martial arts, i-khol, and shooting haplass targets.

No. i-kohl is specifically expanding what it applies to. MA is even more restrictive. Look at how similar the language is between the two rules.

 

It may be an automatic skill but you still need tu fulfill its requirement. If you declare a move to move base to base, you fulfill the requirements only at a specific point of your order : when you reach base to base (so when you are base to base) so at a point of the order structure when you are only allowed cc attack and dodge

If you want to bs attack, you need to do it before you reach contact (example : a millimeter before contact) so before you fulfill requirements for MA (and others)

Ps : reach base to base mean arrive base to base so be base to base after moving there (the important word is "be") : not the whole way to base to base, only wheb you are there. If you don't believe it, read the whole oxford dictionary page. All meaning of reach as a verb mean being there after moving there

 

The only source of that are words from playtesters on how those were intended to be used. Which isn't conveyed by RAW.

With @Arkhos94 finding an actual definition of "being (engaged) in Close Combat" (funny how I failed to notice that before), there's nothing to stand on while arguing against "wide" interpretation ("CC Special Skills are enabled by B2B no matter what you declare"), I believe. Well, except "it will be patched out next FAQ, trust me" from playtesters.

Examples cannot be brought as an argument here. Just because they chose to show an example with CC Attack doesn't mean you cannot do anything else if that "anything else" fits with RAW. If there was an example saying you specifically cannot do this or that, then yeah.

I am still not sure about timing issues, but at this point I'm pretty adamant that RAW you can, for example, impose F2F penalties by applying MA regardless of what you declare as long as you are in B2B with enemy model somewhere during this order.

 

You're going to struggle with a lot of rules in this game then.

 

Especially if I don't read an entire argument like you just did.

What I'm saying is example using CC Attack doesn't mean I can only use CC Attack when RAW allows much more. That is not how examples work.

On a side note, some rules being conveyed through examples only is nothing to be proud of.

 

When the example says "you can't pair with a BS Attack" and people are saying "you can pair with a BS Attack", it's pretty relevant. Examples work by clarifying the rules, and obviously in this case there was a lack of clarity. So we need to look at the examples.

On a side note, I have never argued that more clarity in the rules text would be a bad thing.

 

You and Avanst are both arguing semantics, you both know you are going to be wrong from the first word a dev utters on the topic, but I'll meet you half-way: as it is worded, it doesn't matter which skill you declare and you can use MA, provided you declare your skill which forces me into FTF such that it takes place in close combat.

As per the rule, the MODs and advantages apply to CC, so if both you and me declare BS Attack that's not a CC nor is anyone involved using the CC attribute.

 

Not all modifiers provided by CC Special Skills (including MA) are applied to CC attribute, so I assume specific rules take precedence (why does initial sentence reference CC attribute when it's only a specific case is beyond me). The point is, we can still use those when appropriate.

Otherwise we would be throwing most negative MODs and B bonus of MA out of the window.

I mean, yes, if that's what it says (that's probably not an example from MA section?).

The issue is still broader than just BS Attacks.

Yes, people's interpretation of rules tend to become wrong once rules are effectively altered.
I do welcome an official comment on the subject since for now there are only 2 sources I can go by:

1) RAW;
2) Some random forum guy citing another guy who claims he knows playtesters and that those playtesters claim that they were told that rule was designed to be only used in a certain manner. Yes, I'm not exaggerating one bit.

Guess what I will go by while posing in section dedicated (primarily) to RAW and its interpretations.

For the record, I'm fine accepting either way, but I understand that should the issue arise during the game, I will have no way to back up "CC Attack only" interpretation since citing aforementioned p. 2) as back up is downright laughable.

That's why I would never insist on "narrow" interpretation during actual play.

As for arguing semantics... When rule literally says it works when you're engaged (and nothing else), how that is "just semantics"?

 

Nearly correct, with the way things are written it is "CC Special Skills are enabled when being B2B". It's only at the point of your order when you are base to base that you are allowed to use CC special skill.

Then examples explain which CC special skill are compatible with what. Let's go back to my post in the previous page :
All examples regarding MA make reference to CC attack => no dodge
Same for Protheion => no dodge
I-Khol wiki page says "i-Kohl can be used even when declaring Dodge or Engage." so you can use it with dodge

Timing issues (as you call them) come from the meaning of reach : you understand reach CC as "be in CC + the whole order before" and I understand it as "be in CC (after moving there)"

Let's take a basic example of "real" phrases with the word reach :
your GPS telling you "you reach your destination". It only tell you that when you are at your destination, not before
Example from a newspaper "Rescuers reach site of deadly plane crash" : the rescuer are in the plain crash site, not on the way there
Example from a newspaper "NASA's “Cheap” Alternative for Reaching Mars? " We are talking about landing on Mars here. You only reach Mars when you land there. Before you land you are just flying into space.

In conclusion "reach base to base" mean "be in base to base". So in your order, you are considered as having reach base to base only at the point of your order when your base touch an enemy base, not a milimeter before.

So RAW are clear, no MA, I-Khol and other in your order at a point before you are in CC. And when you are in CC, nothing else but dodge and CC skill allowed. Before you are in CC, no CC skill allowed.

Yes you have, it was provided in many post befpre : CC skill are allowed only when in base to base contact (not a milimeter before that, that's what "be in base to base or reach base to base" mean, as demonstrated above) which only allow CC skills and dodge (see engage wiki page). Wherever CC special skill are compatible with dodge is defined in their box or in the examples

 

My point being - examples don't have to include every possible options for them to be, ahem, possible, unless otherwise specified.
I-kohl wording (as well as absence of non-CC-Attack examples) may give you an idea on designer's intentions, but that's indirect and involves us guessing said intentions.

On a side note, choice of words in I-Kohl rules ("no matter whether you declare...") is pretty weird.

Engaged rules also mention that Reset is allowed regardless of being in Engages state, so there's another one.

On MA: disagree. Examples are not supposed to exhaust all legal possibilities, that's simply not what "example" means. They do indicate that what exactly is written in them is legal, but that's it. The rest is either guesswork or misunderstanding of a concept of "example".

On my understand on how formal logic applies to I-Kohl:

We have a permissive ruleset. Anything rules say we can do, we can do unless something specifically revokes said permission in a specific situation.
CC Special Skills allow us to apply them when the model is Engaged.
I-Kohl, being CC Special Skill, is allowed to be used in said situation, but it also allows us to apply it when declaring Engage. Rules also mention Dodge and CC Attack, but those are already covered by CC Special Skill rules, and since at no point those permissions were revoked, them being mentioned in I-Kohl rules is superfluous.

Again, that may be giving away that designer's intentions don't match the resulting RAW, but that's, again, a guesswork.

I never argued for BS Attack being compatible with anything that requires being in Base Contact, merely noted that some people seem to have issues there.

At some point I personally decided that in order to combine two rules, they must at least be applicable at the same moment. That looks like what you are suggesting, but I have not delved deeper into the matter.

Normally similar situations arise when some trooper execute something like Move + Attack (there you must declare some point of the movement as the point where you perform an action, and that point is used to figure out modifiers, coming from special rules or otherwise), but I'm not aware if relevant rules are broad enough to be applied to this situation. I'm fine if they are.

 

Ok, so I think on this last point (does MA examples are enough to prove that MA is limited to CC attack), we will have to agree to disagree because they is not RAW to prove either interpretation right or wrong so we are reachin the world of opinion

Regarding reset : my bad, I forgot it

 

As some of us stated already: This needs FAQing
I think we'll all agree on that.

 

I am not sure why you are saying that because requirements of CC Special Skill usage seems to be clear - at least now that words "engaged in Close Combat (CC)" are found in description of Engaged state, making it possible to equate those requirements with basically just being in Engaged state.

The problem here is not that there's no RAW, but that there are reports of intention being different.

If anything, I'd rather worry about possibilities to impose CC Special Skill modifiers upon third party (that you F2F against) that isn't actually in base contact with you, as long as you yourself are Engaged in that Order.

 

I was speaking in my capacity as the main English editor on the rules side.

And I agree, it could do with an FAQ, but (to repeat myself) i-Kohl was specifically worded that way because it's not restricted to CC Attack like other CC Special Skills.

 

That's what I'm saying though. We can go by these words, but otherwise RAW seems to be different and only suggesting that it was trying to accomplish what you are saying it was.

If this topic gets into the next batch of FAQs, it will be nice, although I doubt this particular rule impacts games a lot either way.

 

Then don't say stuff like this:

Because yes, that is exaggeration. You were told directly, without any Chinese Whispers involved at all.

 

Neither me, nor anyone in this thread is entire community of Infinity. For some random Joe any attempt to reference forum posts on the matter would be exactly that - some random dude (say, me) citing another dude who is supposedly an English editor (something our average player has no way of knowing without extensive research) telling that designers had a particular interpretation in mind, although it never made it into rules.

So yeah, for an average player it will be "Chinese whispers", since average player doesn't visit Interplanetarions and whatnot and he doesn't know who you guys are, and he isn't obliged tbh. That's what I was saying. I apologize if that came out as if I was dismissive.

 

I-Kohl is specifically worded and exampled this way so that its' (-3,-6,-9 the largest negative) are used in those circumstances. It is really difficult for players to have to infer the third example in an exotic skill to be an overarching statement about CC Special Skill lable compared to it being specifically related to i-Kohl.

Everything in Infinity happens simultaneously so I don't even understand what your point with this is. You fulfill all requirements for the entire order because that's how infinity works, just as markers are revealed the entire travel after reaching base contact.

Your dictionary reference has no context to the structure of an order (because its not real life) where "reach" is a statement about within the order does the troop get B2B. Just because there is time before people actually reach it does not make the statement untrue.
Example from a newspaper "After hours of travel rescuers reach site of deadly plane crash"

And if you play with this kind of mindset within an order, that would mean you should be falling unconscious where an enemy shot you. Not where your movement got you. That's where you drew mods, effects, and results from so they should not make it to their final movement but, Infinitys' rules actually say otherwise.

I actually think that the semantics being argued are the opposing side of this argument because we are only talking about rules that are written. When the opposition is citing particular a word that even within infinity's definition does not say anything about using "Short Skill Close Combat Attack". There is no basis for saying you cannot use these skills as we've defined before without just arguing "It has the word CC in its' label, so it must have to be used with Close Combat Attack short skill"

Also the negative MODs to your opponent are not CC attribute related. It applies to all FtF.

As a separate note effects like Full Auto LV1/2 do not say anything in the labels such as "BS Special Skill" but do offer modifiers to shooting attacks made by the model, specifically saying "if the owner declares a BS Attack Short Skill with the BS Attribute". This is something no CC Special Skill except for I-kohl says which within a typical view makes I-kohl special meanwhile all others with the same labels are not constrained.
The label CC Special Skill is linked to and related to being in B2B (During or at some point within your move), it unlike other labels (optional ect..) has a specific set of rules that defines when you can use these skills none of which say you must declare Short Skill Close Combat Attack.

One additional thing as it's generally clear (RAW) here that MA can be used when reaching B2B.
I am earnestly curious if people who play this game think that that using Martial Arts in this way negatively impacts the game?
Does it not add something to an already difficult to use skill/mechanic?
How or why would this hurt the game? (I agree the negative MOD should only effect models in B2B, but I would rather have it with the "absurdity" before than not have it at all)
Why are people opposed to this on principle above the rules?

As it is in limbo until an appropriately done FAQ/Errata I will just have to ask every organizer. I think it's a great part of the game that rewards getting martial artists into complicated positions. And these decisions have their own pro's and cons which is what makes for interesting content.

 

Example of your argument being wrong : cover. It's only applicable at the part of your order when you fulfill the requirements.

When you declare a second short skill after moving, you declare at which point of your movement you use that skill. Then you check if things like MA, cover... are applicable at the point of your movement where you use that skill.

If you are not base to base at the point of your movement where you declare a skill then no MA, no ikhol,....
if you are base to base at the point of your movement where you declare a skill then no BS attack...

Yep, they reach it. So they are here not on their way. The same as, when you reach Base to Base you are at the point of your movement where you are base to base (which allow CC attack, MA...)

Let's take another example. Let's imagine JSA insurrection we now have on the news will fail at the end of March. In a few weeks, I will say "JSA insurrection is a failure" but today it is just on is way to total failure. Could you say today "JSA insurrection reach failure". No because that's not what reach mean. Reach can only be use when you are there, not before.


Let's now take an ingame example :
You declare move, your opponent ARO then you declare BS attack at a point halfway through your move when you are not base to base with anyone. Every check will be done from this point halfway : mesuring distance, checking cover, LOF, visibility zone... and of course applicability of any skill you want to use.
You cannot use MA at this point because you are not base to base (at best you are still on the way to be base to base)

Falling unconscious is a change of status, it happen in the resolution part when your movement is already finished so you don't declare at which point of your movement it happen. Your argument is invalid.[/QUOTE]