Berserk vs i-Kohl - Example contradicts rules

The language is word for word exactly the same in i-Kohl as in Martial arts with respect for CC. They literally copy-pasted Martial Arts when they wrote i-Kohl and made tiny adjustments so that one provides "specific MODs and advantages to CC" while the other provides "negative MOD to the opponent in CC"
Both Martial Arts and i-Kohl provide these bonuses in form of a CC Chart with i-Kohl only specifying that it also applies when declaring Dodge and Engage. Both Martial Arts chart and the i-Kohl charts are on the same level of specificity (even though I don't consider that rules theory to be applicable to Infinity rules) because both are provided in their own separate special skills sections and not in the general CC Special Skill section.

As it stands, I can only conclude that from thoroughly examining all CC rules examples, MODs apply for CC special skills during Normal rolls as well and by extension the use of "face to face roll" has once more been seen to not be an exact concept not to be taken too literally. You might call it "willful obtuseness" but that's the only logical conclusion I can see coming from this.

 

I am, you see, I read what the rule says.

 

Except for the part where ikhol has a deliberate example for working vs berserk and martial arts does not

 

Martial Arts has no such example

 

Exactly.

 

I don't think that means what you think it means.

You're saying that two otherwise identical special skills do not function the same way as each other because one of them does not have an example which specifies one way or the other? That... makes no sense.

 

Examples are as much a specific part of the rules as the rest of the rules.

As i said before, its not a great way to give ikhol an exception to the CC mod.
But it is an exception

 

As @daboarder notes, i-Kohl has a specific example of how it interacts with Berserk. As such, reading the rule as a whole, I will stick with the assessment that only willful obtuseness results in such confusion, a plain reading does not.

 

This is why I asked about MA vs. Berserk a couple pages ago - there’s no clear rules text that differentiates the two. Just an example. Examples illustrate; they should not add additional rules.

Given that there’s no example of MA bonuses not applying to Berserk, we are left to guess, and different people are reaching different conclusions.

 

And it’s been ceded that perhaps making it even more explicit in the “rule text” might make it simpler for some to understand, but you’re dead on. Examples *are* part of the rule, so the example of a Berserk interaction is the same as the rest of the text explicitly duplicating it.

 

Very much this. I will respect anyone who simply comes to a different conclusion, as long as they're willing to respect anyone who arrives at the other conclusion, of course.

 

Save for the fact that the examples are rules text. I-Kohl’s examples explicitly give an exception to the generally applicable CC chart language, while MA’s don’t. Again, reading the rule as a whole, remembering that the examples are part of the rule, clears the confusion. Does this thread seem to indicate some players have to have it included in both places? Sure, so it’s likely that any revision would duplicate the language in both parts of the rule, i.e. the traditional “rule text” and the examples.

 

Making examples part of the rule is an extraordinarily poor choice by CB, as it basically works against the convention of what an example is.

 

That's how examples are supposed to work. Not how CB is using them.

That is NOT how examples are supposed to be used!

 

It is however how they are consistently used in infinity

 

It's sometimes unclear what the examples are trying to communicate - for example, in this situation, is it saying that *all* CC skills apply during normal rolls? Or only i-kohl?

Actually stating it as a rule would resolve this question.

 

Opponents MODs for CC Special Skills explicitly apply to Face to Face Rolls.

i-Kohl should mention that it overrides this in the main rules text, but doesn't. It's not a precedent for any other CC Special Skill.

 

Am I supposed to believe CB wrote Berserk Attack and chose not to mention the user is immune to the negative mods of other CC special skills... Because it should be clear to players that by using Berserk Attack to turn FTF rolls into Normal rolls, other CC skills no longer get to apply those negative mods? And that CB chose not to draw attention to this function with examples?

Furthermore, I-Khol does get to apply it's negative mod because there is an example showing it apply to Berserk Attack... And the rule that should be there to back that example up, was mistakenly left out?

Something fishy is going on here.

 

... yes, because... that is what we did...

I know it does not sound right or retrospect!

 

What happens when an active trooper uses Berserk Attack, their target uses Dodge, and both players successfully pass their normal rolls? Does the target get to move 2" away as well?