1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Is CB aware of the requirements to declare Reset?

Discussion in '[Archived]: N3 Rules' started by Hecaton, May 1, 2019.

Tags:
  1. daszul

    daszul Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2018
    Messages:
    732
    Likes Received:
    876
    Regarding hacking, the Hacking Area is the hacker's Zone of Control.
    Where is the problem?
     
  2. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    7,205
    Likes Received:
    6,535
    Sure, but it's not like CB presents the FAQ as the work of one particular person when it's released - I would hope it's the result of a team effort.

    It might also indicate that they don't quite understand the nature of the problem; if you play fast and loose with order declaration/requirements in your normal course of play it might be opaque to you.

    I think I am; you yourself say that CB may not be aware of the requirements for Reset by assuming that people can just Reset in that circumstance. It seems like it *is* the right question to ask, the other good decisions they made (LoF) in that errata notwithstanding.
     
    meikyoushisui likes this.
  3. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    6,040
    Likes Received:
    7,177
    Cool, so a Hacker can delay the use of Hacking Programs with SSL1 anywhere in their Hacking Area?

    But seriously:
    Because
    A. it's only treated as their ZOC for Hacking Programs
    B. Reset isn't a Hacking Program
    C. A TAG inside a Hacking Area isn't a Hacker so doesn't get to ARO with Reset unless they have been targeted by a Hacking Program
     
    Hecaton likes this.
  4. toadchild

    toadchild Premeasure

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    4,262
    Likes Received:
    8,073
    In the active turn, you can dodge any time you want, no restrictions. In ARO, you can declare dodge any time you have LoF to the active model. You can even dodge against an unrevealed marker instead of holding your reaction or discovering. And if you don't have LoF, you can change facing for any ZoC violation.

    Reset should be more like Dodge/Change Facing. It wasn't obvious at the time that N3 released, but as they've added more special skills and ways to combine them, it's become obvious that this was a mistake.
     
  5. Marduck

    Marduck Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    590
    Likes Received:
    1,306
    I think hecaton is right tonpoito out that in the case of the FAQ (hacker hacked though repeater, not ZoC, with the second action) hé should not be able to reset.

    But the FAQ says it can reset.

    We discussed this FAQ extensively with referees preparing the French satellite and this is our conclusion.

    We can not know for sure that it is intended as a new case of reset by CB, or they just messed up the rules.

    But that trick is so nasty to start with that fogr game balance you should definitly allow a reset in such circumstances.
     
    xagroth, ChoTimberwolf and Wolf like this.
  6. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    12,018
    Likes Received:
    15,302
    The FAQ doesn't say the reactive trooper can Reset, the FAQ says this interaction will not interfere with the effects of Reset with regards to the Stealth trooper.

    Please also note that the FAQ talks about Change Facing and that you certainly can't declare if an opponent activates in hacking area (edit: outside your normal Zone of Control).

    Edit: it's essentially not a permission to do X, it's a clarification that it doesn't revoke permission to do X if you had one.
     
    #26 Mahtamori, May 2, 2019
    Last edited: May 2, 2019
    BLOODGOD, inane.imp and Hecaton like this.
  7. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    6,040
    Likes Received:
    7,177
    Completely agree with your point, but pedantic aside:

    I'd argue that, in the active turn, you can't Dodge if you don't have LOF to an enemy or have not been hit by a template weapon. However, Dodging in active when you don't have LOF to an enemy trooper and haven't been hit by by a template is effectively an Idle declaration. So it's largely meaningless.

    The requirements for Dodge are:
    "The user must be able to draw LoF to the attacker."

    The FAQ opens this up a little but not entirely:
    "Q: Can you declare a Dodge ARO even if the Order generating that reaction does not include an Attack?
    A: Yes."

    This is usually read as also applying to the active as not requiring you to be subject to an attack prior to declaring Dodge. Basically, it means that the requirements of Dodge is read as ""The user must be able to draw LoF to an enemy. In reactive, that enemy must be active."

    Being hit by a template isn't listed as a requirement of Dodge, rather it's buried deeper I the rules:

    "Dodging Template Weapons

    Template Weapons can be Dodged with a PHRoll.

    A trooper may attempt to Dodge a TemplateWeapon without LoF to the attacker, by passing a PH-3 Roll.

    The Template of a Deployable Weapon can also be Dodged by passing a PH-3 Roll."

    So together the actual requirements for Dodge are:

    * The user must be able to draw LoF to an enemy. In reactive, that enemy must be active.
    * Or the user must have been hit by a Template Weapon.
     
  8. toadchild

    toadchild Premeasure

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    4,262
    Likes Received:
    8,073
    It's off topic for this thread but I do actually think that's an interesting discussion point. It could be relevant if you're within ZoC of a Chasseur as a camo marker (SSL1 + LFT).
     
  9. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    7,205
    Likes Received:
    6,535
    Dodge is one of the actions you're allowed to take vs. Camo markers though.
     
    toadchild likes this.
  10. toadchild

    toadchild Premeasure

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    4,262
    Likes Received:
    8,073
    I guess it's a philosophical difference. To me what matters most is getting players on the same page that there is an issue and it could (or should, even) be fixed. If something is widely acknowledged and discussed then CB will naturally be aware of it and can see what the impact is and what people are trying to do to prevent it from causing a negative play experience, which is why I was referencing the LoF stuff as an example.

    To wit: getting shot in the back from the front and not being allowed to ARO sucks, and is the sort of thing that, if widespread, can lead to players quitting out of frustration. I think the current mixed stealth hacking shenanigans have very similar potential to cause unnecessarily frustrating situations where players feel like they're being beaten by cheap tricks rather than actual tactics.

    Another interesting comparison is forced ZoC AROs, as those are also frustrating to some players. However, between Change Facing, Reset, Alert, Guts, etc., CB has given defensive players a lot of tools. My takeaway is that certain scenarios are pretty rough to be on the receiving end of (assault hacker behind a hackable model, in ZoC with LoF to it), but it probably means you made a positioning error and you have some options to try and get in a position for FtF rolls on subsequent orders.
     
    Savnock likes this.
  11. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    6,040
    Likes Received:
    7,177
    Yeah, I'm using enemy to mean 'either as a marker or model', so there's not really any circumstances where Dodge is useful but not allowed (except - as is clearly intended - where you don't have LOF, which is what Change Facing is for). IE. You're within LOF to the Camo Marker that delayed with SSL1 so Dodge is valid.

    This is the issue with Reset: there are situations where declaring it would be useful but it isn't valid and these don't appear to be intentional.
     
    Section9, Hecaton and toadchild like this.
  12. Solar

    Solar Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2017
    Messages:
    3,006
    Likes Received:
    5,384
    You should just always be able to Reset basically, and that would make life easier. Because you know that there is more potential bullshit here. Jammers in links, for one (which I think three factions can do with spec ops?) You move into my linked Jammer radius, I delay my ARO because SSL2. You can't Reset. You declare anything, I dunno, Deploy Potato. I declare the Jammer attack and it's unopposed.
     
  13. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    7,205
    Likes Received:
    6,535
    "Jammers are fine guys just Reset."
     
    xagroth and theradrussian like this.
  14. Savnock

    Savnock Nerfherder

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2017
    Messages:
    1,555
    Likes Received:
    2,620
    Linked Jammers are one of the dumbest things that has ever hit the game, and I say that with Mutts and Symbiomates in mind even. Linked Jammers totally, totally break the game.

    Other than the two things mentioned above, I haven't thought anything in N3 really sucked, but linked Jammers are a terrible design choice.

    It means Pan O and Haqq will be nightmares to face in any tourney with a SpecOps rule (ie Interplanetario).
     
    xagroth and theradrussian like this.
  15. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    7,205
    Likes Received:
    6,535
    Gonna love it with the +3 WIP and Burst 2 from being in a core fireteam too...

    Bioimmunity Devas are going to be a thing too.
     
  16. Savnock

    Savnock Nerfherder

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2017
    Messages:
    1,555
    Likes Received:
    2,620
    Oh jesus. +1 B applies there, and Haqq guys will be WIP 17. Yeah, that's broken.

    I can take a Bioimmunity Deva. But linked Jammers are an abomination. I'm going to have to add LGL to every list for Interplanetario and spend as many orders as it takes to blast the little bugger off the table, even with SSL2 on him.
     
  17. Berjiz

    Berjiz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2018
    Messages:
    49
    Likes Received:
    47
    18 if you spend 2xp on +1 WIP
     
  18. Solar

    Solar Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2017
    Messages:
    3,006
    Likes Received:
    5,384
    Beware, they can take a Holoprojector L1 as well. You won't know which one is which!
     
  19. Savnock

    Savnock Nerfherder

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2017
    Messages:
    1,555
    Likes Received:
    2,620
    Goddamnit. This is a hell of an oversight, and how this got through playtesting I have no idea.

    Basically Haqq get an I Win Button that you can't even eliminate before they use it if you are lucky enough to get first turn (in addition to Muttawiah) and Pan O get a guy you have to LGL off the table with 5-6 orders (including getting into range) or they have an I Win Button too.

    This is going to really suck at Interplanetario.

    It makes me not want to play with the SpecOps rules ever (unless the TO is willing to ban linked Jammers and the Haqq/Pan O players are honest enough to admit that it's broken and not protest that ban). Which sucks, because everything else looks pretty balanced.
     
  20. psychoticstorm

    psychoticstorm Aleph's rogue child
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2017
    Messages:
    5,888
    Likes Received:
    11,261
    LGL are frankly not so bad, Staro does it easier,more efficient and deadlier and nobody complained, Specops.... yes...
     
  • About Us

    We are a company founded in 2001 in Cangas (Spain), and devoted to design and manufacture games and figures. Our main product, Infinity the Game, was born with the ambition to satisfy the most demanding audience, offering the best quality.

     

    Why are we here?

     

    Because we are, first and foremost, players.

  • Quick Navigation

    Open the Quick Navigation