Do we have a currently rulling regarding possible "exploit" of combination of multiple activation (CO or Link, sync) of non stealth (or repeater) trooper to utilize stealthed hacker attack at enemy hacker who in turn can only reset ? (Hac Tao, and repeater drone gets CO activation, Hac Tao uses stealth, to stand in place, drone with repeater advances into ZoC of enemy hacker, enemy hacker can only reset (he has not LoF at HacTao) or hack/shoot drone, Hac Tao declares a hacking attack at poor enemy hacker) (bonus points if you do that with a drone giving him option to be auto IMM xD) (i'ts not a new problem, I just want to know if it had been somehow solved in last time)
First, you need an EVO for hacking in coordinated orders. Second, the target hacker cannot do a Reset, because he is not fulfilling the requirements, he could do a dodge, alert or shoot against the drone... then the Hactao will hack him without giving option to reset. So the combo costed 8 pts (cheaper remote, who also can IMM2 in melee), plus 25pts + 0.5 SWC from the EVO, plus the 67 points from the KHD Hack Tao (since the AHD would do little damage to the enemy hacker...). Congrats, you blew 0.5SWC and 100 points into removing a single enemy hacker, potentially losing the remote with his order ^^
Blah blah, I've just gave another example. If you want to do that cost efficiently throw a Fersen and Magister in a link.
You can always reset on reactive, check rules. (by always rules mean that if someone acts in your ZoC)
Yea, forgot Reset is always possible in ARO. Anyway, the combo is even less broken because of the enemy being able to Reset. Let's take a ninja KHD (or pheasant hacker) and a kuangshi, in a coordinated order. Expose the Kuangshi while the pheasant is in ZoC of the target. If the target Resets, assuming a hack, then the Kuangshi fires the Chain rifle or the pistol, while the hacker does nothing. And if he fires against the Kuangshi, then hack -a- ton XD
Is this even an "exploit" that needs ruled on? I always thought this was just clever uses of coordinated orders.
What's the exploit? I dont see any exploit in OP or anything that need a "ruling". So far you only described legal scenarios.
There is a big discussion if being part of the activation also directly means you can be a valid target of ARO even in situation where you weren't the guy who actually triggered the ARO (while yourself being part of activation). It all boils down to exact interpretation of "stealth" rules. And yes this is "gamy" as hell (same as "cfs" in someones ZoC while being in smoke).
The only confusion/disagreement I am aware of is if a group of units can create an ARO for a Stealth one. For example: Unidrons with Umbra Legate Hacker in fireteam. Hacker is out of LoF, but in ZOC of another hacker. Unidron's generate ARO, but last I paid attention to the conversation, that ARO isn't explicitly linked to the Unidrons and some claim to be able to use it on anyone activated in the order, regardless of stealth.
As @Hecaton indicated, that's no different than the situation in the OP. Replace link team with coordinated order, replace ZoC with Hacking Area (due to repeater moving with said CO).
No, there’s a loud and vocal minority who disagrees with the rules of the actual game, that or they refuse to acknowledge these 3 bullet points. Other than that, there’re no “big discussions” about this subject, nor is this “gamy”, what ever that means.
You know writing "shut up dude, you are imaging problems" takes much less words to write... (make a query among your meta and check how many answers will you get)
Should it not be clear enough that @ijw decided to post that there was not official ruling either way that the various interpretations of the rules are valid enough to require one?
I played several games recently were people thought you couldn’t dodge to prone state, what does that prove? Different answers means what exactly? Why would an anecdote prove anything? No? It just means that CB haven’t commented on what a loud minority perceive to be a problem.
I mean, he could have just come on here and told us how it should be as he tends to do with decidedly less controversial rulings or misconceptions to rules.
No offence here, I don’t know what you think he is but he isn’t representing CB, even if he was/is paid by them. I also think you misunderstand when he comments on something, being controversial has nothing to do with it, it’s mostly when he knows the ruling because people from CB literally have sat down and explicitly explained the intent behind certain rulings, such as guts rolls and other rules.
