An Engineer is affected by one or more states, but not immobilized. The Engineer is standing in a spot where an enemy may ARO using a weapon that causes states (Hacking Device, Akrylate-Kanone, Blitzen, etc). The Engineer declares the use of the Engineer skill with the intent of cancelling states, the opponent declares an attack with one of the above mentioned weapons. If both are successful, what effect applies first? Selection of potential answers I can think of; A: The Engineer's effect applies first, clearing the old states but leaving the new state, because... B: Neither applies first, due to All at Once, and it will be resolved as... C: The attacker's effect applies first, resulting in the Engineer clearing both old and new states, because... D: Using the sequence dictated by Dodge; the active player's effect applies first and then the reactive player E: Using the established custom from Doctor; the Engineer effect and the new state will cancel each other out, leaving only the old states in place. [Potentially a legacy custom] F: Active player decides or similar house rule because there is no real answer G: Here's how it works... H: Here's a link to a thread you missed... Z: Here's a link to a rowdy WGC Facebook argument...
Doesn't Engineer, because of All At Once, cancel all states on the affected model during the entirety of that Order? So, the enemy model would affect the target with the State, but Engie would cancel all of them anyway.
But states aren't removed for the entire order, or you'd have some quantum stuff happen if you remove Immobilized to a target that's in base to base with an enemy trooper. The enemy trooper have LOF until the effects step when all their AROs become Idle retroactively after their results have been tallied?
I have no idea what you're trying to convey here, mate. Please explain? Also, if I Move + <Engineer> when are the States removed then, if not at the resolution of the entire Order? I can remove the States from any of the models I touched during the Move path, so yeah, I'd say "I remove States for the entirety of the Order". Ergo, any ARO to that Move + Engineer declaration that result in States are also removed - unless they are States that begin only in the States phase?
Best guess: When you declare Engineer to remove states, you specify your target and implicitly you’re declaring an attempt to remove the states that are actually on that target, consisting of specific states rather than the concept of states in the abstract. For example, you’d declare that you’re using Engineer to remove ISO and Targeted since those are the states affecting the target; for playability you just declare you’re trying to remove whatever states are eligible, but if a target isn’t IMM your declaration logically can’t imply you’re removing an IMM state that isn’t there. So B, and because the Engineer skill declaration didn’t encompass the incoming new state, it is applied. If it was the same as a state that was included (for example, the Engineer was removing IMM-A and the ARO would apply IMM-A) then the state won’t be applied at all due to All At Once and not being subject to a given state twice at the same time — you can’t ISO a troop that’s already ISO.
While that seems fair without context, I'd say you typically want to remove a specific state and the enemy will attempt to apply that self-same state; e.g. a HI Engineer will attempt to remove ISO from themselves while the hacker that caused it will probably attempt to re-apply it, meaning the Engineer will have defaulted to essentially failing. This means that this way of handling it isn't entirely neutral, but rather favours the reactive trooper over the active.
If it is not stated otherwise, skills apply their effect in the point 6.1 of the Order expenditure sequence https://infinitythewiki.com/Trooper_Activation In the same step you apply a state and remove all states. Flip it as many time as you want, for me it removes all states.
So, do you mean the engineer's effect happens after the attacker's effect? Though reading the effects passage you quote closer, it seems the Engineer's effect is applied prior to saving rolls are made...
Don't think so. In that step you apply effects and take Saving Rolls. It's the same step. You rolled for skills at step 6 (both Engineer roll and whatever opponent). Then you take your Saving Roll and apply effects of everything. It's the same step, there is no way you apply one effect before the other.
If it's a Reset vs hacking, It succeeds in clearing everything, so I don't see why the engineering test wouldn't do the same.
Because a Reset is a Face to Face versus the hacking attempt, it will prevent the Hacking program from taking effect. Engineer will not prevent the Hacking program from taking effect because they are two normal rolls.
If things are applied simultaneously, it might help to split the options apart and analyze them separately rather than trying to infer a non-existent order of operations. Example: A Squalo is in IMM-A, and a Machinist Moves into contact with the Squalo. An Authorized Bounty Hunter nearby declares ARO BS Attack with an Akrylat-Kanone. The Machinist declares Engineer to remove IMM-A from the Squalo. A - Both Fail: Squalo ends in IMM-A. ABH is out a use of the A-K. B - Engineer Fails, ABH Succeeds: The ABH has wasted the effort since the state can't be applied twice, it's redundant. C - ABH Fails, Engineer Succeeds: IMM-A is removed from the Squalo. D - Both Succeed: Combine the effect of the ABH succeeding (the state can't be applied twice) and the Engineer succeeding (IMM-A is removed from the Squalo). The alternative to D would be that the ABH successfully applies IMM-A to the Squalo if and only if the Engineer also succeeds, which is logically weird given that we're talking about two Normal rolls, not a Face to Face roll.
Leaving aside that your example is not legal (the ABHs can't ARO vs the Squallo), I don't see why you can't cause multiple activations of the same state. If 2 ABHs both succeeded they'd both activate the IMM-A state on the Squallo. However, since the state is binary the result is simple: the state is activated and applied. The same happens in B: the state is activated. This results in no change, but the trigger still occurs. So D is actually: Combine the effects of the ABH succeeding (the state is activated) with the Engineer (the state is cancelled). This results in the state simultaneously being applied and removed. Which is also the experience of *different* states: An Isolated Engineer is hit by an EM weapon an fails their BTS save. What states do they end up with? Your logic at D would have the Isolated state cancelled (it can't be applied because it was already applied) but doesn't answer what happens with the IMM-B state: indeed it implies that the IMM-B would activate and therefore would be applied.
If it helps, replace the ABH with A-K in my original example with a Zeta using a Heavy Riotstopper that hits both Machinist and Squalo. I don't think you're parsing my logic quite right, but it may be my wording at fault? As a clarification: Not having an effect due to redundancy isn't the same thing as cancellation. If it helps, one could think of it as "applied, but having no effect due to redundancy." You get to the point of confirming that if the target was not already in the state, it would enter that state...but since it's already in that state nothing further happens and you stop because the effect is resolved. Meanwhile the Engineer's process completes resolution, and the state token is removed. Breaking it down: The target is hit by a state-inducing attack (let's say ISO) while it is already ISO. The target fails the save and will be put into ISO. The target is already in ISO. Stop processing the effect of the attack, it's resolved now as no further change is possible. An alternate version for applying a second, different state: The target is hit by an ISO-inducing attack while IMM-A. The target fails the save and will be put into ISO. The target is not already in ISO and is eligible to enter that state. ISO is applied alongside IMM-A. This isn't a RAW sequence, but if you made a flowchart showing how to ascertain the effect of a state-inducing attack it'd need to go through those decision points, and the one I'm concerned with is basically "Is the target already affected by this State? If yes, STOP, no further action is needed." The question of whether Engineer removes every applicable state including new ones applied after Engineer was declared, or whether you 'lock in' the target states when you declare Engineer (so new ones would be applied since they weren't targeted by Engineer in the first place) is IMO the trickier one, because RAW you cancel all the states that are eligible with a single Short Skill, but it's plausible that RAI is for only already-applied state tokens to be removed. Personally, I think that RAI is for the Engineer to remove extant State tokens, but for new ones that are not already present to be added simultaneously and not eligible for removal by the Engineer. The effect of a duplicated state being removed would be an artifact of states being binary and simultaneous resolution, and is not the fault of the Engineer—if the Engineer weren't involved, the new state would be redundant and therefore ineffectual anyway. The better play without the Engineer would have been to do something that caused a different state that could be applied, and failure to do that is likewise not the Engineer's fault. Reasoning: Using Engineer to remove states requires a Normal roll. Two normal rolls should have independently resolved effects, generally. If Engineer removes all applicable state tokens, including any that are applied simultaneously, that gives Engineer the ability to neutralize the effect of an ARO without making a face to face roll, which is significant. That's not a problem when the ARO would just duplicate an already-applied state, since the state-duplicative ARO effect wouldn't result in a game state change absent the Engineer skill declaration anyway. A successful use of Engineer simultaneous to a state-duplicating ARO has impact that's either neutral (the state-duplicative ARO accomplishes null regardless of the success or failure of Engineer) or makes the ARO more useful than it would have been (immediately re-applying a removed state is definitionally more useful than a null change to game state), and the idea that Engineer should improve the efficacy of an enemy ARO if successful is silly. Is that clearer?
Yes - you've applied an order of operations. Otherwise for a new state you hit the problem that the new state is both activated and cancelled at the same time. Something must take precedence to resolve that. Ultimately this is yet another "what's the order of operations for resolving step 6?" question.
Guys, there is no need. You can add 16569785300054 iteration of the same or different states during the same order, but if a skill says REMOVE, you remove. It's like filling a bucket without bottom. No matter how much water you drop in, it will end empty.
Only if you apply the cancellation after activation. You can't simultaneously activate and cancel the same thing. There logically needs to be an order.
A, B and C are uninteresting. Forget that they exist. That applies to @tox as well. I'm asking how situation D works. Effects are applied at the same time. If the hostile effect is prioritized, the target will end up with that effect and all others cleared. If the beneficial effect is prioritized, as Tox suggests, the target will end up with all effects including the new one removed. Neither of these are consistent with both effects being applied at the same time with no priority as is the rule. However, you can't apply both at the same time because that is logically impossible. So I'm asking if there is a clear case in the rules that dictate which effect will trump the other, or if there is a known ruling on it. During N3 we basically had a work-around to the issue given how Doctor and damage worked, but during N4 this has changed (MacHaon doctoring himself while getting hit by a Shock round will result in MacHaon being dead, whereas in N3 this would leave MacHaon remain in NWI state). Not that the Doctor FAQ was entirely applicable, but we also had significantly fewer HI Engineers. As a more practical example that might illustrate what I mean and might show where I think Tox is missing the point; Haidao Engineer is ISO and Spotlighted. Haidao has one Irregular order and is free to act. 1. Haidao declares Move, moving out of Repeater range. 2. Danavas declares Oblivion, targeting the spot where the Haidao started. 3. Haidao declares Engineer, targeting themselves. 4. No further AROs 5. Danavas confirms that the Haidao is indeed a Heavy Infantry, validating Oblivion declaration, Haidao confirms that their silhouette is in contact with itself. 6. Measurements show the Haidao was inside Repeater range, rolls are made and both roll a 4, both are success since these are normal rolls. 6.1. Applying effects, the Haidao rolls a save and rolls a 4, which is a failure. The Haidao removes ISO and Spotlight and at the exact same time the Danavas applies ISO. 6.2. Haidao makes a Guts Roll, rolls a 4, fails and goes prone because they can no improve cover and is already out of the Hacking Area. Is the Haidao Spotlighter? No, 99% certain they are not. Is the Haidao ISO or not? I have no f* clue because it was removed and applied simultaneously. If this was a computer program this would result in a race condition if two different threads were resolving them, or it would resolve in alphabetical order, or it would resolve in the order the skills were declared in, or something.
