Wasn't trying to make it an exploit. The problem with Overlord is simply that, as long as the TAG doesn't approach one of your Hackers, H+, or AHD, he can use it to rampage against your units and you have to die, lose the tag, or endure until the end of the turn. Assuming you have Command tokens left. The "Exploit" part would be that a single roll determines the fate of the most expensive units on the game, just that.
I think we're using the word in different context then. It seems to me that you are using it like "Exploit the weakness of your enemy". I'm using the term "exploit" as in "That's a rule exploit, it's not meant to work that way".
Weeeeell... "Exploits" are "unintended ways to use the rules/whatever" (videogames). I doubt the intention behind Overlord was to neutralize the most powerful units of the enemy in such a definite way, and the interaction that allows to "one shot" such units with the opponent being able to do nothing is quite the contrary to what the "both players play at all times" core philosophy is about. The interaction with the Falling rules certainly has something to say there, but the core of the problem is that a possessed TAG can do nothing until his owner's next turn. Another way to look at it is that Exploits lasts until the people who can patch it cannot ignore them anymore. Sor, unless it's patched that's the way its played, and the way to "ask" for it to be patched is... to use and abuse it as much as possible XD.
Well I'm confused then, if that's actually the context you apply that word to. Possessed state is VERY much intented, that's the reason the programs exists for it and there's a seperate profile for that state. Which is why these statements makes no sense: "The problem with Overlord is simply that, as long as the TAG doesn't approach one of your Hackers, H+, or AHD, he can use it to rampage against your units and you have to die, lose the tag, or endure until the end of the turn. Assuming you have Command tokens left." This isn't an exploit, this is literally the purpose of that program. "The "Exploit" part would be that a single roll determines the fate of the most expensive units on the game, just that." This isn't an exploit, this isn't exclusively applicable to possession. This can be true of anything! Crit smoke dodge, a lucky roll with T2 ammo, monofilament crits and what not. Furthermore, you're hardly "one shotting" anything. Spending several, if not many, orders to force a powerfull unit to, essentially, commit suicide is not something I would put in the same category as order efficient or "one shot".
Mmm... In my old Magic TG days, it was the difference between Instant and Enchant. All hacking, but Overlord, are Instants, in that even when the effect persists (like Gotcha!) you can't keep hitting that troop, while Overlord/Total control is an enchant, in the sense that ones it has landed, it won't disappear by itself, and the enemy can keep hitting that order. As for the One Hit kill, it's not that you kill the TAG with a single order, but that by Overlording the Enemy TAG you can achieve a strategic objective and the opponent can't do a thing: you want that TAG removed, you can expend orders into climbing that wall and if the enemy fires against it, even better since they are doing your job. Then you get up, fire against whatever you want, and use the last order to jump 1 cm forward and 19 up, thus ensuring at least Damage 20 that will keep happening until the TAG manages an ARM roll. Options for the TAG's owner? None.
Well, compare it to any other CLAW program. The key issue I think is that Overlord and Total Control will completely negate and supplicate an expensive piece. It's not quite like Monofilament crit, because it only functions against one type of trooper and that trooper is the most expensive piece on your opponent's side. The thing with the IMM programs is that they scale in importance, IMM a Weibing and it's a 16-point no big deal, IMM a Guijia and you just stopped the strongest centre-piece of 89 points. The question is why Total Control even needs to exist in such a definite way when significantly less important troopers only have to face IMM-1 as consequence that lasts a maximum of 2 turns. So, I think Xagroth is roughly following my argument against Daboarder - if suicide jumping an 80+ point centre-piece is an exploit, then gaining control a 80+ point centre-piece is an exploit as well. Especially when Exorcism is not an ARO skill and Reset does not work against the POS state. Personally, I'd say that this state is a cool addition, but that simply causing it to last in accordance to the IMM-1 state of Carbonite or Gotcha is a better state of affair, with Exorcism being ARO. That's enough to give you a 1-free order to put the TAG in a very unfavourable position, probably turning its back to important attack pieces, possibly kill some of its friends, but only in very rare circumstances suicide it. It'll still be a very good deal. Plus it means we don't actually need KHDs to be quite as powerful to counteract the total lock-down that TAGs were facing. Because if memory serves, KHD were like the foxes introduced in Australia to control the rampant rabbit population (except they ate both the AHD and all the other HDs as well)...
Options for the TAG owner include having it in your own Hacking Area so that your own Hackers can stop it...
The problem with that is, first, that you not always have a hacker available (dead already, inside enemy hacking area and being targeted by other hackers, you only picked KHD...). Roughly the same as telling "monofilament crit is not that dangerous, you just need to have several template-able troops in a conga between any vector the Speculo can come and the most expensive piece on your list" ;) And we are trying to be constructive here, join us! It's fun, even without cookies ^^
I am trying to be constructive here. Assault Hackers are the single biggest threat and the single biggest protection for a TAG.
I don't think it's really an exploit giving how labour-intensive it is to possess a TAG, assuming perfectly flat conditions (no firewall, no other participants) then even against an interventor the marut stands a good chance of not being possessed. But the hacker requires a lot of setup to pull this off, either getting to the TAG without dying/getting a repeater net set up/etc. What I personally think is a bit guff is how fall damage is calculated. Personally I think that a model shouldn't take fall damage for the first MOV 'chunk' of it's fall. So a 4-4 model falling 4 inches would receive no hurt, but a 4-4 falling 6 would take DAM 10 and so on.
Plus the old standby of having a servant remote in base contact at the end of your turn - as soon as the TAG gets Possessed, it's in Engaged state.
Engage is the only "safe" one... and even then he can just shot at the engaged pair and laughing if he hits the TAG instead... All the others are not present everywhere, or if you can ARO with an IMM-1 then you can ARO with an Overlord of your own XD
Right, so you redefined what you perceive to be an exploit then, it just isn't the case in the actual game. I also don't think that's the reason KHD were introduced. First of all, people brought WAAAAAAAAY more AHD's than what the former forum pretended was reality (while giving the device much undeserved flak), second of all, with so many AHD skirmishers and/or midfield repeaters with HD+ (Nomads), it was possible to etablish hacking dominance, with little to no threat or counter play. This also made matchups against REM heavy armies, but especially HI, really obnoxious for them because Oblivion was such a Toxic ARO to come up against. I've even talked to Polish players and tournament organisers, who told me that they sometimes even considered making a house ruling where they would remove the ARO label on Oblivion because it was such a toxic program, which further exacerbated the downsides of expensive HI units, where it was simply best to just bring order spam, with few hackable units and tons of infiltrators.
Back up, back down, chill out. This isn't a personal attack against you. No, I'm not redefining anything, I'm having problems following what you're writing because you're attributing arguments to the wrong people.
1. Didn’t feel like I was under attack in any way shape or form, my response wasn’t even aggressive. 2. I’m baffled as to why you think I’m attributing anything wrongly here. I responded to Daboarders claim about jump being an exploit and how he based that on a fallacy. Xagroth literally attempts to refute my argument by bringing his own. You somehow claim that now Xagroth is actually arguing against Daboarder and I’m confusing people here? Mate... wat...
For me the real question is. Do you think the jump rules were designed and intended to allow you too consiously wound friendly troops as the reason for declaring jump? If yes then fine. If no then using them as a means of bypassing the restriction on firing on friendly troops is an exploit
Yes. It’s no different than walking in front of a TR bot and declaring Idle as your second short skill. Nothing in this game prevents you from being suicidal.
this game prevents you shooting your own troops. I really dont see jumping to death being different than that
I know i know, it was just to illustrate the kind of effect it would do. The idea is just that if you can't go unconscious by falling then one of the two reasons why you would try to suicide your own troops (easy classified objective) is gone, the other one being to go into retreat ASAP which, to be fair, doesn't happen that often since you have to be absolutely certain that your opponent has no way to get back on his feet. The difference in this case is that your opponent has a word to say in the matter. If he understands what you're trying to do, he can choose to remain idle, or just dodge. It's not just your opponent hopelessly watching you play alone, cheesing your way to victory.
