1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Does Zero Pains -3 mod apply

Discussion in 'Rules' started by Hachiman Taro, Apr 11, 2021.

  1. Hachiman Taro

    Hachiman Taro Inverted gadfly

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2018
    Messages:
    1,089
    Likes Received:
    1,991
    Enemy hacker Morgana declares idle.

    Friendly hacker Bob in Morganas Zone of control declares Reset.

    Friendly Hacker Alice in Morganas ZOC declares Zero Pain.

    Morgana declares Spotlight against Bob.

    Is Morganas Spotlight attempt at Bob at a -3 Mod due to the -3 Mod imposed by Alice's Zero Pain?

    My reading of the rules was written is yes (It's an enemy comms attack as specified by the 2nd effect bullet point under Zero Pain, and a FTF roll as specified under neg mods for the hacking programs chart)

    However I presume the intention might be no, and the mod imposed by Zero Pain doesn't help other friendly troopers.
     
  2. QueensGambit

    QueensGambit Chickenbot herder

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2019
    Messages:
    2,213
    Likes Received:
    3,456
    I would say the article "the" in the second bullet "the enemy comms attacks" is referencing the comms attacks identified in the first bullet. So the -3 mod is only applied to the comms attacks that the Zero Pain user is evading, i.e. the comms attacks targeting them.
     
    Ugin and toadchild like this.
  3. Hachiman Taro

    Hachiman Taro Inverted gadfly

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2018
    Messages:
    1,089
    Likes Received:
    1,991
    I agree that's a natural inference to make (which is part of why I think the intention is as you say). Be nice to have it be explicitly stated one way or the other though.
     
  4. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    6,040
    Likes Received:
    7,177
    Unfortunately it is, relatively, explicit:

    This is the same phrasing as Martial Arts and with that we know* this refers to FTFs between the user and their opponent, not between their opponent and a third party. I agree that it could do with "performing a FTF roll [against the user]."

    * I seem to recall from conversations with @ijw
     
  5. Hachiman Taro

    Hachiman Taro Inverted gadfly

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2018
    Messages:
    1,089
    Likes Received:
    1,991
    That's a (reasonable) inference you are drawing again, but it's not explicit.

    The enemy trooper in the example is performing a FTF roll which is what is explicit in the rule.
     
  6. QueensGambit

    QueensGambit Chickenbot herder

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2019
    Messages:
    2,213
    Likes Received:
    3,456
    From Wikipedia: "A definite article is an article that marks a definite noun phrase. Definite articles such as English the are used to refer to a particular member of a group or class. It may be something that the speaker has already mentioned or it may be otherwise something uniquely specified."

    So I don't think it's an inference to say that the phrase "the enemy Comms Attacks" in the second bullet point is referring to the particular Comms Attacks already mentioned in the first bullet point. It's an explicit reference based on the use of the definite article "the." If the second bullet was intended to refer to all enemy Comms Attacks, use of the definite article would be grammatically incorrect.

    The argument could be made that the first bullet point says that the hacker evades "all" enemy Comms Attacks, not just the Comms Attacks directed at her. It would follow that the second bullet refers back to the same "all" enemy Comms Attacks. However, I don't find that argument very convincing since we know from the broader Infinity rules that the hacker doesn't have to evade all the Comms Attacks made during the order. She only has to evade the ones targeted at her. So it seems pretty clear to me that the first bullet refers only to Comms Attacks aimed at the hacker, in which case the definite article in the second bullet also refers to only those particular Comms Attacks.

    In short, while the intention isn't 100% certain, I don't think it's a mere inference to conclude that the -3 mod only applies to f2f rolls involving the hacker. Rather, it's a conclusion reached by giving the bullet points their plainest meaning in light of the grammar used.
     
  7. Hachiman Taro

    Hachiman Taro Inverted gadfly

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2018
    Messages:
    1,089
    Likes Received:
    1,991
    If we're arguing semantics, it is an inference, because it is not explicit. The use of a definite article doesn't change that, if it is not explicit what the definite article is referring to. You infer that from the grammar (and I agree you're probably right).

    The only things that are explicit are things which are directly said - in this case 'the enemy comms attacks'. To be explicitly 'the enemy comms attacks referred to in the last bullet point directly above' it would need to say exactly that.

    That doesn't mean a correct inference is less correct though. And I think you're probably right. It'd just be nicer if it were explicitly confirmed.

    Since we agree on that important part, let's not argue more semantics ;). Hopefully our conclusion gets confirmed or contradicted for more perfect clarity :)
     
    #7 Hachiman Taro, Apr 12, 2021
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2021
  8. QueensGambit

    QueensGambit Chickenbot herder

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2019
    Messages:
    2,213
    Likes Received:
    3,456
    Also from Wikipedia: "Explicit refers to something that is specific, clear, or detailed."

    In this case, the second bullet point specifically and clearly refers to the Comms Attacks referenced in the first bullet point, since the grammar used admits to no other possible meaning. It's an explicit reference.

    You're right that we don't need to keep arguing semantics :-) I just get a little weary of the "let's criticize CB's writing" game. If we're going to point out every single time the rules aren't clear, let's at least acknowledge the times they are clear.
     
    Mahtamori likes this.
  9. Hachiman Taro

    Hachiman Taro Inverted gadfly

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2018
    Messages:
    1,089
    Likes Received:
    1,991
    It's not clear though, because I wasn't sure when reading it, and other people I asked who are very familiar with the rules weren't sure either, hence why I asked here. Particularly since the syntax of the sentence is reminiscent of a slightly rough spanish - english translation ('spanglish') which the game has a history of.

    Secondly 'the enemy comms attacks' actually explicitly means 'the enemy comms attacks', literally. i.e., Comms attacks from the enemy, which includes all of them. That's what it's clear and detailed enough to mean, because that's what it literally says.

    That is not incorrect grammar, and doesn't 'admit no other meaning' than a different meaning to what it actually says. In fact taken literally it has a different meaning than the one you (and I) fairly inferred. It's just slightly odd syntax in the context, which allows the inference.

    Have my answer for now though, thanks.
     
  • About Us

    We are a company founded in 2001 in Cangas (Spain), and devoted to design and manufacture games and figures. Our main product, Infinity the Game, was born with the ambition to satisfy the most demanding audience, offering the best quality.

     

    Why are we here?

     

    Because we are, first and foremost, players.

  • Quick Navigation

    Open the Quick Navigation