Lets say you have a Liu Xing (AD & explode LX) dropping next to a regular hacker. Can the hacker declare a dodge or BS attack? The hacker has Hack Transport aircraft. So when the LiuXing starts the order before he hits the table, the hacker has an opportunity to to declare the ARO Hack Transport Aircraft, and nothing else. At which time he needs to declare his ARO, and he cannot hold fire since camo is not being used. After the LUI Xing hits the table, non-hackers in range can declare an ARO (dodge or shoot back). But since the Hacker already AROed (or passed) the hacker has no opportunity to declare anything else. Does this logic work, or am I missing something? In game yesterday: my opponent wanted to hack transport with his EVO remote, then declare dodge. After thinking it over I looks like all hackers have this weakness to AD. I want to make sure before I start trying to abuse it.
Nope you haven't missed anything, the hacker can't declare Dodge nor BS Attack if they forfeit Hack Transport Aircraft. You can absolutely not both declare Hack Transport Aircraft and Dodge. Only applies to Hackers with Hack Transport Aircraft ARO; Defensive Hacking Device, White Hacking Device, Hacking Device, Hacking Device Plus. I think that's all. (Until people kick up enough fuss about it, with the way recent FAQs have been going I have a feeling this stupidly weak attack'll get nerfed)
It's not just in relation to explode. This effectively lets all AD troops ignore LOF on hackers* when AD. Also they can't do change facing if you drop behind them letting you get in close with a Boarding shotgun quickly no risk of BS ARO. It makes for easy targets. It also makes AD hackers slightly more interesting since they can drop in zone of control of another hacker and not give up a free attack.I don't think there are any KHD AD profile out there to really abuse it.
About the only thing to do is add a few paragraphs of rules to Hack Transport Aircraft to put the FAQ into the game mechanics and then give serious thought to make the situation even more exceptional by making that ARO not invoke the mandatory forfeit clause if waived. If hackers had two AROs (Hack the transport and their ARO to landing), you’d have way too many overworked hackers. :)
It seems like the easiest way to resolve this would be for the AD order to resolve as: 1) declare entire order skill and pick landing point 2) declare AROs (hackers can then decare shoot or hack transport) 3) resolve AD roll 4) if AD succeeds resolve AROs, if they disperse declare and resolve new AROs Are there any issues people can see with that?
Sure. The big problem: You had an ARO against the AD trooper's original landing point, and now it's no longer valid because it moved behind you. Or the AD trooper was landing behind you in your ZoC so you declared Change Facing. After the AD roll, the AD trooper lands in front of you. Etc. Unless you're trying to describe a situation where EVERYONE gets two AROs against the AD trooper, against both the initial position and the final position. And I'd call the problem with that as self evident.
I'm not sure there is a problem with having an ARO against the initial position and the final position. They're entirely disconnected, it's not like you can game the system with your first ARO to effect the second. The only negated ARO would be that if the hacker chose disrupt combat jump then they wouldn't get a second.
we used to play like that, out of not knowing that it was suppose to be played differently. the problem is models who come out of hidden deployment or camo state or holo state to ARO against the initial landing point when the model then disperse and their ARO is lost and the knowledge of what they are is remembered. That is in addition to models Change Facing when they could have shot. Or model dropping Supp Fire to change face/dodge. That last part can be resolved by allowing after dispertion to not only declare new ARO but redeclare any previous ARO made on assuming a succesfull jump. But it still don't resolve giving away close info knowledge.
AD troopers can fail their PH rolls. Outside interfere just makes that more likely. The problem arises when models have an ARO against both positions, or have different AROs against the two positions. And then there’s Explode. AD trooper with Explode declares initial position A. A bunch of people (including a camo trooper) in the area declare Dodge or Change Facing. AD trooper scatters to position B, those models no longer have AROs. What did you expect the camo trooper to do, now that it’s revealed itself by declaring an invalid ARO?
The camo isn't revealed because in the sequence I wrote the dodge would be resolved after determining if the AD sticks the landing. The only thing I can see so far is hidden deployment declared AROs which is definitely an issue.
This would be like declaring BS Attack when not having LOF. I honestly do not understand why this needs to be "fixed". For nearly all hackers, Hack Transport Aircraft is very similar to Dodge, sometimes even better, and it also has a chance to screw the dropping trooper's attack vector over. So it stops the 1W drop troopers from landing right in front of your hacker, but it should be rare when a table forces you to deploy so vulnerable - not even two sets of starter terrain does that to you. And the Explode LX is terrible. Terrible. Terrible damage. (P.s. several states and several consumables are cancelled/removed on declaration, regardless if the skill becomes illegal and as such an Idle, so that camo would be cancelled)
This. Although I disagree that Explode LX is awful. It's ancillary: as far as I can tell it doesn't really cost much and it's a not awful option but certainly not something to be relied on. Overall it seems balanced.
It doesn't cost much, it seems to be in the 2 to 5 points bracket (it's a bit hard to estimate AD4's cost and how much it costs for quasi-HI), but this is quite a lot considering how much of a trap it is. The fact that camo tokens on their own are better than immune to it (the template will be cancelled before the trooper under the Marker has decided an ARO) even removes a potential use for them as clearing sniper nests. That it's also got clearly below default damage with no special ammo (default in this game is 13 and you can say average is 13 with special ammo) means that when you do get the opportunity to drop on something you'll typically be exposed and your opponent will good chances of making the save. As with many things in Invincible Army it really comes down to costs, and just like Hulang the Liu Xing is too costly to use like you typically use skirmishers. Had Yuan Yuan had Explode LX, it would have been a completely different story because they would have been cheap enough to spam full AVA.
A follow up question on this subject... What happens if the hacker is in a fireteam. Doesn't the entire fireteam need to pass as well if the hacker passes. If they want to declare separate AROs they need the break up when the hacker has to declare thier aro.
The Hacker gets an ARO, if they don't want to risk getting kicked out of the Fireteam they have to forfeit their ARO. The rest of the Fireteam will get their own ARO - or not - depending on where the Liu Xing lands. Should the Hacker declare Hack Transport. Fail/succeed. Liu Xing lands right in front of the Fireteam, and then the rest of the Fireteam declares BS Attack - the Hacker is now in minority ARO and will be kicked out of the Fireteam. And then, if the Fireteam is still active in the next order count phase, be allowed to rejoin it without spending a Command Token.
