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

Stealth, reset, and coordinated orders.

Discussion in '[Archived]: N3 Rules' started by Spinnaker, Sep 10, 2019.

  1. Spinnaker

    Spinnaker Vanguard Officer

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2018
    Messages:
    175
    Likes Received:
    297
    Picture this senario:
    Untitlesdfgsdfgsdd.png

    The two friendly models have just declared the first short skill of a coordinated order, which was move; The hacker moved into the enemy model's ZoC without entering line of sight, and the model with the gun moved into its line of sight but not its ZoC. If we assume that the enemy model does not have sixth sense, then it now has to declare an ARO. My question is, can it declare reset?

    It looks to me like it should be able to - one of the conditions for declaring reset states:
    and the model with stealth has done this. He does have stealth, but all that stealth does in this case is prevent the model from granting ARO to an enemy model by moving within their ZoC.
    I don't think stealth matters in this senario, as the friendly model in LoF of the enemy is already granting it an ARO, and the stealthed model still fulfills the conditons for allowing the enemy to reset. I suppose that it's also possible to read the stealth ruling as something along the lines of: "this model, when delcaring short movement skills, doesn't fulfill any ARO conditions that require a model inside your ZoC to do something"

    Your thoughts?
     
  2. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    12,018
    Likes Received:
    15,302
    This was a hot topic previously and I agree that without looking at the official answer you are mechanically correct. However, we have an answer in the FAQ:

    If two or more troops, one with Stealth and the other without Stealth, were activated simultaneously within ZC and outside LoF of an enemy, troops without Stealth would granted to the enemy an ARO. Could the ARO be declared against the troops with Stealth?
    No, you can only ARO against the troop without Stealth. This does not prevent you from declaring Change Facing or Reset.​

    It follows that if this FAQ is to be true, in your situation simply replacing the ARO-generating model with one that's in LOF instead of ZOC mustn't make a difference. The enemy model will not be able to target the Friendly Hacker and given the peculiarities of Reset, it can't declare Reset
     
  3. Spinnaker

    Spinnaker Vanguard Officer

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2018
    Messages:
    175
    Likes Received:
    297
    I think I get it, thanks. So my second definition of stealth is correct then?
     
  4. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    12,018
    Likes Received:
    15,302
    Kind of yes, due to the FAQ my take on it is that Stealth means the model will neither generate an ARO nor is it eligible as a target or requirement for a skill, so pretty damned similar from what I can tell.
     
  5. Section9

    Section9 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    6,148
    Likes Received:
    9,666
    Yeah, that is a really big problem with the current Reset rules. I really hope this gets addressed in N4.
     
  6. Machival

    Machival Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2019
    Messages:
    42
    Likes Received:
    52
    However the FAQ specifically say "This does not prevent you from declaring Change Facing or Reset." Reset as well as Change Facing only require that "an enemy declares or carries out an Order inside the Zone of Control of the user." You don't declare either of this skill "against" a specific opponent, it needs no "target", they affect every opponent who attacks you with a BS Attack/Hacking etc.

    The only other requirement I see is, that there is another enemy model granting the ARO. So you couldn't declare change facing if one enemy model without stealth shoots you in the back, while a model with stealth activated in your ZoC.

    If the last sentence of the FAQ didn't have exactly the situation described by the OP in mind, it would serve no purpose at all.
     
  7. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    12,018
    Likes Received:
    15,302
    The answer the FAQ gives is specifically answering the situation when two units activate in ZOC and only one of them has Stealth. It is clarifying that Reset and Change Facing is still available due to the non-Stealth trooper.
     
    Hecaton and ijw like this.
  8. Machival

    Machival Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2019
    Messages:
    42
    Likes Received:
    52
    But nothing in this situation would prevent you from declaring either of these skills. If you remove the model with Stealth from the situation, you could declare them, because the non-Stealth model declares an order within your ZoC. There is no reason to assume that another model with Stealth would change anything, therefore no reason to clarify that you can declare Change Facing/Reset.
     
  9. Sabin76

    Sabin76 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    1,708
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    The stealth model is the only model that activated in ZoC. Remove it and there are no enemies activating in ZoC.
     
    Mahtamori and A Mão Esquerda like this.
  10. ijw

    ijw Ian Wood aka the Wargaming Trader. Rules & Wiki
    Infinity Rules Staff Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,331
    Likes Received:
    14,817
    Exactly. An active trooper in Line of Fire is not enough, by itself, to let you declare Reset. If you’re already in IMM-1 state, but only then.
     
  11. Machival

    Machival Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2019
    Messages:
    42
    Likes Received:
    52
    This was meant as a reply to the situation which Mahtamori described, in which two models activate in ZoC.

    Situation A: Two models declare an order in ZoC of an enemy model. One has Stealth, one has not. There can be no doubt, that the enemy model is allowed to declare Reset/Change Facing because an enemy model without Stealth declared an order inside his ZoC. Therefore there is no need to clarify this in the FAQ.

    Situation B: One model with Stealth declares an order inside ZoC of an enemy model, another one inside LoF but outside of ZoC of the enemy model. There could be doubt if the enemy model is allowed to declare Reset/Change Facing because the model declaring an order inside his ZoC has Stealth. Therefore it would, in my opinion, make sense to assume that the last sentence of the FAQ "This does not prevent you from declaring Change Facing or Reset." states, that in this situation the enemy model is allowed to declare these skills.

    The reason being that in Situation A there is no need for this sentence, but in Situation B there is. Rather than assuming the FAQ to state the obvious, in my opinion, it would make more sense to assume they want to clarify an unclear situation.
     
  12. ijw

    ijw Ian Wood aka the Wargaming Trader. Rules & Wiki
    Infinity Rules Staff Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,331
    Likes Received:
    14,817
    The sentence is there purely as a reminder. Please note that this is not assumption.

    In the OP's described situation, a Reset will not be a legal ARO unless the reactive trooper is already in IMM-1 state, or the non-Stealth trooper is within ZoC.
     
    Machival likes this.
  13. Sabin76

    Sabin76 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    1,708
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Sometimes, that's exactly what they do.
     
  14. Hachiman Taro

    Hachiman Taro Inverted gadfly

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2018
    Messages:
    1,089
    Likes Received:
    1,991
    Bear in mind in the original example that the hacker wont be able to hack the enemy model (unless they also have an EVO repeater, which allows it) and this kind of situation is probably why you can't hack in a coordinated order by default.

    If the two friendly models were linked instead of coordinated though (with the hacker being the link leader), that would change. This is part of what the FAQ entry clarifies I think.
     
  15. Machival

    Machival Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2019
    Messages:
    42
    Likes Received:
    52
    Can‘t say I didn‘t expect this to be the case anyway, I just wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt.
     
  • 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