacks." (Shock) is applied to the Shang-Ji, not to its enemy. But you haven't answered my question: what do you think "applied to their users, or to those enemy Troopers acting against them" means, if not that the negative MOD in in Trinity(-3) or CC Attack(-6) is applied only to enemy Troopers that are acting against the user of the skill?
No, I mean, you're reading rules that specifically explains how to read a chart and attempt to apply it to the entire rule set. Yes, I'm saying a Barid declaring a valid Trinity against a Fusilier Hacker will cause that Fusilier to have a -3 MOD to their BS Attack vs a Ghulam. Do note that I'm not saying I think this is a good design, 'cause I really do not, I'm just saying that's how the rules currently reads. All negative MODs that are written in conjunction with a unit's skill does this - and Surprise Attack. This type of interaction is really uncommon - other than Surprise Attack. To answer your specific question; I think it is over-interpreting "acting against them". This is not a game term and strictly speaking pushing an objective button or shooting the Barid's friend is acting against the Barid, though not sufficiently directly to merit a face to face. Generally speaking, the rules does this ambiguous describing a lot, but they've gotten better at using game terms when relevant and not using game terms when not relevant (See N3's constant patching because of over-use of "Trooper")
I dunno. "Acting against them" must mean something. I agree that it's poorly worded, but these are the two meanings we're considering: 1. "Acting against them" = performing a skill that results in a face-to-face roll against them. 2. "Acting against them" = performing any skill whatsoever, because since the game is adversarial, any action a player takes is by definition acting against the opposing player. Of the two interpretations, (2) seems like way more of a stretch than (1), to me. (2) would also rob the phrase of all meaning, since just saying "enemy troopers" would have the same effect as "enemy troopers acting against the user." (1) also makes the rule more consistent with the way most mechanics in the game work, e.g. martial arts, mimetism, dodge. (2) would make the rule consistent with the way only one other mechanic in the game works (surprise attack).
Face to Face exists as specific wording and was not used. "Acting against them" is not a specific game term and could also just mean "making Skill rolls on the other side of the same Order", which would be against in the sense of being in opposition as is normal for any enemy trooper acting on the opposite end of an Order or ARO. Would be different if that bit said "Directly oppose them", but it doesn't. Attacks are made "against" targets, without the target being forced to make the interaction Face to Face. Hope you get what I'm hinting at. So from how I see it RAW and sanity are not contradicting and give no concrete evidence that (-X) MODs should be limited to FTF rolls.
Fluffwise hacking the cyberbrain to make shooting worse for the person was often shown in several GitS episodes and Movies :) So the negative MOD affecting all actions of the hacked person would make some sense. But it would make the Barids Trinity(-3) really powerfull, given his points.
I guess it comes down to which meaning of "acting against" you think is more likely. Based on a search of the wiki, the phrase is only used in one other rule, which is coordinated orders: "If one of the Skills of the Coordinated Order demands a Trooper, a Marker, or a mission objective as a target, all Troopers must act against the same single target." So in that rule, the phrase "act against" is unquestionably being used to mean "target with a Skill." In my opinion, that's still a much more plausible interpretation of the phrase than "perform any skill at all in the same order." Sure, both interpretations are possible since the phrase isn't defined in the rules. But since we have to choose one of them, I'm still of the view that one is much closer to the plain meaning of the phrase "acting against" than the other. Sure, that's consistent with what I'm arguing. The fusilier is attacking with one burst against the Barid and one burst against the Ghulam. The attack made "against" the Barid suffers the (-3) MOD, but the attack made "against" the Ghulam doesn't.
The way I'm looking at it you're stretching it by adding interpretation. Just apply the MOD to the target of the attack is made "against". There's no evidence for FTF having any interaction. The old thread has 3 answered examples: Mimetism (-6): Applies a -6 mod to the enemy. Type? Automatic Skill When? Mod applied when enemies declare BS Attack and Discover against owner. F2F Required? No Applied to Target? No Surprise Attack (-6): Applies a -6 mod to to the enemy. Type? Automatic Skill When? Mod applied when owner declares BS Attack. F2F Required? No Applied to Target? Yes Martial Arts (L2): Applies a -3 mod to the enemy. Type? Automatic Skill When? Mod applied when owner declares CC Attack. F2F Required? Yes Applied to Target? Yes CC Attack (-6): Applies a -6 mod to the enemy. Type? Short Skill/ARO When? Mod applied when owner declares CC Attack. F2F Required? Unknown. Applied to Target? Unknown. All of these speficically call out Face to Face Rolls if they have a dependency on them (like MA), otherwise they're universal (like Surprise Attack). BS Attack (-3) and CC Attack (-3) will definitely work the same and other Special Skills that attach MODs to them already differ. The limitation you want to impose for CC Attack (-6) comes from some sort of want to make it work the same as Martial Arts. But that doesn't work anyway. If you also look at BS Attack, Mimetism works without FTF, as a result unconditional MODs attached to the Skill itself can not be consistent with Special Skills affecting the same Skill. BS/CC Attack (-X) does not mention Face to Face directly and should work exactly like any other MOD that doesn't either. CC/BS Attack (-X): Applies a -X mod to the enemy. Type? Short Skill/ARO When? Mod applied when owner declares CC Attack. F2F Required? Unknown -> No Applied to Target? Unknown -> Yes
