Yes (for obvious reasons) and No.
Somehow the combat pillar is exempt from MMI because of contextual differences.
So let us talk about Fudging.
In the broad sense of MMI, per the definition of some posters, I would consider Fudging to form part of MMI.
Surely any attempt to subvert Say Yes or RtD, which Fudging does, will result in an MMI situation.
Given that combat usually involves
secret backstory (the details of the opponent/s), I'm under the belief that unless combat is COMPLETELY transparent the game should be classified as MMI since you will never know if Fudging occurs.
Is seems somewhat hypocritical to exempt the combat pillar from MMI, when so many DM's Fudge (as is evident from Enworld's recent Fudge thread).
Furthermore it is much harder to identify a Fudge as opposed to a Say No.
Most games therefore, under
@chaochou's definition are indeed MMI given that not everything is transparent and therefore fudging is indeed a high possibility.
Ridiculous for sure, but that is the broad definition of MMI that some posters in this thread appear to be comfortable with.
Oh Fudge, what can of worms have I opened up now.