One of the effects of fire ammo is that it makes equipment enter the "burnt" state, if that is ignored then the equipment doesn't enter the "burnt" state Yeah I agree with @Mahtamori above, you have "fire" ammo that doesn't cause "burnt"
I'm talking about the definition of written words and sentences in the English Language. Then applying that to the rules in Infinity that are also written using the English language. Infinity doesn't have a complete glossary where it defines that 'treating them' means anything other than what it means to us in reality. Your analogy is flawed. You haven't defined what the painful state is or how it occurs. If the painful state is only an effect of hot peppers, then yes you don't suffer those effects. However, with the game example there is more than one way to enter the Burnt state. By either meeting the Fire ammo effect requirements OR meeting the Burnt activation requirements. So there is a way to bypass the Fire ammo requirements. Meaning being immune to Fire ammo effects doesn't interfere with entering the Burnt state through other rule interactions.
As I've said multiple times now, there is more than one way to enter the burnt state. We don't need to go through Fire Ammo special effects to get there.
It means "to deal with or regard as in a certain manner". The trooper deals with Fire ammo as normal ammo. The trooper is never hit by Fire because it deals with Fire exactly as normal ammo. That's what it says in English. The troopers equipment can not be hit. That's impossible in the rules. In order to affect the equipment, you have to target and hit the trooper. ODD doesn't separately consider whether it was hit by Fire ammo, because ODD can not be hit by Fire ammo.
I must have missed that, my bad. What other way is there to enter the burned state than being hit by fire ammo, which causes the state?
Ok, but it's not an issue because the TI trooper is being hit by Fire ammo. Thus entering the Burnt state. 'Deal with' or 'regard' doesn't mean something physically changes into something else. Whether that's an object or a word. Take an actor in a scene where they get punched in the stomach. Imagine a director tells the actor to treat that punch as if they were hit by a truck. Or deal with the punch, regard the punch, etc. What do you think happens next? The actor is not suddenly hit by a truck. The actor just jumps farther back. Makes a louder grunt, whatever. The actor is still punched by a fist, not hit by a truck. In game terms, treating special ammo as normal ammo is following the rules of normal ammo instead of special ammo and make rolls based on that. The trooper is still hit by the special ammo. http://infinitythewiki.com/en/Burnt has an activation clause. http://infinitythewiki.com/en/Nanoscreen the Nanoscreen rules also tell us how it gets burnt. The Infinity rules do a very poor job letting players know what is a rule to follow and what is description or example however.
I see the issue, by your interpretation the equipment should be burned because it was hit by fire ammo, which is the activation clause for the state, correct? Well, if you consider it is not fire ammo, but instead "fire" ammo then it's cleared right up. Instead of treating it as fire ammo that has the properties of normal ammo, treat it as normal ammo as the rule states in all cases and there is no issue.
Again, you're applying real life physics to a situation that isn't real life. The director's words is that of God to the cinema being filmed. If the director tells the actor to treat the fist punch like being hit by a truck, the actor might not actually suffer this hit, but the character in the movie will be sustaining exactly that kind of hit, possibly with CGI of an x-ray to show the audience the internal organs bursting. Just like you in real life will only be rolling a different dice with a different target number, but in game the effects of the rules saying "treat as" have vastly larger consequences. In game the gravitas of treating something like something else is vastly different from in real life where it can factually be wrong to treat something like something else in spite of the laws telling you so.
Guys, just stop engaging Ginrei. It's painfully obvious by now that he's trolling these threads to nitpick and create issues where there aren't any. The rules are perfectly clear in this case.
Unprovoked? :D There are several well-known trolling behaviour definitions between threadcrapping, flaming and sea-lioning that fit this particular bill. I would like to see moderation here at least attempting to curtail such behaviours instead of red texting people who point that out or point out that engaging people who do that is pointless and clogs up the threads even further. It's been pretty obvious for anyone who actually cares that this person does not have genuine doubt about the rules, they just do it for the attention. Most simple rules threads which should be "asked - answered - closed" get constantly devolved by this particular person into huge non-issues with hyperbolic "real life examples", bad will reading of the ruleset and a thousand and one "but what ifs". It's no less annoying than the Asian spambots, really. You go into a thread after thread just to see the fire still burning and every time you turn off Ignore - that's him time and again. No content, it's all superfluous walls of text and "butwhatifyou'rewrongbecausethiscanalsomeanbanana!" crap.
Thanks @psychoticstorm Almost, The trooper was hit by Fire Ammo and enters the Burnt state, rendering their Fire Sensitive equipment damaged as per the rules. If Fire Ammo removed the effect about triggering Burnt, nothing would change in the game because the Burnt state is activated at a higher level. From the burnt rule rather than each individual attack/ammo/skill/weapon/etc. You're right, there are many ways I can make an exception to follow the ruling of the community or RAI by CB. Personally I'd much prefer not having to remember what feels like a near endless number of exceptions to paper over the cracks in the rules. In this particular case, I don't like the idea of a TI troopers equipment also being Totally Immune. It doesn't make much sense thematically. I doubt CB intended it this way either. but they're stuck now. They have options, either bend the RAW to match their intent, change the rules via FAQ/edit to match their intent, make a ruling and accept the rule plays differently now. or do nothing,.Maybe others. How do you come to this conclusion? Shouldn't there be rules indicating that there is a larger meaning and what that meaning is? Like a glossary for the term in question?
Specific trumps general, so in this specific case, the fire ammo is treated as normal ammo. The trooper was hit by Fire Ammo, which is treated as Normal Ammo and does not enter the Burnt state, leaving their Fire Sensitive equipment undamaged as per the rules. You don't really have to make an exception or overlook anything though, it's the logical conclusion. In order to arrive at any other conclusion it would be necessary to argue semantics. I agree with you that it doesn't make much sense thematically that a model's TI extends to equipment, but that's just the way it goes.
As I said in the start it is one interpretation and the opposite interpretation exists, fact is I do not know what the intended interaction is and I cannot answer one way or the other,hence I leave the debate open.
Well, no. There are different schools/kinds of logic, but they differ on their subject and methods, but not on wether they or subjective or objective. You can claim that his conclusion does not logically follow, but logic is not subjective. (And opinions are differnt thing than facts, even if a certain president seems to disagree...) But, at topic, I think Brother Smoke's conclusion is right: Specific trumps general. (No pun intended...)
In the context of that conversation, which logic to follow, his or mine, it's subjective. I let that go before because I didn't want to respond. But with you agreeing I feel i need to now. There is no specific rule covering these circumstances. Fire ammo doesn't talk about what happens when a TI trooper is hit carrying Fire Sensitive equipment. If it did, that would be specific. But it doesn't. Nor does Total Immunity tell us what happens to it's Fire Sensitive equipment when being hit by Fire ammo. So while I agree Specific trumps a general rule, there are no specifics here to discuss.
@Ginrei well... you know... @FatherKnowsBest is not ONLY a nickname (we can close the forum for today)