Picture this senario: 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?
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
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.
Yeah, that is a really big problem with the current Reset rules. I really hope this gets addressed in N4.
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.
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.
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.
The stealth model is the only model that activated in ZoC. Remove it and there are no enemies activating in ZoC.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Can‘t say I didn‘t expect this to be the case anyway, I just wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt.