HI Stealth Fireteam vs Hacker ARO

If you read the general rule for how ARO generation works you'll find that the rules for single models are worded very similarly, so no - as long as you don't disable Stealth for the Knights, they will be able to sneak past a non-Sixth Sense Hacker without LOF.

 

You are misreading the second rule.

The Fireteam rule is pointing out that all models trigger AROs, not just the team leader.

Since all models in the team have stealth, they all benefit from stealth.

 

I have a similar question to this.
The situation is as following:
I move a mixed fire team with a KHD Santiago and Order Sergeants within ZOC, not LOF, of an assault hacker. Is the assault hacker forced to react to the Order Sergeants, giving me a normal roll hacking attack against the assault hacker with my Santiago?

 

That's a rather divisive topic; how Stealth works in mixed unit orders.

As far as I can tell there are 3 major ways of interpreting it (my preferred one last):
1. Yes, Santiago's Stealth prevents the AHD from AROing against it and forces ZoC ARO against the OS.
2. No, you can't use Stealth at all if you're moving a trooper who can't use Stealth since everyone has to use the same skills.
3. No, Stealth only prevents ARO generation. The OS will generate an ARO and the AHD can then declare a hacking attack against the Santiago since Santiago is a legal target for ex Basilisk

 

Rereading the Fireteams in the active turn state bit in the first post of this topic, I think option 3 is correct as well. The Order Sergeant triggers an ARO for the fireteam as a whole, the Santiago does not, but like you said, is a legal target for a hack ARO.

Thanks!

 

I think the point of contention is that while a valid target for an ARO is "a model activated by the Order to which you are ARO'ing" some players would prefer if models that don't grant ARO should be excluded from the pool of possible targets. Which is point 1.

I never heard of point 2, but is an interesting argument.

 

Has there ever been any rules/FAQ/IJW support for anything but #3? I'm not sure we need to be giving extra airtime/text space to "I wish it worked this way" opinions.

 

No. As far as rules, FAQ or rulings by IJW go, it's not possible to distinguish which of these three are supposed to be the intended answer.

IJW has shared his opinion however, and as I recall it he would like it to work as in option 2.

 

I'm actually not interested in the intention at this point. The rules as they are written support #3 as far as I know.

 

Indeed, it is never possible with the rules to distinguish the intended answer. RAI is only possible with IJW or FAQs, and even then, FAQs don't always give intention, which would be applicable to other case, but only give specific exception in specific cases (and/or rule modification for specific rules).

 

#3 is how I've always insisted it be played, despite frequently running into very knowledgeable people who disagree with it.

It would be grand if a kindly warcor would add this to the request list for an FAQ, because to me, it's 100% in the rules as written that the hacker can hack the Santiago. I do ackowledge that the majority consensus is that this isn't the intended outcome, though... and that's what we have FAQs for!

As an aside, if we're going to speak for @ijw let's do him the courtesy of an @tag so he gets a notification and can speak for himself. :)

 

It's already on the list of Warcor-requested FAQs and on my personal list of requested FAQs.

 

Could you (you and/or Warcors) just throw there Impetues + Smoke question (attack label) ? Just for the sake of rule consistency and cleaning up.