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

Does Boost make a Dodge ARO legal?

Discussion in 'Rules' started by Nimlothautle, Nov 24, 2020.

  1. Nimlothautle

    Nimlothautle Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2018
    Messages:
    82
    Likes Received:
    105
    I have put a perimeter weapon near an enemy hackable trooper (EHT for short). That EHT is in ZoC of control of my repeater and I have a hacker on the other side of the board. Below is how I think it works:

    • I spend my order to activate my hacker and declare move.
    • The EHT has no legal ARO at this point, although one may be declared
    • I announce my second short skill is oblivion targeting the EHT
    • The only legal ARO the EHT can declare is reset and if they do, my perimeter weapon will boost into them. (they can also do nothing and the perimeter weapon won't trigger, but lets assume they don't want to for this example)
    • They could also Declare dodge, fearing the perimeter weapon, as can any other model on the table**, but since they are not in ZoC of my hacker this will become idle in the step 5 when legality of non-LOF ARO's is checked. My Oblivion and Perimeter Weapon boost would then be unopposed
    Because of the timing of Boost I don't think anything gives the EHT a legal dodge, but that's why I have come to you the rules forum. Note that the example changes slightly if the EHT is a hacker themselves, but not by much, they just gain the ability to declare a hack and earlier in the steps of an order, but the outcome is largely the same regarding the boost.

    **See discussion of declaring dodge with anyone whenever you like here:
    https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threads/hidden-deployment-and-idle.37961/

    However the above is not really that relevant if dodge is legalized by the perimeter weapon.

    Perimeter Weapons/Boost: https://infinitythewiki.com/Perimeter_Weapons
    RESET: https://infinitythewiki.com/Reset
    Dodge: https://infinitythewiki.com/Dodge
     
    #1 Nimlothautle, Nov 24, 2020
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2020
  2. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    6,040
    Likes Received:
    7,177
    If Reset is a valid ARO then Dodge is a valid ARO.

    From Trooper Activation:
    "The ARO declarations of the Reactive Player’s Troopers are considered valid in the following situations:
    [...]
    It is affected by a Template Weapon, or is the target of a Hacking Program or other Comms Attack."

    The Requirements for a Reactive Dodge is "has a valid ARO".

    From Dodge:
    "In the Reactive Turn, they have a valid ARO."

    So if you're targetted by a Hacking Program you can opt to Dodge instead of Reset, regardless of whether or not there is a Boost involved.
     
    #2 inane.imp, Nov 25, 2020
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2020
  3. Nimlothautle

    Nimlothautle Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2018
    Messages:
    82
    Likes Received:
    105
    I don't think this is correct. My hacker is not in ZoC of the EHT so if I never declare a hacking attack against them, then they have no Valid AROS. Reset only becomes Valid because it's specifically stated you can Reset in response to a hacking attack. Dodge allows no such requirement:
    upload_2020-11-24_19-26-31.png
    upload_2020-11-24_19-27-1.png

    I added links to the three wiki pages to my original post for ease of discussion.
     
    #3 Nimlothautle, Nov 25, 2020
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2020
  4. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    6,040
    Likes Received:
    7,177
    https://infinitythewiki.com/Trooper_Activation

    (emphasis mine)

    That plus third bullet of the Dodge requirements (which you posted above) means that Dodge is a valid ARO when a Trooper is the target of a Hacking Program or other Comms Attack.
     
    Nimlothautle and OrphanOfToast like this.
  5. Nimlothautle

    Nimlothautle Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2018
    Messages:
    82
    Likes Received:
    105
    @inane.imp It seems almost pointlessly redundant of Corvus Belli to say that Template Weapons, Hacking Programs and Comms attacks make an ARO valid, but then Dodge and Reset repeat only some of those entries. However, you make a good point that Rules as written you can Dodge any hacking attack and Reset against any template weapon regardless of any other requirement being met. This has big implications for guided attack, since a heavily armored unit could take a reset over a dodge to end the stream of incoming missiles.

    This seems like a big gap between rules as intended vs rules as written, because its unlikely the Template and Hacking/Comms attack 'requirements' are functioning as reminder text.
     
    OrphanOfToast likes this.
  6. OrphanOfToast

    OrphanOfToast Heated Bread

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2018
    Messages:
    46
    Likes Received:
    75
    To build on this: let’s say a hacker activates with your model in zone of control of thier repeater and in zone of control of a perimeter weapon. You declare dodge and the hacker does not end up hacking you.

    Would you idle and get hit with the perimeter weapon unopposed since you ended up not being the target of a hacking program or would the dodge become valid due to the perimeter weapon triggering?
     
  7. Nimlothautle

    Nimlothautle Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2018
    Messages:
    82
    Likes Received:
    105
  8. Nimlothautle

    Nimlothautle Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2018
    Messages:
    82
    Likes Received:
    105
    You would probably never declare dodge "accidentally" because you would only really declare your ARO after being hacked, so this would not come up. You would just wait until I declared I was hacking you to dodge. Otherwise you have no obligation to declare anything since I am not even remotely in your LOF or ZoC, and you are not a hacker, so you will not lose out on not declaring an ARO.
     
    wes-o-matic likes this.
  9. OrphanOfToast

    OrphanOfToast Heated Bread

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2018
    Messages:
    46
    Likes Received:
    75
    Sorry I should have specified: this would be with a hacker. So for example, a mad trap is pinning down your hollow man HD and an enemy killer hacker activates while you are in zone of control of their repeater. Would the dodge be legal if you end up not being a target of a hacking program from the killer hacker or would it revert to an idle, taking the hit unopposed.
     
    #9 OrphanOfToast, Nov 25, 2020
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2020
  10. toadchild

    toadchild Premeasure

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    4,262
    Likes Received:
    8,073
    If you're in the hacking area and are a hacker, you have a legal ARO, so it looks like you could dodge.
     
    Teslarod, inane.imp and OrphanOfToast like this.
  11. Nimlothautle

    Nimlothautle Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2018
    Messages:
    82
    Likes Received:
    105
    In that case yes, you would idle, because nothing else is happening to give you a valid ARO and you are required to declare an ARO before my second skill or lose the opportunity. You lose the opportunity because you declined to declare before me when you had the option since you are a hacker and I am in your hacking area. If you declare dodge first and I don't Hack you on my second skill, you idle.

    That is unless of course the 'boost' from the perimeter weapon does, but I can't see anything in the rules there that would. Which is the original question that I asked.


    Hacking Area is not listed as in the bullet points for 'valid' aro's nor is it listed as one of the requirements for the skill Dodge. Therefore you cannot declare dodge unless I hack you.
     
    OrphanOfToast likes this.
  12. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    6,040
    Likes Received:
    7,177
    Yes.

    You did not have a valid ARO, so your declaration would become an Idle at Step 5.

    As the OP points while this is legal, it is illadvised: you *should* wait to declare until you've been hacked.

    In gameplay this will come up when a trooper is approximately inside ZOC, as follows:

    Situation: Alice is a Nomad Hacker. Bob is clearly inside ZOC of a Koala and Charlie - who is a Moran.

    1.2 Alice Moves to 8.1" away from Bob
    2. Bob's player declares Dodge because they think that Alice is inside Bob's ZOC.
    3. Alice declares Move
    4. No further AROs
    5. ZOC is measured, it's discovered that Bob's ARO was invalid. The Koala is found to be inside ZOC so Boost is triggered.
    6. Resolve the Boost vs Bob

    Re: Hacking Area. You need to apply the Provisional Ruling on Hacking Area.

    But it's with pointing out:

    This makes it clear that Hackers are permitted to react to react to enemy actions inside their Hacking Area without LOF, ergo their ARO declaration are valid - IAW the general ARO rule - and Dodge's requirements are met.

    Now I fully admit that a the final answer on how Hacking Area AROs work may explicitly constrain a trooper to Hacking Program AROs and Reset (indeed the provisional ruling can be read that way) but I find it MUCH cleaner to read "Hacker" as being one of those skills referred to by the third bullet of the ARO rule.
     
    #12 inane.imp, Nov 25, 2020
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2020
    Nimlothautle likes this.
  13. Nimlothautle

    Nimlothautle Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2018
    Messages:
    82
    Likes Received:
    105
    I think the provisional ruling reinforces the idea that the intent was originally for the bullet points 1 and 2 to provide validity, but 3 and 4 were to cover special cases like dodging templates or reset/hacking program. "hacker" giving you valid reset and hacking program AROs, and then using that to claim bullet 3 to make other aro's valid is a really complicated and backhanded way for them to make dodging valid.

    That is the rules as written, but that's pretty badly written and unintuitive. In the same way that Reset reading, via transposition, "In the Reactive Turn, [It is affected by a Template Weapon, or is the target of a Hacking Program or other Comms Attack], or are targeted by a Hacking Program or other Comms Attack." is badly written.
     
  14. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    6,040
    Likes Received:
    7,177
    So I think CB had 2 separate intentions:

    First, to make Dodge or Reset in ARO universal options because there a several edge cases where if you can force the wrong ARO you can force normal rolls, and CB tries to avoid situations where you can force normal rolls with no agency on the Reactive player.*

    Second, to allow Hackers to ARO vs enemies that activate in their Hacking Area.

    The awkward way those rules interact is an emergent property of those two intentions interacting.

    The wording in Reset is simply a copy editing error where the awkwardness of the transposition you highlight was missed.

    * Even in the case of a Wildcat Hacker within Smoke inside ZOC the reactive player gets to choose whether they eat the Flamethrower or the Hacking Program on a normal roll by choosing to Dodge or Reset.
     
    Nimlothautle likes this.
  15. Nimlothautle

    Nimlothautle Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2018
    Messages:
    82
    Likes Received:
    105
    Thanks for your replies as I come to grips with this (to me) weirdness. It just all seems so strange to me, why bother to differentiate ZoC and Hacking area? If you are allowed to dodge their is functionally no difference? [EDIT: I spotted some very important differences ZoC would allow for deploying perimeter weapons through them or using ZoC weapons like Jammers through them.]

    ALso, EVO hackers have program that lets them use the entire board as a hacking area. Using bullet point 3 an EVO hacker would always have a valid aro to dodge no matter who activated and where? Granted most EVO hackers are weak but I believe there are some armed hackers who could make use of this...
    upload_2020-11-25_9-33-52.png
    https://infinitythewiki.com/Controlled_Jump
     
  16. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    6,040
    Likes Received:
    7,177
    So, to your second point first, Controlled Jump just doesn't really work without further clarificaiton. There's a provisional ruling that explains how it works, the tl;dr is that yes, if you have a valid Controlled Jump ARO you can choose to forgoe it and Dodge instead... the timing is just a little bit weirder.

    I'd actually accept the argument that a Dodge declared before the Combat Jump PH Roll is resolved would be valid even if the Combat Jump Trooper did not land inside the Hacker's Hacking Area. Again, it's a situation where the EVO Hacker had a valid ARO and chose to use it to Dodge. But equally, I can see the argument that the valid ARO granted by 'Controlled Jump' can only be used on 'Controlled Jump' and - given how weird Controlled Jump is - would expect that to be the case.

    https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threa...r-how-does-controlled-jump-work-in-aro.38314/

    As to why to differentiate ZoC and Hacking Area: the distinction still matters. Alert! offers a clear difference: a Hacker may only Alert! in response to events inside the Hacker's ZoC, the Hackers Hacking Area is entirely irrelevant to Alert!.
     
    OrphanOfToast and Nimlothautle like this.
  • 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