Total immunity and normal ammo

Yes, you can choose for Normal as well. "In addition" is not nested behind the prerequisite of being hit by special ammo.

 

That's how we're told to play it, but the rule is not written that way.

There is no indication what it is nested behind. That's an important distinction to make. We can't just arbitrarily decide which prerequisite is relevant and which is not. There is no indication what is excluded from the previous statement. So I'd suggest not excluding anything.

The fact they are split into two separate bullet points also suggests we should apply the new rule to the situation described in the previous bullet. That situation isn't just the first half of the bullet. The situation is one where the trooper is hit by an attack that forces a BTS/ARM save AND is hit by special ammo. The only action we are instructed to take is based on BOTH those conditions. Only then do we treat that situation as being hit by normal ammo.

So "In addition" means, not only do we treat that situation as being normal ammo, we choose what attribute of the two to roll against.

 

The special ammo is inside the effects, not the conditions of this rule:

Condition:

• When suffering a successful Attack—or being affected by any weapon or rule—that forces any ARM or BTS Rolls

Effects:

• the owner is immune to the special effects of the Special Ammunitions, treating them as Normal Ammunition. (if its already normal ammo, nothing happens)
  
• (in addition let it "trigger" under the above condition) players can choose between making an ARM Roll or BTS Roll, choosing the most advantageous for them. (normal ammo forces an ARM roll, so you can change to BTS roll)

 

*sigh* I knew this would happen.

I'm not interested in obsessive destructive analysis and am confident the answer I supplied is correct and allows the reader to carry on with what they're really here for - playing the game.

 

That is incorrect. The Special ammo and what you claim to be the sole condition are BOTH inside the effects. I'm not the one claiming which of those effects is the conditions and which is not. I'm treating those bullet points on their own as appears to be intended.

This is not structured like a normal grammatical sentence. It's not even what I would call normal behavior for how bullet points themselves function.

How would you treat this below?

• When you roll a 1, if it's a blue die, add 2
• In addition, multiple by 5.

Would you honestly not multiple the total by 5 to get 15? So why in this case are people arbitrarily choosing how they apply that second bullet point?

 

Then I suggest only giving the answer they seek without stating how the rules support your answer.

Edit, @Mahtamori Not everyone wants an answer to simply keep playing the game. When I need to ask a question about how something is supposed to be played, I want to know why it's played that way. I want to see where the rules explain this so I can understand and learn how to read the rules better in the future. I also want to be able to explain it to others.

Your explanation doesn't accomplish this because it doesn't fit with my understanding of the English language. I doubt I'm the only one. It's not easy to share those different opinions when we see how those opinions are treated in this forum.

I know plenty of people who just take the answer given and move on. I do this myself on far too many occasions already.

 

At this point, it’s unfortunately a given, and it is wrongfun to dislike it, didn’t you know?

 

Sorry guys, not interested in picking fights. I think that teaching players how to read the rules is better than indoctrinating them, so I make an effort elaborating my points.

The rules are structured like grammatical sentences, and should be read like that. In addition is making the second bullet point dependent on the first bullet point. This is a conditional example that could be in a book (when/if condition, effect) the part that is limiting the effect is the part before the coma, not after it.

This rule could be also be written like this:

However they don't seem to like long bullet points, so they took the second effect and put it in a separate bullet point.

Your example above would be a perfect example of a terrible ambiguous wording. This would be more apropiate.

• When you roll a 1 in a blue dice, add 2 and then multiply the result by 5.

 

@Ogid I don’t believe @Mahtamori’s exasperation was with you.

 

Anyway, to the original poster, I believe you will find that essentially everyone except @Ginrei is in agreement that TI affects normal ammo equally. As you yourself observed, the rule is not perfectly written, but from context it’s fairly clear that all aspects should apply regardless of whether the initial hit was special ammo or normal ammo.

To wit, normal ammo is not stronger against a model with Total Immunity than special ammo.

 

No worries @toadchild
I'm not bothered or anything like that, just wanted to cool it down a bit and make my posture clear. We have had some intense in depth rules threads and didn't want to add more salt XD

About this rule, it is 100% sure this works this way. This is a @ijw response: https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threads/total-immunity-arm-bts-roll-choice.28302/#post-243709 (I can't quote because the thread is locked)

 

Are you sure? There are many bullet points in the rules that sound like they are continuations of the previous bullet.
Dodge:

• Allows the user to make a Face to Face Roll to evade one or more simultaneous enemy Attacks.
• This Face to Face Roll pits the user's PH Attribute against whichever Attribute the attacker uses (BS, CC, PH, WIP...).

Or Stratuscloud:

• A trooper in Stratuscloud state can cancel this state by declaring so, without spending Order or ARO.
• Once this state is cancelled, the player cannot activate it again.

How can you tell when one is or is not a continuation of the other so confidently?

How is that more appropriate when you've changed the analogy? The point is that it is unclear. Clearing it up with different format and wording than the original (to support your interpretation) doesn't refute my point. I'll ask again, what result would you have come to? 15? or something else?

 

I'm not saying the rules are flawless but how they should be read.
In the dodge is talking about the only face to face roll in that rule, so it's pretty clear without needing any nesting; however in this case we want to use the condition of the above bullet point, so we need to link both. The stratuscloud state is probably a mistake that shouldn't be written like that (but we have already beaten that to dead). The 4 bullet point of the effects of stealth is another example of a bad wording (RAW would let you walk into CC in the frontal arc denying any non-engaged ARO) but we know this doesn't work like that.
This rule without nesting and in 2 bullet points would be like this:

However that wording is also very weird because you have the looong condition twice, so they used the most understandable wording for us (condition, effect 1 + effect 2)

The problem is that your analogy is missleading, your "in addition" is throwing a multiplication into an addition, that doesn't have the commutative property so the order is important. In our example the order is clear. And also you are using 2 conditions separated by a comma which is bad wording. This would be more appropiate:

• When you roll a 1 in a blue die, add 2
• In addition, tomato.

So, when you roll a 1 in the blue die, you add 2 and also tomato.

 

I could be wrong but the whole point of having a "requirements" section on special skills is to explain under what circumstances the rule applies. In this case there are no requirements so you check it for every hit and apply the sections that are relevant.

 

Unfortunately that logic doesn't hold for the rest of the rules. I really really wish it did.

 

I can't think of an example where it doesnt. Do you have one I could look at?

 

Let’s endeavor to not get this thread lock as well, eh?

 

That's so adorably old fashioned a thought... didn't you get the memos, about the TPS reports and getting every thread locked?

 

Guys we went this before haven't we? we have.