No, I'm getting fed up of you reading the rule wrong. Your "evidence" is wrong. The rule works, it can be written better but the RAW is functional.
why you ignore the fact Forward observer not use ANY ammunition at all, in contrary with combi-rifle's & other weapon's firing Normal ammunition? UPD: & of course the fact it is non-lethal
Such a strong case... no you're wrong! What evidence have you or anyone else provided in support of their argument that isn't built around ignoring structure and making several assumptions? Knowing the intended outcome doesn't excuse the RAW. Instead of everyone just repeating how they want the rule to play, why not try proving my points wrong? Do the examples suggest something else, maybe nothing at all? How are different bullet points supposed to work together? I'm not sure what you mean? The example is: A trooper with Total Immunity who suffers a successful Attack from the Forward Observer Special Skill cannot apply Total Immunity, as Forward Observer does not use Special Ammunition. Also, the trooper cannot apply Total Immunity when facing Hacking Programs as they are Hacking Attacks. If i stick a combi rifle in it's place we get this: A trooper with Total Immunity who suffers a successful Attack from a Combi Rifle cannot apply Total Immunity, as a Combi Rifle does not use Special Ammunition. Also, the trooper cannot apply Total Immunity when facing Hacking Programs as they are Hacking Attacks. I've seen people in this forum use examples as proof to how something actually works in other situations and other people claim they're just mere examples and don't mean much beyond that one instance. So beyond that, I can only ever look at them as supporting an interpretation, one way or the other, not proving or disproving.
I honestly believe this is both RAW and RAI. I can think the rule is adequate but still recognize room for improvement. Look around these forums and you can find plenty of times I’ve criticized their rules writing practices or other decisions. I understand why you are frustrated with how it’s written but I think your proposed reading in the first post is inaccurate and adds constraints that are not present in the text.
Try not asking a question you don't want an answer to then. Instead of asking: ask: "Can someone articulate to me why, specifically, a TI trooper is allowed to use their BTS against Normal (N) ammunition type?" The rules follow simple "if, then" statements with bullet points usually being their own separate clause or idea, sometimes they can support the previous bullet but they can always stand on their own – it's seen in so many other special rules across the board. I would be happy to post examples, should you choose to ask. Why you're choosing to not use this simple layout of reading comprehension on this specific instance is beyond me. To me, it seems like you just don't like the idea of a TI trooper using BTS against Normal. who hurt you?
Forward observer has no ammo type and provokes no saving throw. A combi rifle has an ammo type (normal, not special, yes) and does provoke a saving throw. Again, that example could be written more clearly, but the two cases are not equivalent.
Alright, treat me like a two year old please and explain how I should know the second bullet point is in addition to only this section of the first bullet point: When suffering a successful Attack—or being affected by any weapon or rule—that forces any ARM or BTS Rolls, And not this section: the owner is immune to the special effects of the Special Ammunitions, treating them as Normal Ammunition. Or this section: When suffering a successful Attack—or being affected by any weapon or rule—that forces any ARM or BTS Rolls, the owner is immune to the special effects of the Special Ammunitions, treating them as Normal Ammunition. What rules does my two year old brain follow so I can understand all bullet point instruction lists in the future? Thank you for proving my point. Or can you explain to me how bullet number two can stand on it's own? See how Protheion uses an 'Also', in it's bullet points but it does it correctly: The target loses one point from the Wounds/Structure Attribute for every failed BTS Roll. Also, if the target has a Wounds Attribute, then the Protheion users increase the value of their Wounds Attribute by one for every BTS Roll the target fails. The Protheion users indicate this by placing a Power-Up Marker by their side.
How is that relevant. The example doesn't conclude TI doens't work because FO has no ammo type. It concludes it doesn't work because FO doens't use SA.
The second bullet point of protheion can absolutely stand on it's own. If you were to remove "Also" nothing about the rule would change in the slightest bit. Same goes for Total Immunity – you can remove the word "Additionally" from the second bullet point and nothing changes.
Everything changes. How do you play this rule on it's own? In addition, players can choose between making an ARM Roll or BTS Roll, choosing the most advantageous for them. Do I do choose in response to hacking attacks? PH rolls? There are many issues with trying to make that bullet function on it's own merits. Edit, remember you can't look to other bullet points in the same list for help.
What are you talking about? I said remove the word "In addition" not every other clause? TOTAL IMMUNITY AUTOMATIC SKILL Optional REQUIREMENTS EFFECTS When suffering a successful Attack—or being affected by any weapon or rule—that forces any ARM or BTS Rolls, the owner is immune to the special effects of the Special Ammunitions, treating them as Normal Ammunition. Players can choose between making an ARM Roll or BTS Roll, choosing the most advantageous for them. If affected by a weapon or Ammunition with the Non-Lethal Trait (see Infinity N3) that forces an ARM or BTS Roll, owners of Total Immunity won't suffer its effects, so they won't make the ARM or BTS Roll, nor any corresponding Guts Roll. This Special Skill is not applied if the owner suffers a Hacking or Comms Attack. No, because of bullet 4 ?????
My dude, you haven’t even provided evidence of your own claim (despite your numerous claims of doing otherwise). Again, how did you arrive at the conclusion that Normal Ammo doesn’t trigger TI when the first bullet says this: “when suffering a successful Attack—or being affected by ANY WEAPON or RULE—that forces any ARM or BTS Rolls” I’m sorry but how the fuck does ANY WEAPON or RULE translate into your head as ‘literally anything in the game EXCEPT Normal Ammo, for reasons entirely unexplained’? Listen, son. Do yourself a favour and stop arguing like everyone in the world is telling you the world is flat and you’re the only one holding the divine truth. None wants to engage seriously with you in such a manner and it’s even worse when you act so condescending, arrogant and stubborn, when you’re demonstrably wrong, painfully so even.
It doesn't matter how it arrived to the conclusion (and what it stated to be the reason it arrived to the conclusion). It doesn't work because the "Example. Special Case:" said so. It doesn't apply to anything that is outside that specific "Special Case". If the "doesn't work" applied to combi, it would be written "Example. General Case:"
You've got a preconception of how rules are meant to be structured that are not quite aligned with reality. No one has set up any rules for how a piece of rule must be announced or structured. It can take the form of any piece of text structured in any way possible. Rules are simply a set of text describing the logic by which the players agree to work within. The rules can absolutely set up what can be considered a "trigger" outside of the requirements box. It's not necessarily a good idea to write rules that way and I'm sure you'll find more than one peer reviewed paper on how to best present game rules. This doesn't mean the rules stop working. The sentence "When a person finds himself falling a great distance, they will eventually land and hurt themselves" sets up a condition and then a consequence of this condition. You can't divide the sentence up in half and proclaim that the text gives no indication to what happens when a person falling hits the ground, because the reason the sentence no longer tells you what might happen is not the text structure, but rather how you chose to read it. So in the case of Total Immunity, if your point is that the rules are poorly structured you'll probably find support. No one is likely going to argue against you, in fact, but some might say "it doesn't matter". However, the reason you seem to arrive at a vastlt different conclusion from everyone else here is not that we're trying to shield CB from criticism - it's more likely that we don't expect half a sentence to stand on its own and that we're willing to take the text at face value instead of trying to force it into a specific structure and reading it only as it would read through that structure. We're all clever adaptive humans, we don't need text presented to us perfectly, like a computer does, in order to understand it. Even if it is preferable.
I think this is the crux of the issue here. You are looking to improve the ruleset and have it changed, which is fine, but you need to understand what the primary purpose of the Rules forum is. If a rule is unclear or ambiguous to you, this is the place to post and find out how you should play it. Take the answer, even if it wasn't the conclusion you came to from reading the rule, thank IJW for the closest thing you will get to an official response, and then either play it that way or don't (with the expectation others will play it that way). If you then think "hey, this could have been written better so others don't come to the same conclusion I did!", then that's good feedback! You can mention it and leave it at that for IJW to take up with CB, or, make a thread in the discussion form to discuss how you think it could be better written. That's perfectly fine. But why stick to the same thread to aggressively bash the wording over the head? This isn't the way to accomplish what you say you are trying to accomplish.
Thanks, that was the most on point response I've seen in this forum to date. +9,000 You're right, triggers can be setup outside the requirement box. That aside, I don't have a preconception about how rules are meant to be structured. I have a preconception that rules must follow a structure. Because if there's no structure to follow, there's no way to determine how they should be interpreted. This example of TI is perfect to illustrate this problem. We have several bullet points with no overriding rules that govern them. Everyone keeps berating me regarding my interpretation. But no one has shown me where it is stated that their interpretation follows the structure Infinity the game has laid out, while mine does not. Infinity does have a structure. It is used all over the place. I've backed up my interpretation with very logical reasoning. Who's to say my interpretation focusing on the structure to guide me is any less valid than guessing what part of what bullets are related? So this is where we differ, you say you're willing to take the text at face value, well I'm taking the structure at face value. Lets assume your implication that we're all clever etc is true. We will ultimately have different interpretations that can't be resolved. Which is why a proper structure can be relied on to take us all to the same place/conclusion/interpretation. So when push comes to shove and I must choose one in cases like this, I choose structure. You and everyone else are free to play how you like, but the rules also back up my way to play TI as not working against a combi.
