Because 1 statement by palanka leads to an internally consistent rules set where we can extrapolate interactions across the ruleset. The other idea is a nightmare that leaves me raising the individual interactions of every skill or equipment and flies in the face of years of precedent. And is surely not what is intended to be argues
I am afraid @daboarder that is erogenous logic, the camouflaged state does not benefit from TO camouflage modifiers the model may have because the skill and the state are not the same. You also cannot stack the two states together as per skill rules you may use one level not both at the same time. Now if you worry that the implications are that in a discover+BS attack you discover with a -3 and BS attack at -6 well it is what it is. Now the still unanswered question is if a state can be cancelled like an optional skill.
There has never been an interaction like that in the game ruled that way outside of mimetism+lmtd camo.
Also limited camouflage and no other CH skill and Discovering a IMP2 Bandit and I can probably think of a few more if I really look into it. The precedents are there.
So your saying if a hexa drops out of imp1 to shoots, the opponent shoots back at -6/-9? But if a custodier drops out of Imp1 to shoots, the opponent shoots back at 0/-3? Seriously?
Which is the no? What part do i have incorrect. The custodier or the hexa? Please humour me. Additionally, why does palankas ruling that yes you can. No longer answer the question? With regards to optionally dropping camo
What about Albedo? The Skill which has NFB simply allows you to deploy in the state which as per what you are saying about Camo etc. does not have NFB, no states ever do. Are we to assume a model with Albedo can loot ODD from a panoply and then benefit from both the -6 visual mod and invisibility against MSV units at the same time? edit: In fact, Albedo's NFB will never do anything, since you only ever activate the equipment during deployment, it will never prevent you from using another NFB tool during the actual game based on the "skills and states are different" ruling. Which I think draws the ruling into serious question, surely the RAI isn't "we'll give certain things NFB even though it's entirely meaningless to do so"
Can you list me the reasoning you reached these final modifiers and why? Also it will be a quite a few hours before I answer on the response, sorry in advance.
Could you explain your reasoning? Because that doesn't fit what's being discussed. The Hexa will have to choose between Cybermask or the TO Camouflage Skill because both have NFB. The Custodier will have to choose between Cybermask and the ODD Equipment because both have NFB. This is actually one of the best arguments to link the States and Skills (or Equipment in the case of Albedo).
You said that the Well the he I was under the impression the argument was being made that the marker state does not hace the nfb that the skill has. Hence why storm has said a TO camo model in camo marker state that lsoes camo and gets shot at via discover+bs attack gets shot at -6.
It doesn't, but Cybermask does. And Cybermask is constantly running to keep the IMP State. Which is why Cybermask is a really bad benchmark for talking about the C&H States.
Youve been saying that the state does not NFB with the skill. That a TO model in camo that loses that the camo gets the bs-6 from to in the same order. So a hexa in Imp would get the TO -6 to hit the order it reveals? The -9 was because i wasnt sure about surprise
Then can we just go back to ‘states are a benefit of Skills/Equipment and are therefore covered by the Skill's/Equipment's NFB trait/label’? Then we can just continued to apply Palanka’s ruling and worry about the real issue: all evidence of previous rulings is about to disappear and there doesn’t seem to be a plan to keep them valid.
In which case the issue of Limited Camo together with Mimetism needs to be re-clarified for posterity. I don't think it made it to FAQ (and can't actually remember if Surprise Shot and Mimetism was ruled to work together or not)
Limited Camo has a RAW exception that allows you to combine Mimmetism with the Camo State. It's in the red box IIRC. Which is another argument in favour states being covered by NFB. Re reading the RAW, you're right it does need a clarification. It's clear if you know what it's supposed to mean, but ambiguous if you approach it with a different assumption.
Which is what I've been saying for the past few pages. I really don't care if you can voluntarily cancel a marker state, but if that's true, it needs to be recorded properly.
