I have to say it again, having the skill is not a requirement to be in a camouflaged or impersonation state and not a requirement for cancellation hence a hacker with Cybermask can be in Imp2 state, someone with Limited camouflage be can be in camouflage state.
You might notice this: Automatic Skills Automatic Skills are those that can be employed without expending an Order or ARO. Consequently, these Skills do not require a Roll. ARO Skills ARO Skills are those that Troopers may perform as an ARO. Deployment Skills Deployment Skills are those used during the Deployment Phase. These Skills must observe the usual Deployment rules except when otherwise stated. Entire Order Skills To declare one of these Skills, the user must expend one Entire Order. These Skills can only be declared in Active Turn. Short Movement Skills To declare one of these Skills, the user must expend one Short Movement Skill. Short Skills To declare one of these Skills, the user must expend one Short Skill. I'm going to leave it to you to find the part where you're gonna get the missing Skill attachment from. That simply isn't in the rules and thus interpretation. I really wish there was a Recamo Skill, I really do. But there just technically isn't. There also is the alternative approach of claiming "Recamo" means you're defaulting to Idle (technically Idle+Idle). Since "Recamo" is not labeled a Skill but expends and entire Order, the 2nd last clause of Idle triggers. Whenever a trooper that received an Order in the Active Turn chooses not to perform an action with one of the two Short Skills of that Order, that trooper is considered to declare Idle. As Idle is a Short Movement Skill and doesn't require a Roll, it is legal to declare as a Marker. So if Camo doesn't turn off TO Camo you could again stack them. TL:DR 1. We agree that TO and Camo States can't be active on the same trooper. 2. The equivalent clause to this one During the game, allows the user to be in the Camouflaged state. Should be consistent through all Marker States but unfortunately isn't. 3. We are in disagreement If it is possible or impossible to voluntarily turn off the Camo States via disabling the Camo Skills. You have noted Impersonation would not work then because the Skill doesn't require you to and I agree. At this point I'd like to point out that the Activation conditions for Impersonation are incomplete. IMP-2 State has no Activation Condition outside of deployment, yet it can be entered directly via Cybermask. Albeit not a State, Fireteams can be broken with Exile, this isn't listed under the Cancellation Conditions. Delaying ARO breaks Hidden Deployment state though, so there is at least one Cancellation Condition for a State that isn't mentioned in the State itself. This suggests there might be cancellation conditions missing for other Marker States. What I can't dismiss is that there is a written clause inside Camo and TO Camo that is unique to those Skills allowing the trooper to be in Camo/TO Marker State. If the same clause was in Impersonation Cybermask wouldn't work so there is that. In general, States do not need to be allowed by having a certain Skill Active - Unconscious etc. However in the case of Camo this would make sense to prevent stacking them. Then there is the questionmark of Inferior Camouflage - which doesn't grant any other levels of Camo and thus doesn't need the clause. I'm very uncertain what is wrong and what is right atm. All I can say is that something doesn't fit.
http://infinitythewiki.com/en/Structure_of_an_Order Entire Order Skills (or just Entire Order for short): These Skills employ one whole Order and cannot combine in any way. My emphasis in red. So, to repeat, activating the Camouflaged State will cancel the TO Camouflaged State, and vice-versa. There is no way to be in both States at once.
Each functionality that breaks a way to enter a state or cancel a state is extremely clear. Cybermask has no ambiguity on what is supposed to happen. And we must be very careful to restrict implied enter or exit criteria as that leads to a very slippery slope of why cant i enter it when i want to or exit an unfavorable state when desired as well.
An answer that is old, out of date, conflicts with all of the written rules, and is about to disappear into thin air.
Old being determined by who Out of date being determined by who And conflicting? Only in the sense that its not directly listed in the cancelation clauses of an optional labled skill. Palanka/cb employee ruling is the rulikg unless and FAQ deliberately over turns it. And that hasnt happenend
I have. Im not seeing any posts that supercede a previously answered question by palanka. The idea that it wasnt in the faq is certainly not a yardstick. Theres a long history of palanka ruling not making it into the faq. Because they have already answered the question
OK, did you miss this? Because an old ruling on a platform that is about to be shut down and can't be cited is very rapidly going to become non-existent. And I'm really curious as to why you will say that your entire meta follows IJW's interpretations as a standing rule, but you will happily ignore him when you don't like what he says.
No i did not. I replied directly to it. IjW for all that he is good is not cb and cb has always trumped IJW. As to the meta weve always been clear on that argument of hierarchy. And that is official cb statements trump ijw. Which is what we have here. So stop misrepresenting us thanks.
An official statement that is going to stop existing shortly. That is the crux of the problem with relying on it.
thats a silly argument, all that requires is one poster to step up and compile them in a new thread. Hell I may do it myself this weekend when I have downtime in the lab
Which will then be an unofficial collection of supposed answers that has no evidence of previously existing if you can't link back to it. I'm not sure why this concept is not making sense?
Well yes. But that doesn't actually stop it a) existing b) having been made. And it's not the only one of its type. I think everyone would prefer for Palanka's clarifications to have all been included (or clearly rejected) by FAQ. Or for there to be a system for actually making that ruling formal before the old forums disappear. But instead we have seemingly @ijw arguing that you can benefit from the effects of 2 NFB skills simultaneously because the only way I can reconcile his answers is that you remain in the TO state after going 'I'm going to use Camo to give me -3 to be hit'. @Palanka's ruling is by FAR the simplest way to play this. Needlessly arguing that 'it'll probably disappear' so we need to interpret how optional NFB mods affect states previously granted by optional NFB skills is just pointlessly complicated. Going 'Yes Turning off optional skills turns off the associated state' is soo much easier. And for reference you point out that a ruling that had this effect used to exist, pointing to all these threads quoting it as evidence. It's not like anyone actually thinks that being allowed to voluntarily drop marker states is game breakingly OP?
It is entirely situational and mostly a disadvantage in most cases but has its tactical advantage. Point is it is not in the rules and if it is not in the rules an obscure post in an old site is not the way to go, it is not about the game you play its about the game the customers play and if it is not written in the rulebook it needs to go into FAQ, not many has the time to dig the forums for such obscure answers.
Like most arguments I get into, I really don't care much which way the ruling goes as long as there is clarity to the answer as to how it is meant to be played. All of these uncertainties need to be folded into a proper official source at some point or another if we want the Infinity ITS community to be taken seriously and continue to grow. If the removal of a skill turns off states, we would have problems with other rules, such as Cybermask, as has been already pointed out. Your "simple solution" has a cascading effect that needs to be taken into account.
If CB want those rulings to stay valid, it's CB that needs to collate them or update them in some way. I don't understand. If a trooper is in TO Camouflaged State, there is no way for a hit mod to apply. And I'm not arguing that two NFB Skills can be combined, I'm pointing out that States and Skills are not the same thing.
