It should be, logically/fluffily speaking. Similarly, I think that gluing a CK/MT should prevent it from Boosting. Something to consider for FAQs or rules update.
No, but it is in the Solved forum https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threads/solved-full-auto-l2-suppressive-fire.23203/
a couple things: I’m actually fine at a personal level with the idea that ECM hacking program should be legal (as it appears that change facing is, as a yellow ARO). But I don’t think the ECM reading proposed above as legal is correct with the rules as written. The idea that a Short Skill/ARO is defined as Short Skill or ARO (exclusively) isn’t obvious to me - perhaps that’s been defined somewhere in a previous discussion or an FAQ and I missed it. If so point me to it. I read that as Short Skill that can be used as an ARO. If that reading is correct, it’s still a short skill, it just can also be used during ARO. This is consistent with their color coding of skills, wherein the text for breakwater (as an example) exists in the green short skill box, as defined on the order types sheet. Boost is in a yellow ARO only box. This allows for a consistent reading: if something is exclusively an ARO (yellow text box) it is useable while immobilized (there is no limit on AROs in immobilized as it stands). If something is Green (Short Skill, or Short Skill/ARO, for instance), and it’s not specifically allowed, it is not permitted. If it is Red (whole order skill), similarly not permitted without specific exception. As others have noted this seems like a specific carve out for ARO only skills (intentionally or not). Yeah, I’m happy to debate what should be the rules, but for the moment I’m trying to understand where they stand right now. It seems we have agreed, largely, that Koalas still move given there is no declaration. And whether or not ECM is a legal move (not terribly relevant to the Koala question), I’m not seeing how that stops the reading that ARO-only (yellow box) skills like Boost are legal, as written. I guess the other approach would be to argue that as equipment it can't be immobilized, which resolves all of this business for the Koalas, and punts the Short Skill vs. ARO stuff for another day. I don't prefer that approach, b/c as I mentioned before, it looks pretty clear that Koalas can be targeted with such attacks.
Yeah but it was gven by fiat, not with the justification that @inane.imp used, so I don't think his reasoning applies.
My reasoning wasn't serious: it was absurd. The "well Immobilised doesn't prevent AROs" logic is sound. Except it would permit BS Atttacks by IMM troopers. So the outcome is absurd. My point is more that there's a lot of edge cases. Going with the interpretation that IMM refers to the class of skill not the specific declaration is functional and easily implemented. It prevents outlying results like BS Attacks in ARO but not in active. It's a reasonable answer that has its own internal consistency and isn't glaringly inconsistent with the ruleset as a whole.
Yes but you're interpreting that clause of IMM as applying to the declaration itself rather than simply to the class of skill. It's a logical interpretation. But we both know it's wrong. The alternative interpretation (just because you declared Dodge as an ARO does not stop it belonging to the 'Short Skill' class of skill and therefore invalid) is also logical. It has the benefit of being consistent across both the active and reactive. It's entirely playable and not inconsistent with the rules. I agree this could bear with an FAQ to add AROs to classes of skills that aren't permitted. But I disagree that your interpretation is the only valid one.
The argument for Super-jump is that it functionally changes the class of the skill declared, not merely the declaration. But look, everyone else will be over here going with "IMM prevents using this class of skills" and you can be on your own kicking against the pricks. Fight da powa!
