Yes, when CB changes the phrasing in the rule! Until then, rules as written say that a hacker gets to either declare Hack Transport Aircraft or lose their ARO. It sucks for the hacker, and it still doesn't make the Liu Xing worth taking.
No, the Shock + NWI or Dogged + 2W issue was changed without the wording of the rule changing. Nah, you only have to declare AROs for AD once the final position is determined, as an exception to the normal order resolution sequence, so I think you get a pass on that. The part about losing your chance for an ARO is only really applicable if you are, in general, allowed to declare an ARO after declaration of the Entire Order, and you cannot do that for AD. But then HTA is an exception to an exception. We have two compounded exceptions to general rules and no information for how to resolve them, really. It's unclear.
Yeah, and both ZoC and Shock FAQs were reversed by a new FAQ. You know that the FAQs don't mean "clarification" and that CB are perfectly happy posting erratas as FAQ entries.
So I was writing lists and came up with this and realised, if the hulang had nimbus that might be quite useful. It would allow IA to leverage the burst and order bonus against other sectorials, in a interesting way. otherwise I think it might have a role here deploying a bit deeper as a sort of defence in layers. And could attack of the fire power punches a hole, or counter attack whatever might try slow down the Haris attack. Worst case the hulang presents another threat vector to the two links, which means the opponent might stretch too thin somewhere. There's a few ways the list could be better but I'm keen to try it. Random──────────────────────────────────────────────────10 ZÚYŎNG (Fireteam: Duo, Tactical Awareness) HMG / 2 Breaker Pistols, Knife. (1.5 | 38) ZÚYŎNG (Fireteam: Haris, Tactical Awareness) Combi Rifle + 1 TinBot B (Deflector L2) / 2 Breaker Pistols, Knife. (0.5 | 34) TAI SHENG Mk12, Chain-colt, Stun Grenades / Heavy Pistol, Knife. (0 | 45) ZHANSHI Paramedic (MediKit) Combi Rifle / Pistol, Knife. (0 | 13) ZHANSHI Combi Rifle / Pistol, Knife. (0 | 11) ZHANSHI (Forward Observer) Combi Rifle / Pistol, Knife. (0 | 12) HǍIDÀO (Multispectral Visor L2) MULTI Sniper / Breaker Pistol, Knife. (1.5 | 37) SHÀNG JÍ Heavy Rocket Launcher, Light Shotgun / Pistol, Shock CCW. (2 | 39) Daoying Lieutenant L2 Hacker (Hacking Device) Boarding Shotgun / Breaker Pistol, Knife. (0.5 | 29) HÚLÁNG (Fireteam: Duo) 2 Submachine Gun, E/M Grenades, D-Charges / Pistol, Monofilament CC Weapon, Knife. (0 | 41) 6 SWC | 299 PointsOpen in Infinity Army
That was directed at Hecaton who argued that a certain type of FAQ isn't an errata but a clarification, which I find to be a particularly weak argument coming from another long-in-the-tooth forum member, so he should damned well know that a question-answer can be just as much an errata as an actual rewrite is.
No, that's not what I was arguing. I was arguing that just because IJW says one thing doesn't mean a FAQ won't say another.
You: "Certain FAQ rulings have shown that not to be true." S9: "Yes, when CB changes the phrasing in the rule!" You: "No, the Shock + NWI or Dogged + 2W issue was changed without the wording of the rule changing." Here's what I see as being the problem with your argument; I know what your aim was, which is to show that IJW isn't always right, but the argument you use to try and illustrate this says very literally that sometimes the FAQ contradicts what IJW says. This doesn't mean that CB proved IJW wrong like you claim, because it often means CB has decided to simply put change the way they think the game is meant to be played. As is the case with the double FAQ on Shock. What I mean is, IJW is a very reliable source of information on how the rules are intended to be played. CB might change things, but this does not reduce the validity of what IJW writes. That we can also trust him not to shitpost is a fairly sizeable bonus, wouldn't you say?
To reiterate myself. I understand that some FAQ are more an errata than a FAQ, it has been pointed out and I am aware of the complain and up to an extend I agree a separation could be done. After that I asked what was the ARO question and answer about hackers and combat jump?
Hulang VS Achilles Achilles marked through repeater (2 orders) Dodge on 12s Vs SpecFire on18s 3 E/Mnades went to waste on especulative. Especulative EM grenades has less than 30% chance of success on achiles It's simply better a EM direct template. Specially a zapper that closes you to your target, or an e/mauler that applies a -3 on achilles dodge. E/M grenades on speculative can work on Remote likteams pretty good. Taking them in couples under the template, with a -6 on dodge with their low PH value
The question is, is a hacker capable of declaring Hack Transport Aircraft when an AD trooper declares arrival in a place of Declare HTA or lose anyother AROs? As most of us are reading the rules as written, that answer is "Yes. It sucks to be the hacker, but their opportunity to declare ARO was at the Hack Transport Aircraft stage, so if they refuse to declare there they don't get to declare any ARO."
My point is that while IJW has a relationship with CB, he's not CB, and his extemporaneous forum posts are not official rulings.
Which is the most correct reading, since after all they got a chance for an ARO as soon as AD: Combat Jump was declared.
Well I guess trying to get on topic is foregone. AD doesn't do anything special about disallowing ARO's. It just doesn't normally trigger them until semi resolved. While is not explicitly spelled out how the AD and HTA interaction works. its super clear that the hacker getting TWO aros does not fit the framework of the rules. So you're left with; 1. What IJW said. 2. Fuck, I guess its broken and we'll go home.
So a hacker can declare two AROs to an arriving AD trooper? They get a chance to declare Hack Transport Aircraft at the point the AD trooper declares arrival. I would have thought that we were all on the same page that if you do not declare your ARO when you have the chance, you lose it (barring the Sixth Sense rules about Delay ARO). Then, if the AD trooper is landing within 8" of said hacker, they'd get another ARO? How the hell does that work?
Nah. It definitely disallows AROs at the normal time you would; upon declaration of the entire order, a trooper that has LoF to the position of the AD trooper cannot declare an ARO to, say, shoot. Or 3. HTA has special ARO timing (because it does) and anyone who doesn't take an ARO on declaration can still take it upon resolution of the order.
Obviously not. They'd get to choose. AD has special allowances for when you make AROs in response to it, to the point where I don't think that the "use it or lose it" context for AROs applies; that's written in the context of AROs being taken at the declaration of short skills or entire orders.
Do we really need to derail every frigging topic with things already discussed, FFS? Any long time YJ players, have you ever used a Shikami? Hulang is the same. Apparent lower mobility (loss of C+/SJ but gain of FD2), but far better equipped for close quarter encounters (high burst weapons, E/M grenades, LFT, Mono CCW, D-Charges). It is not a bad profile per se, it has A LOT of competition in the same point cost bracket.
