Mmmm... If a hacker is inside a 5man Fireteam, so has Sixth Sense Lv2, and the DA troop wants to land (explosively, for example), can the hacker Delay ARO, or is still forced to declare Hack Aerotransport because the AD troop is "not inside the Zone of Control"? Furthermore, if the hacker is forced to hack or do nothing, is the hacker forced to drop out of the fireteam or die?
What you all said about an extra ARO phase etc is true but have you guys checked the ARO rules? The Reactive Player must declare AROs for all eligible troopers immediately after the Active Player declares his Entire Order or the first Short Skill of his Order (see: Order Expenditure Sequence). Troopers that fail to do so lose their ARO against that Order. If, by declaring the second Short Skill of its Order, the active trooper gives ARO to enemy troopers that did not have ARO against the first Short Skill, then those enemy troopers can declare their AROs. If a hackable Target walks through my Hacking area towards a corner where it gains LOF I can pick what I want to do. Despite the Target technically entering my Hacking area before it enters LOF, everything happens in the same Short Skill and thus counts as simultaneous for the sake of ARO declaration. It's a bit different here, as there is a timeline - PH roll and potential scatter first, then generation of LOF AROs. However that still happens within the same Long Skill, so even if I don't declare Hack Transport Aircraft, my ARO isn't forfeit since the Order Sequence doesn't progress past the point where that would happen. Activation: The Active Player declares which trooper will activate. Order expenditure: The Active Player removes from the table, or otherwise marks as spent, the Order Marker he uses to activate the trooper. Declaration of the First Skill: The Active Player declares the first Short Skill of the Order, or the Entire Order he wants to use. If movements are declared, the player measures the movement distance and places the trooper at the final point of its movement. Declaration of AROs: The Reactive Player checks which of her troopers can react against the activated trooper, and declares AROs for each of them. If a trooper can declare an ARO but fails to do so, the chance is lost. If movements are declared, the player measures the movement distance and specifies where the trooper would be at the end of its movement. Declaration of the Second Skill: The Active Player declares the second Short Skill of the Order, if applicable. If movements are declared, the player measures the movement distance and places the trooper at the final point of its movement. Declaration of AROs: The Reactive Player can check whether new AROs are available, and declare those. If movements are declared, the player measures the movement distance and specifies where the trooper would be at the end of its movement. Resolution: Players take measurements, determine MODs, and make Rolls. Effects: Players apply all effects of successful Orders or AROs, and make ARM/BTS Rolls. Conclusion: If necessary, players make Guts Rolls and apply their effects. What I am trying to say is that forfeiting an ARO through not declaring one only applies if it's against seperate Short Skills. Otherwise AD wouldn't fit into the Order Expenditure Sequence.
@Teslarod the problem is that combat jump dispersion necessitates checking for AROs after resolution to prevent LoF from degenerating into nonsense. I think that it's a skill that does need to be handled outside of the normal order sequence, or be significantly rewritten. The note about AROs only being based on the final landing position (after potential dispersion) is generally taken to be the line that puts it outside the normal sequence, but it's not as explicit or fleshed out as one might like.
AD doesn't fit into the order expenditure sequence. Palanka posted an alternative sequence for AD. See linked thread above. Admittedly, I think it would probably work better: Combat Jump works as if it had a special timing: 1. Activate the AD trooper. 2. Spend the Order. 3. Declare AD3+ and place the Circular Template / Trooper in intended location. 4. A. The Reactive Player declares any Hack Transport Aircraft ARO. B. Combat Jump roll. C. AROs declaration. 5. N/A 6. N/A 7. Resolution. 8. Effects. 9. Conclusion. Which would allow Hackers (with Shield-1) to declare AROs during step 4 either at A or C (if it was clarified that was the intention). This is what I was advocating earlier, but isn't congruent with the Palanka ruling so isn't the rules at this time.
Yeah and my point would be that not taking that ARO for Hack Landing Transport doesn't forfeit the ARO for i.e. a BS Attack. Because the forfeit part should only apply during normal Order Sequence.
AD jumps already have special rules due to overriding crit-crit mechanic of F2F rolls Jump Vs Hack. (AD guy counts as sucessful)
Ergo, hackers inside Fireteams get expelled or killed outright if the AD trooper with Explode LvX falls on their head. Is that working as intended?
If the exploding dude falls in the fireteam, it's a "the hacker gets out or dies" as rules are atm...
And only if the Hack Transport fails to stop the AD trooper from landing where intended. Buffed Liu Xing vs 0 Alguacile-quality hacker: 75% Buffed Liu Xing vs 1 Alguacile-quality hacker: 66% Buffed Liu Xing vs 2 Alguacile-quality hacker: 58.8% Liu Xing vs 0 Alguacile-quality hacker: 60% Liu Xing vs 1 Alguacile-quality hacker: 51.8% Liu Xing vs 2 Alguacile-quality hacker: 45.3% As a note the assumed Dam 13 Shock template has 65% chance of killing a Wound 1, ARM 1 unit who doesn't dodge. This means the combined chance for a Liu Xing to kill a specific Hacker is 33.7% in the assumed case of there being only 1 normal Hacker and 1 EVO Hacker supporting the Liu Xing.
There's something up with your maths. 16% is awfully low. 65% of 66%* is ~42%. That's assuming only one enemy hacker (66% odds to land) and if land 65% odds of wounding. It's a rare list that runs more than 1 set of Shield-1 programs, so I'm only going to assume 1. The point though, is you're better off not using Hack Transport Aircraft. An Alg Hacker who does nothing only dies 48% of the time (65% of 75%). Almost anything else is going to be more useful than ~6% increased odds of survival. * I'm fairly certain 66% is low anyway, because that's what I get in this simulation: http://inf-dice.ghostlords.com/n3/?...otlight&p2.hack_b=1&p2.cover=3&p2.misc_mod=+6
@inane.imp yes. See the edited message. Figured out while you were typing I had used only half the calculation for either-or happening instead of just simply adding two successes together. 33% is more accurate
This is entirely incorrect. An Alg hacker who does nothing will not increase chance of survival because it will not affect the resulting ARM roll from the explosion nor will it decrease risk of Liu Xing landing. Hack Transport is similar to an N2 dodge (it's at -6 and if you win the FTF the grenade misses your friends as well) (Except it's only -3 for many normal hackers because PH 10, WIP 13 is the norm for many of them)
I still don't get how you're at 33%. Would you mind showing your working? It's >66% to stick the jump. 66% is low, because draws go to the AD, but it's good enough for for an estimate. 65% of successful jumps wound, so ~42% of jumps wound. I'll rephrase, because my previous was awkward: in a 1V1 situation (the most likely scenario), if you had another choice, an Alg Hacker would be better off doing almost anything other than Hack Transport Aircraft. Hack Transport Aircraft only increases their chances of survival by ~6%.and the chances of dispersion by <11%. Gotcha is the obvious example, with a 35% chance of stoping the rampage. Engage or Dodge are also both good options, particularly in the case of Engage if we instead consider an EVO (due to Electric Pulse doing an extremely good job of preventing additional action). If he's hitting all your friends, then yes a +11% chance of him not hitting your friends is decent.
I honestly think that's just an overly literal reading of HTA. It's supposed to push with someone dropping in; by definition, if you tie a FtF roll, both players fail.
That was my assumption as well when N3 came out, but... http://infinitythewiki.com/en/Hack_Transport_Aircraft Q: What happens when the Face to Face roll for Airborne Deployment vs Hack Transport Aircraft results in a tie? A: As stated in the Hacking Program, the Hacker needs to win the roll to apply the effects of the Program. So, in the case of a tie, the Program doesn’t have any effect at all.
Technically this doesn't overrule what I said, depending on how you read it. HTA does "nothing," but the roll to stick the landing still fails. I see this as like the Shock/NWI ruling, just more of an edge case. If they really wanted it that way, just make it a WIP -7 roll.
Causing the jump to fail and dispersion to occur isn't "nothing". There's really only one way to read that FAQ.
It doesn't say it overrides the core Face to Face rules. It's someone trying to make a special exception and failing.
