Not so much a question as it's really easy to parse, but it seems odd. The Dodge values of TAGs and low tech units like the Ariadnan HI seem to be there to be a penalty. However, that's not always true if we read the rules properly. https://infinitythewiki.com/Rolls#Modifiers_.28MOD.29 IMPORTANT Whenever a rule mentions the value of an Attribute, consider it to mean the Success Value, obtained after applying all MODs. So the question is... Is it intended that most TAGs get out of Para induced Immobilized on a Dodge roll of 11? Is it intended that Liu Xing Combat Jumping ignores both Biotechvore's penalty and their own EVO Hacker's support program?
That box tells us that whenever we see something like "Make a roll against PH" it means "Make a roll against PH, modified by any applicable MODs"
A TAG's PH=X applies to the TAG's PH Attribute. A Dodge roll uses PH as part of the the Dodge Roll, but does not modify the user's actual PH Attribute. Things that affect PH Attribute affect Dodge through PH. Things that affect/modify PH in Dodge Rolls don't affect the PH Attribute. Different things.
I don't think that entirely parses the way you say it does. "obtained after applying all MODs." quite clearly has "the value of an Attribute" as the subject and it's written in past perfect so I don't think the simple solution is applicable.
I swear this came up at early n4 with netrods with ph=12 and biotechvore. On exactly what number they dropped on (was it 0-3, 9, or 12). And ijw? Answered that it was 9. This is same thing i feel. Regrettably i have no link or spoons to find it.
Could it be this one? https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threads/confused-deployment.38609/#post-381044 I'm fairly certain that's how it's meant to be played, it feels like this important box is a typo or a mistake which is why I'm asking. Unfortunately that post at least doesn't bring clarity as IJW is referencing a different rule.
That or something similar. This ruling is similar but shows that mods that set the ph occurring before the subtraction mods. Showing that there are examples to argue that the tag should be at 5/8ph at dodging and not 11s.
You appear to be attempting to read the red box (it is a red box clarification?) as applying to skills like Dodge(PH=14) when I’m pretty sure that wording predates the existence of N4. And, frankly, dismissing common sense. If a trooper entry is specifying at attribute for a skill, why would that want to be ignoring or immune to modifiers?
Trying to be maximally charitable, please refile the FAQ request entries as “The rules text doesn’t actually explain how a skill entry with a specified attribute value works.” Although, given that the text says The value of an Attribute, Burst, Damage, Ammunition, number of uses... in round brackets next to a Special Skill, Weapon, or Equipment will be used, applying its effects if necessary, only when using that Special Skill, Weapon or Equipment. presumably the necessary edit would be something like “Attribute values so specified are subject to all of the normal modifiers” or “If an attribute value is specified, replace the trooper’s default attribute value with the specified value and then apply modifiers.” Since that absence appears to be source of the defect.
Did you just say "that rule existed in N3 so it's not valid in N4" just to try and win an argument that's not actually meant to be an argument until you made it one?
Yeah, absolutely, and it does show how it's intended to use it when there's also another rule elsewhere the says less and is referenced by one of the rules team. The rule in Rolls section is not great in so many ways as it also stymmies future alterations like giving a monofilament user extra damage on melee attacks.
Did you read this important box note? Combat Jump (PH=10) means that, when performing the PH Roll required by this Skill, a PH value of 10 must be applied instead of the user’s PH Attribute. That text ("instead of the user's PH Attribute") implies the substitution is done before applying modifiers.
Yes, that's the one IJW is referring to in the thread. That one and the one in Rolls isn't really at odds with each other, the one in Rolls say the same thing but is more limiting. As I wrote, it's not about "how does this work", it's all about "hey, this rule here is a problem if it's not intended, maybe you want to address it? Especially if it is intended"
