1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Total Immunity - ARM/BTS roll choice

Discussion in '[Archived]: N3 Rules' started by Ginrei, Apr 25, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Ginrei

    Ginrei Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    428
    You mention two possible options, hopefully you see my third option now.

    You said the part about Special Ammo is something the owner gets through the skill. But is that entirely true? The owner actually gets 4 bullet points only. To continue the programming analogy, there is nothing outside the brackets encompassing those bullets. So SA only comes into it within the context and conditions given within the first bullet. The second bullet flies in the face of all programming logic using words to guide us. And I've explained above how i see that functioning.

    You're right about the game examples. They are not all inclusive or definitive. But you must admit they do more to support my position than the opposing one? They all talk about TI in the context of SA and use an example that calls out the fact that it doesn't use SA so it doesn't function.
     
  2. Ginrei

    Ginrei Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    428
    To be clear, I don't want to treat the second bullet point on it's own. I personally think it doesn't function on it's own. If we spit that bulleted list into a program it would error out or just skip over it without doing anytihng trying to compute the second bullet. It wouldn't default to applying it in all situation because there are no triggers for it to activate. It certainly wouldn't pull the trigger from a separate condition within another command.

    You're saying as long as a situation isn't excluded you can choose BTS/ARM to roll against. But again, that only works when you add instructions that are not there. It may seem fine to pull them from the first bullet, but that's not how a program would run it. That part of the program will never be triggered.

    So because i need an answer to play the game, i can't accept it as broken. You and everyone else have decided to put them together as one long sentence/point. From there you're trying to justify your interpretation of the text. Text you've created on your own by choosing how you rewrite or where you add the new text.

    I still follow the text, but i do so sticking to the structure of the bullet points. Just like how the parenthesis give two different results here, (3+2)*5=25 and 3+2*5=13.

    You've focused on making the second bullet function by using the condition from the first bullet, I've made it function by using the situation from the first.

    @ChoTimberwolf edit, this might sound better; I calculate the first bullet from start to finish, then apply the addition from the second bullet.
     
    #102 Ginrei, Apr 26, 2019
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2019
    ChoTimberwolf likes this.
  3. ambisinister

    ambisinister Broken Zoetrope

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2018
    Messages:
    547
    Likes Received:
    455
    There's a lot to unpack here. Again, I'm still not sure what there is to argue about in this case, since if the point is "If the RAI for TI is X and we can read it as X or Y, then the rules is unclear and needs to be clarified." then everyone agrees on that. But maybe we've moved beyond that and it's a matter of principle now. I don't know. That being said, a lot of the back and forth seems to hinge on the "in addition to" bit on bullet point 2. In an attempt to try and understand what @Ginrei means when they speak of not the language but the structure, I went and looked the rule up in the PDF. This is what it says:

    There is no "in addition" on the second bullet point. @Ginrei, since I don't understand your metric well enough to apply it here, does using the text I quoted from the rules pdf change how you read the rule in any way?
     
  4. Ginrei

    Ginrei Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    428
    Unfortunately i don't think anywhere near a majority agrees on that. There have been a few posters say the rule could be clearer. But no one has admitted there is another possible interpretation of the RAW. And without that admission or general acceptance within the community, no one will ever look to improve or clean up this rule because everyone with influence is adamant it's working fine as is.
    Thanks for adding something new.

    Nothing really changes unfortunately, because the structure remains the same. We still have two separate bullet points. The second bullet still doesn't function on it's own. But now, it doesn't help point to it's trigger like before. Which really isn't a big deal though.

    All that's changed is players must make one more assumption. The assumption being what it's referring to. Logically, we'd probably still all assume it refers to the preceding bullet. The two different ways we apply it still exist however.
     
  5. ijw

    ijw Ian Wood aka the Wargaming Trader. Rules & Wiki
    Infinity Rules Staff Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,331
    Likes Received:
    14,817
    Multiple posters are saying that the rule should be reworded to make it clearer. That doesn't require other posters to acknowledge that you're interpreting the rule correctly.

    "Them" is, unfortunately, ambiguous. But your interpretation requires adding extra text. It would need to say "the owner is immune to the special effects of the Special Ammunitions, treating those effects as the effects of Normal Ammunition.

    But the red text isn't present, which means that "them" is referring to the Special Ammunitions - because you can't treat effects as an ammo type, that's a category error equivalent to "treat the Martial Arts Effects as Light Infantry".

    So we treat Special Ammunitions as Normal Ammunition. Not the effects, but the actual ammunition type is treated as Normal Ammunition. Which means that any claim that Effect 2 stops you rolling a Combi hit against BTS would also stop an EXP hit being rolled against BTS.

    This was the third or fourth post in the thread where people have used programmatic/logical terms to point out that they disagree with you about where the break points are.

    (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. (In addition, players can choose between making an ARM Roll or BTS Roll, choosing the most advantageous for them)

    To summarise - is the wording for Total Immunity poor? Yes. We all agree on that. Will continuing to argue about it help with anything? No.

    EDIT
    This is a gross misrepresentation of the replies you have been receiving. The rule should be improved, period. Multiple people have said this, multiple times, across three different threads.

    There is no "everyone with influence is adamant it's working fine as is". People disagreeing with your interpretation is not equivalent to people saying that the rule is working fine.
     
  6. ChoTimberwolf

    ChoTimberwolf Artichoken Friend

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2017
    Messages:
    513
    Likes Received:
    425
    I agree with both ijw and you Ginrei that the rule is sadly not well worded.

    After thinking about it I came to my conclusion that my first post was wrong, these are bullet points and with them being bullet points each should stand on their own. The problematic one, the second one, doesn't stand well on its own and feels weird but if we just take it as its own point it says that everytime you have to make an BTS or ARM roll you can choose between these two.

    I can understand what you mean with taking the whole first bullet point as a condition. So I can see there you are coming from.
    But its not nearly even close to the first way I would interpret it.

    So in conclusion I hope the rule gets rewritten, actually I hope that for a bunch of rules and I think there isn't really anything more to discuss.
     
    A Mão Esquerda, Ginrei and toadchild like this.
  7. ijw

    ijw Ian Wood aka the Wargaming Trader. Rules & Wiki
    Infinity Rules Staff Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,331
    Likes Received:
    14,817
    Sorry, this was awkwardly worded. Rephrased:

    Any claim that you can't use Effect bullet 2 to take a Combi hit against BTS would also stop you taking an EXP hit against BTS.
     
    A Mão Esquerda likes this.
  8. Ginrei

    Ginrei Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    428
    It doesn't require me to stop trying to gain support either.
    You have a point. It could be referring to SA itself rather than their special effects. Or even both. But it raises a new question, why are the special effects mentioned at all then. Why not just say special ammo is treated as normal ammo. Of course, unneeded text isn't proof of anything.

    But ultimately your interpretation, which sounds acceptable to me, doesn't change anytihng does it? The TI trooper is still not being hit by normal ammo. It's being hit by SA and we just treat it like it's NA. If I tell you to eat an apple and treat it like a baked potato... You're still not eating an actual potato. You're just going to use a knife and fork or whatever.

    So no, that doesn't allow you to roll a combi hit with your BTS.
    @ijw Edit: to use your approach, if it meant the SA became NA, it would be worded differently. Even if it did actually become normal ammo, it would just be an odd thing within the rules. Which we have from time to time. Being odd doesn't prove anything in and of itself, the same way the unneeded text doesn't prove anytihng.
    I disagree, continuing to debate it might help. Because i want you to see that my interpretation is valid. And who better to see that than the person with CBs ear?
    I disagree. But i have no interest in listing multiple quotes to dispute this. So I won't say any more on that as it's going to be entirely subjective anyway.
     
    #108 Ginrei, Apr 26, 2019
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2019
  9. Ginrei

    Ginrei Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    428
    Huh? EXP is special ammo and thus triggers TI.
     
  10. Robock

    Robock Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    1,234
    Likes Received:
    852
    yes, it triggers TI which converts it into a Normal during bullet 1. Then bullet 2 can't work if it does not work against Normal, it also won't work against EXP that got converted to Normal by TI bullet 1. (applying a sequential timing to the bullet effects here)
     
    A Mão Esquerda likes this.
  11. ijw

    ijw Ian Wood aka the Wargaming Trader. Rules & Wiki
    Infinity Rules Staff Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,331
    Likes Received:
    14,817
    Support for what?

    This is nonsensical. You're not eating an apple and treating it like a baked potato - you're eating something that to all intents and purposes is indistinguishable from a baked potato.

    All that matters is that the rule isn't clear. That remains true no matter what I think of your interpretation.

    Disagreeing doesn't stop it from being gross misrepresentation. There's about a dozen posts (just in this thread) agreeing that the rule needs work.
     
    A Mão Esquerda likes this.
  12. colbrook

    colbrook Grenade Delivery Specialist

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    17,066
    Also, as you yourself have pointed out, there are no requirements to using TI, it is an optional and automatic skill, so you can use it whenever you want.

    Hit by EXP ammo? Use TI, you meet the requirements.

    Hit by normal ammo? Do the same.
     
    A Mão Esquerda likes this.
  13. Ginrei

    Ginrei Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    428
    The second bullet doesn't actually say, "every time you have to make an ARM/BTS roll you can choose between the two" It says:
    • In addition, players can choose between making an ARM Roll or BTS Roll, choosing the most advantageous for them.
    Your version is clear in that you have this choice when you have to make an ARM/BTS roll. The bullet doesn't provide that trigger.

    Take this situation; A trooper is hit by adhesive ammo forcing a PH roll. Is that a roll I can substitute with an ARM/BTS roll based only the second bullets wording? After all, the bullet doesn't say it needs to be an ARM/BTS i'm changing. If you can change it... what else can you change?
    And that's fair. We both have our own, valid, interpretation. I agree with you about the rules. Seeing as we play competitive games based on a set of rules... it would be nice if we were forced to all play the same way because the rules do not allow us to play any other way.
     
    ChoTimberwolf likes this.
  14. Ginrei

    Ginrei Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    428
    I've never said bullet one converts the hit to normal ammo. "treating it like normal" isn't the same thing as I've explained more than once. The first bullet has to trigger for the second to be applied.

    EXP triggers bullet one, then the 'additional' bullet effect is applied.
    NA does not trigger bullet one, so the 'additional' bullet is not applied.
     
  15. Ginrei

    Ginrei Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    428
    You said, "Multiple posters are saying that the rule should be reworded to make it clearer. That doesn't require other posters to acknowledge that you're interpreting the rule correctly."

    I agree, some posters said the rule could be worded better. That's a fact.
    I agree, that doesn't require other posters to acknowledge my interpretation as correct. Fact.
    I haven't required them to do anything. Fact.
    I've tried to persuade others, including them, to acknowledge my interpretation as valid. Fact.
    Having others agree my interpretation is valid, which creates two different ways to play the rule, and by definition Infinity, is a greater problem for that rule than having others just think the rule could be worded better. Fact.
    And some of you here wonder why I have issues with the way you treat people. Things were moving along well. Then you tell me my argument is nonsensical? You mean you don't agree and have reasons why, right?

    Treating something as something else, does not make that something indistinguishable from something else. Someone please back me up here and explain this? Because I have a feeling IJW isn't going to listen to my reasoning alone.
    All that matters to you, you mean. We clearly think different things matter. It matters because i could play knowing it's a legitimate way to play the game. Until CB puts forth a definitive ruling of course. You're still free to wield your power and influence to control the majority and play your way. But at least I wouldn't have to listen to so many people tell me my way is wrong. Look at this thread... there's quite a few.
    You're being extremely generous to this thread and those posters. Again, I'm not interested in debating this very subjective opinion. Feel free to compile a list. That might be enough for me to bother doing the same.
     
  16. ambisinister

    ambisinister Broken Zoetrope

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2018
    Messages:
    547
    Likes Received:
    455
    @Ginrei you've claimed a few times here that for your metric, language is secondary to the structure of how CB writes rules and that we should look to that for clarity in ambiguous situations. I'm going to look at a another special skill from the Daedalus Falls PDF that also has no listed requirements and only bullet points to explain its effect. I'll be referring to Inferior Impersonation. Here's what that says:

    The structure of this proves that CB places both dependent and independent rules as separate bullet points. Point 1 is stand alone, point 2 is stand alone, point 3 is stand alone. Point 4 calls for you to make a WIP roll after placing the model on the table. If you look at point 4 in isolation, then it would seem as if you have to roll WIP regardless of where you place the model on the table, but we know that's not true, because we can look elsewhere in the rule to see when a WIP roll is called for. As with TI, would it have made more sense for them to combine point 3 and point 4 into one bullet? Yes, but they didn't do that.

    So looking at the structure of another rule CB wrote and released at the same time in the same document as TI we can see that' it's not unreasonable for one bullet point to reference another. If we look at bullet 2 of TI it mentions ARM and BTS but not when or why you'd be choosing to roll them, so to figure that out we look elsewhere in the rule to find another place where ARM and BTS are mentioned and we can look to bullet 1 for that.

    Let's take another look at bullet 1:
    A phrase similar to "When suffering a successful attack" is not present elsewhere in the Daedalus Falls pdf, so I'm going to go back to the core rules to reference the structure of how CB writes rules using a similar phrase. I'll be referring to the Ammo rules in this case. All of them use the following format:
    The structure of that phrasing is 'After a successful attack (state condition) using DA Special Ammunition, (apply effect), the target must make two separate Armor Rolls.' We can apply that reading to the TI rule. When suffering a successful attack (state condition) that forces any ARM or BTS Rolls, (apply effect) the owner is immune to the special effects of the Special Amunntions treating them as Normal Ammunition."

    The condition is not "when you are hit by special ammunition," or "an attack using special ammunition" it is "when you are hit be an attack that forces ARM or BTS rolls." Being shot with normal ammunition meets that condition. Then you check the effect, "the owner is immune to the special effects of the Special Special Ammunitions treat them as Normal Ammunition." This tells us when we're supposed to apply this rule and what it does.

    Taking both of these readings of how CB structures their rules, this seems like a reasonable refutation of your interpretation. To summarize, the application of bullet 2 is unclear but there is precedent in the rules structure to look at surrounding bullet points for clarity. Bullet 1 is the best candidate so it's not a reach to conclude that when bullet 1 triggers bullet 2 triggers. When does bullet 1 trigger? Not when you get hit by special ammunition, because that's related to the effect, not the trigger, but when you get hit with an attack that forces ARM or BTS saves.

    So a trooper gets shot with a combi. Does this force them to make an ARM roll? Yes, this engages the special rule. Are special ammunitions involved? no. Move on. Pick whether you'd rather roll ARM or BTS. Move on. Is this a non lethal attack? no. Move on. Is this a hacking or comms attack? no. complete applying the rule.
     
    toadchild, Ginrei, ijw and 3 others like this.
  17. ijw

    ijw Ian Wood aka the Wargaming Trader. Rules & Wiki
    Infinity Rules Staff Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,331
    Likes Received:
    14,817
    You chose the analogy. :-(

    In this case, being treated as something else means that it is different from the original item. So your 'apple' no longer has a shiny green and red skin but a baked jacket, and no longer has firm yellowish flesh but is hot, steaming and fluffy, with butter melting into it. It now has characteristics that the original item didn't have, and the original item had characteristics that are no longer present.

    You can continue to call it an apple, but it no longer has the characteristics of an apple.

    Apply the analogy to EXP+AP ammo being treated as Normal ammo. The original red and green skin (three ARM Rolls for EXP) is now a baked jacked (one ARM Roll). The yellowish flesh (halve the ARM Attribute) is now hot and fluffy (don't halve the ARM Attribute). It is qualitatively different from the original.

    For what it's worth I've reported multiple posters' replies in this thread because they've used unacceptable language to you, but unfortunately Koni is away and PsychoticStorm is offline at the moment. I assume that once they're back the whole thread will get locked, because it's just going in circles.

    This is the bit where almost everyone disagrees with you. Treating special ammo as normal ammo is phrased as a consequence, not as the cause.
     
    toadchild, Xeurian, colbrook and 3 others like this.
  18. Ginrei

    Ginrei Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    428
    Nice post, I had to be on my A game to get through it. You're correct, CB does have dependent and independent rules in their bullet lists. But the structure proves nothing about the rules placed within it. The structure tells us how to read/format/compile/understand those dependent and independent rules found within.

    Point 4 of INF-IMP is another great example of a bullet that doesn't stand on it's own. It attempts to place a condition onto Point 3, by stating you can't make the roll to deploy in the enemy DZ until after you've placed your trooper on the battlefield. Then it goes on to explain why. That explanation, is what indicates the condition is applied when activating Point 3. There's only one potentially failed WIP roll it can mean. The precedent seems to be that these ambiguous Bullets/Points refer to the previous Point. However we don't need to rely on that precedent here as there's only one possible roll it could be referring to.

    My approach: I decide to deploy in the enemy DZ using Point 3. This decision itself triggers Point 4. So I follow point 4 from start to finish and place the trooper on the Battlefield. THEN I follow Point 3 start to finish and make my roll.
    I see one important difference. INF-IMP Point 4 states a 'clear' trigger action which is when we decide to use Point 3. Total Immunity Point 2 doesn't have a trigger of any kind to activate it. You choose to trigger and apply it based on how you combine the text from Point 1&2. I've read many opinions on how that's done. At this point, I think it might be best if I take the same approach you did and explain it as the text rather than structure. I do like how you chose to format yours.
    I agree with everything you've said here. But I don't agree with how you've combined Point 1&2. Here's my interpretation of that combination:

    First of all, Point 1 hurts my brain. It states, "THE Special Ammunitions" as if the rule had previously mentioned it or was always referring to it. Not a good start.

    (state condition) When suffering a successful attack that forces any ARM or BTS Rolls (/state condition), (apply effect) the owner is immune to the special effects of the Special Ammunition, treating them as Normal Ammunition. (/apply effect) ​

    Now we add Point 2. To me, it makes no sense to disregard any text from Point 1. Nothing in Point 2 calls for that. Point 2 is only adding text, it says so lol. It also gives no indication it should be put anywhere but at the end. Putting it in the middle could fundamentally change both Points. So I choose to add it at the end and to the last point made, it seems logical to me:

    (state condition) When suffering a successful attack that forces any ARM or BTS Rolls (/state condition), (apply effect) the owner is immune to the special effects of the Special Ammunition, treating them as Normal Ammunition (/apply effect). In addition, [to treating them[Special Ammunitions] as Normal Ammunition], (apply effect) players can choose between making an ARM Roll or BTS Roll, choosing the most advantageous for them. (/apply effect)​

    So in addition to treating SA as NA, players get to choose between making an ARM or BTS roll.

    Does a trooper suffers an attack from a Combi Rifle. Yes. Does this force them to make an ARM roll? Yes. Are Special Ammunitions involved? No. Is this a non lethal attack? No. Is this a hacking or comms attack? No. Result = Nothing happens. Because the choice of ARM/BTS roll is found in the applied effects of being hit from SA.
     
  19. Ginrei

    Ginrei Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    428
    No... What happens if i treat you like a woman? It means I open the door for you and many other things. It does not mean you take on the characteristics of a woman. You do not suddenly have breasts, sexy hips, or a V. The way I treat you changes. You do not change.
    Thanks, it's worth lots. And I know i have to do better when it comes to retaliating. But I don't ever want to just take **** without standing up for myself. Fine lines and all that.

    I do believe it's never too late to shake hands and move on.

    I also hope @Koni and @psychoticstorm leave the thread open. They can clean it up if they want. But the last few pages have been very calm, respectful, and productive. Good points being made lately. I'll just quietly suggest it might have something to do with those posters who decided it was time to leave.
    Hopefully my last post better explains that.
     
  20. ijw

    ijw Ian Wood aka the Wargaming Trader. Rules & Wiki
    Infinity Rules Staff Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,331
    Likes Received:
    14,817
    if you want to make an analogy, it has to be an equivalent situation.

    In terms of game mechanics—rather than social interactions—if you treat an item as something else, it gains the characteristics of the new item - that’s literally what the phrase means. Your analogy is equivalent to “I’m going to call this EXP hit a Normal ammo hit, but you still need to make three ARM Rolls for it”.

    Forcing the target to make three ARM Rolls for EXP ammo is a characteristic of EXP ammo. That characteristic of EXP ammo has changed if you are treating it as Normal ammo.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  • About Us

    We are a company founded in 2001 in Cangas (Spain), and devoted to design and manufacture games and figures. Our main product, Infinity the Game, was born with the ambition to satisfy the most demanding audience, offering the best quality.

     

    Why are we here?

     

    Because we are, first and foremost, players.

  • Quick Navigation

    Open the Quick Navigation