Interesting, I'm glad you've cleared some of this up. I'm happy to know this was referring to the Movement skill category. @psychoticstorm Any chance you can delete this post please and merge the other two? Thanks.
Again, I'm happy the intent was to follow some form of structure, but it doesn't quite succeed. Words like Dodge, Reactive Turn, Move, and Attack are given a visual indicator but 'type of movement' is not. This inconsistency can easily lead players to assume 'type of movement' is not a key word and thus not a category. Even if the above was obvious I still believe there is an issue with the Move component of the Dodge skill. I get movement is not allowed but the Dodge skill is allowed. So it stands to reason the movement component of the Dodge skill is also allowed. And the only statement that implies it isn't allowed is this: "Troopers are not allowed to move in the Reactive Turn, only to dodge the Attack". However, that statement doesn't really tell me anything concrete on the face of it. I read... they can't move, so what, I already knew that cause the rules told me. Ok, they can only dodge, I knew that too because the rules told me it was an exception. Sounds like the rules just reiterating this for the reactive turn. It takes a leap of faith on the part of the player to know the Move component of the Dodge skill is also not allowed. Setting aside the error with Discover, because these things happen, do you feel these conclusions you've explained to me should be clear to everyone that might play Infinity?
In Reactive Turn only, a successful Dodge allows the user to Move—or use another Short Movement Skill that doesn't require a Roll—up to 2 inches. The 'movement component' of a Dodge is to do something that we've already been told cannot be done while in Foxhole state. So that's just a reminder.
@ijw did you really mean to say that I was right? Because your post can be read as Troopers in a Foxhole aren't allowed to declare Discover (it's a skill with the Movement trait). Missed the bit where you made it explicit. Edit: If we're removing pointless traits from Skills, I vote for taking NFB off White Noise. :) Why Discover has the Movement trait I simply don't know. Edit2: can we also explicitly add Idle to the list of skills that you can explicitly perform. Just to make entirely clear that you can declare Idle.
Right, but.... Can you give me an example of a short movement skill that doesn't have the movement tag?
No, but I can give you an example of 2* that shouldn't and multiple Entire Order skills that do. Also if Movement was the trait that allowed you to Discover + BS Attack then Dodge + BS Attack would work. * I was going to say 4 but then realised that in a perfect world IMM simply wouldn't be allowed to declare skills with the Movement trait or any Attack.
My point being that the Movement tag is there simply because it is a Short Movement Skill, and for no other reason. SHOULD it be there? I make no claims on that point.
Yeah, I was purely discussing whether it should have it. Agree as to why it does. The traits are one of the least well used aspects of the rules.
I explained this already and all you've done is repeat the rule. I'll repeat my counter point with an added analogy. Movement is not allowed but the Dodge skill is allowed. So it stands to reason the movement component of the Dodge skill is also allowed. You can't tell me eating cheese isn't allowed but i'm allowed to eat a cheeseburger and expect me to know you want me to remove the cheese first.
If it's explicitly stated, I can expect you to know, yes. The Foxhole state is a fixed position and it doesn't allow its user to perform any type of movement (troopers cannot declare Cautious Movement, Climb, Engage, Jump, Lean Out, Move... but can declare Change Facing or Dodge. Troopers are not allowed to move in the Reactive Turn, only to dodge the Attack).
That does not explain that only part of the Dodge rule is allowed. Dodge is an explicit exception to the rule. Not part of the Dodge skill is an explicit exception.
No it does not. You are making the assumption that it does. There is more than one interpretation there. Ignore the intent of the rule. First time readers do not know the intent. That sentence does not clearly state it is talking about the Dodge skill. Nor is it talking about a very specific component within the Dodge skill. It basically sums up what the first sentence says. If we are to take 'Movement/Move' as a key word referencing a category of skills the sentence needs to do a heck of a lot better to explain itself. The wording, "Troopers are not allowed to move in the reactive turn" is almost the same as the first sentence. The exceptions were listed already. "only to dodge the attack", is meaningless. If I'm using the Dodge skill as an ARO to an attack I'm doing exactly what that rule says. The wording of the rule does not explicitly separate the movement part of a Dodge. It allows it. When you Dodge, you follow the Dodge rules which include a movement as part of them. By allowing the Dodge skill to be used the rule is allowing the Movement as an extension of the Dodge. You can even interpret that sentence as a separate list of options during the Reactive Turn. One where all other movement skills including Change Facing and Discover are not allowed.
The intent is clear because the descriptive text makes it so. You're choosing the wrong hill to have this fight.
Imagine we're both looking at this... And I ask you to give that to me. If you give me the apple you are making an assumption. It doesn't mater whether you think it was common sense or not, it's still an assumption. I could've wanted you to pass me the table. The only thing explicit is I want you to give me something. Are you guys telling me you've never made an incorrect assumption about an Infinity rule before? I'm sure it seemed like common sense to you at the time, but you were wrong. So please don't defend rules because you THINK it is just so obvious what CB meant. Please be more objective than you are being.
No we're saying we do: just not in this case. Because in this case the rules say 'Fruit is very tasty: please pass me that.'
It sounds like you're more concerned about the correct ruling, I don't care about the ruling and I haven't been discussing that. I'm discussing how the rules are not clear in the slightest. The posts are making it sound like the ruling is obvious when it clearly isn't. I want some admission that it isn't clear at all.