So, sorry for posting this if someone alredy answer this, but after reading rulebook i saw that repeater become extended zone of hacking, not zone of control for hackers and aro section dosnt tell anything of aro in zone of hacking. So my question is - Does moving or any other actions in repeaters zoc provide aro for hackers? And if provide can you tell me section that i need read about this? Im really lost here. P.S sorry for bad english.
Pg 21 bullet 3. Having a special skills or equipment which allows it to react without LoF. Then pg 60. Hacking devices allow a model to act within their hacking area. If you can ARO is dependent on having a program with the ARO tag.
The first time I read about this I was confused, I couldn't find any clear confirmation that enemy in hacking area actually give you an ARO option. Everyone so used to it that they just call you retarded instead of pointing the clear wording. Even more so, I doublechecked N3 and HSN3 book and it has exactly the same wording. It would be really nice if Hacking Device would just have a red bracket saying "You can declare hacking ARO against targets in hacking area" instead of: "Have a special skill or piece of equipment allowing to react to enemy actions without LoF" -> "Hacking Devices and Hacking Programs act in the users Hacking Area" (and this one is more about range, not ability to declare aro) -> "Hacking Area = Hacker's Zone of Control + Zone of Control of friendly repeaters" -> "Unless otherwise stated, the range of Hacking Programs is always Hackers Hacking Area" -> ARO according to Program's description.
Another hacking ZoC related question: Haven't found in rules and as I understand, now friendly hacker doesn't extend ZoC for other hackers? For example enemy's HI moves in Crocman's (hacker) ZoC, can Fuslier somewhere in DZ also react to HI?
Slightly unrelated but something that came up in an N3 game against me was my opponent claiming that because they’re repeater was in ZOC of my repeater they could ARO my deployment zone hacker with their deployment zone hacker. Was it correct back then I didn’t think so but the question is does it work like that now, I still think it doesn’t but I could be wrong so hence asking the question
That’s what I thought but I couldn’t find the necessary information/example to state my case. Perhaps we could get an example stating this?
