Obvious Inaccessible Focus

[Tonio]

Is an Obvious Inaccessible Focus obviously inaccessible? I understand that the "Obvious" and "Inaccessible" parts aren't there to modify each other (it's Obvious because it's clear to an observer that the power needs the focus to work; it's Inaccessible because you can't Grab it in combat, etc.). But is it obvious that the focus is inaccessible? Is it obvious at first sight, or only after Grab attempts fail?

For example, a magic sword defined as HKA, OIF, Inaccessible because it can't be disarmed, but still a Focus because it can be removed out of combat, it can be given away, left at home, etc. Would that be a valid Inaccessible Focus, or does the fact that it can't be disarmed need to be obvious to observers?

[Steve Long]

That would be a valid Inaccessible Focus if the GM agrees that it's valid. "Valid" and "rules-legal" aren't necessarily the same thing. But I can point to a number of examples of OIF weapons in books that are so defined because they teleport back to the user if he's Disarmed, or which aren't even Foci at all for similar reasons.

To the meat of the question: the obviousness of Inaccessibility depends on special effects. Most Inaccessible Foci are obviously Inaccessible by their nature: rings, armor, and so on. Others, like swords that teleport back to the user, are not. However, that doesn't change the value of the Limitation.