Per the G:sync rules hacking programs that apply a state to the controller of a G:sync also apply that state to the sync trooper: “If the player activates any Hacking Program which provides any MOD or state to the Controller of a G: Synchronized trooper (Cybermask, or Kaleidoscope, for example), then such MOD or state will also be applied to the G: Sychronized trooper” Does this apply to bad states as well? i.e. I maestro Scylla do both her bots also go unconscious? Carbonate a peacemaker does its Auxbot get immobilized? Spotlight a Rasail does its chasksa get targeted?
If you Maestro Scylla, then Scylla's player hasn't activated a hacking program that has resulted in a state. I am less certain of what happens of you Counterstrike Scylla, however, and I do think that Counterstriking a Brain Blast back at Scylla would result in both REM and Scylla going Unconscious.
The player not their player. There is nothing in that which implies that Scylla's opponent isn't 'the player'. So I've always played it that yes Hacking proliferates. Brain blast doesn't apply a MOD or state. It causes damage so wouldn't apply.
Then use any of the Claw programs as example. "The player" not "any player". It is written under the rules for Ghost: Synchronized. Linguistically, nor in the context of the rest of the segment it is written in, it doesn't make any sense for it to refer to any player other than the skill's owning player when it says "the player".
This issue is it's not wrong to mean something other than "the owning player" in that sense: from context you can interpret it as "the player who uses a Hacking program". Yes it's a poor construction but not strictly wrong. It's a literal translation of the Spanish and doesn't seem to have any more thought applied to it. So I'm not sure that we can argue the semantics to that degree of fidelity. Tl:dr I can't determine the intent. But IJW has previously said that the effects of adverse programs propagate. http://www.infinitytheforums.com/forum/index.php?/topic/45268-Cybermasking-G:Sync
That’s seems to answer my initial question. New question I have is if I have a peacemaker plus Auxbot and an enemy hacker moves within zoc and both bots declare reset and the hacker tries to immobilize the peacemaker how does that work? It appears that the auxbot’s roll would be ftf with the hacker, but then if the peacemaker fails and the Auxbot succeeds we have one rule saying the state transfers to the bot and another saying the bot avoids the effects of the hacking attack?
It's basically the same as a Dodge vs a template. The attack still succeeds the secondary target just avoids the effect. That's how I would play it at least.
I'm of an opposite opinion. If it is true that this attack propagates with what is written, then Auxbot's Reset can not affect whether it is immobilized since the rule propagates the state and not the attack. So the Peacemakers roll would save or damn both.
I can see that. I don't think it's 100% clear either way. Partly I'm saying I'd play it that way because (almost inevitably) I'd be the hacker and so I'd be giving my opponent the benefit of the doubt. Although it's worth noting that once IMM-1 a successful Reset by the Auxbot will cancel the state.
Yes, but while I don't think the rule is meant to propagate hostile attacks, for as long as they do it is a similar timing as Explode L1, where the same order's Reset has already had its effect when the IMM-1 is applied, hence Reset would need to happen in a subsequent order.
Explode specifically calls out the timing where g:sync is much less clear. The g:sync rules says the state propagates when a hacker “activates a hacking program” which is not defined in the rules. I think either way you rule the timing reset should work because either you avoid the effects of a hacking attack or you cancel your imm-1 state.
If you play that way I think you'll have to have the Auxbot's IMM-1 be applied regardless of whether the Peacemaker fails or succeeds the roll. The assumption I used was that the Auxbot is only IMM-1 if the Peacemaker is, which means you've already rolled (happens at the same time) and then applied the effects (again, simulatenously and not one-unit-at-a-time). In effect that means you've already applied the Reset effect when the IMM-1 state is placed on the Auxbot and as such the cancellation clause for IMM-1 hasn't triggered because tthe Auxbot wasn't in the state at the time the Auxbot rolled the Reset. So what makes the most sense if you want to play the way where the Auxbot's Reset can prevent IMM-1 is that the hacking attack itself actually propagates meaning that a Kanren AHD declaring Basilisk will be rolling a single full burst that each will be compared separately to the Reset rolls of the Auxbot and the Peacemaker (but only if the target is the Peacemaker since it doesn't propagate the other direction if I'm not mistaken - and the Auxbot doesn't need to be in the Hacking Area) However, I think that we're both far removed from both rules as written and rules as intended at this point and fully i n "It's a house rule but it makes sense this way, okay?" territory.
