Controlled Jump is Supportware and troopers can only "benefit from the effects of only one Program with the Supportware Label at a time". So, for the active player, several EVO Hackers with Controlled Jump do not provide a higher bonus, no problem there. But what about when the Reactive player gets involved? a.) The rule prevents the benefit of more than one Supportware, the reactive player's EVO Hackers do not provide a benefit for the landing trooper, it's a drawback, and can thus not only cancel out the opponent's EVO Hacker but overpower it. b.) They simply cancel each other out because they are symmetrical MODs based on the rule <leave a reply with what rule you've spotted to support this> c.) Max one supportware, regardless if friendly or hostile. Apply the latest // first // most beneficial when there is a conflict and I'm basing this on <leave a reply with why> d.) It's meant to be one Supportware per player side, but it doesn't say that at the moment
Controlled Jump supportware is applied to the EVO trooper, not the drop troops. The effect is a +3 MOD or -3 MOD to troopers making combat jump rolls. I think its a poor use of the word benefit, in the sense of gaining something from somewhere else. It should have just been worded as "affected by one Program with the Supportware Label at a time." But most english speakers are allergic to that word, let alone English as a 2nd language. Edit - Although that doesn't entirely resolve the situation where a trooper is affected by EVO's from both sides... So maybe its intended that negative EVO effects can stack, and so there is benefit in having multiple EVO for negging drop troops.
A combat-jumping trooper can receive at most +3 from friendly EVO and -3 from enemy EVO. If both players have EVO running controlled jump, the modifiers cancel. There is no mechanical benefit from trying to have multiple instances of the program up for either player. That’s my reading, but I am not certain which of your letters that maps to.
It would be B. But, I think what mahtamori is getting at is where do you get the "at most -3 from enemy" in the rules?
I could not parse the difference between b and d. Honestly? It’s what makes intuitive sense to me as the most consistent between active / reactive players and therefore what I think is most likely to be intended.
He is. That's the premise of the question. The rules are clear that you can only have 1 instance of a beneficial MOD in this case, but there's no such language for the detrimental aspect of it. So, the question is, if I have multiple EVOs running controlled jump, does the enemy get a -3 for each EVO? If not, what rules are you basing that decision off of?
I asked a while back about stacking the negative mod from surprise attack. Because it does not require the roll to be face to face, i could coordinate to stack the penalty. I feel like the answer to that would apply here. I will see if i can find it. I also didn’t find anything stating you couldn’t stack them.
Yeah, it's about when there's more than 2 EVO Hackers involved. It's also interesting to explore the possibility of when there's two on the Active side involved in case of if the rules are to be applied as cancelling each other out. And I'm a lot more interested in what specific rules people base their perception on than perception itself. I've seen the concept of "MODs of the same type of source cancel each other out or do not stack" sort of deal floating around the forums and I think this comes from reading the visibility zone rules, but haven't found this in other places of the rules, yet people still motivate their rules answers with it. I'm not saying that MODs from the same type of source* never stacking is a bad rule, far from it - it's a very good rule to have to prevent MOD scaling from going bananas*, but I am saying I haven't seen that as a universal rule in print. * Like how in Dungeons and Dragons people could scale for example AC to the heavens so in comes "Deflection" bonuses and "Inspiration" bonuses and while a deflection bonus stacks with an inspiration bonus to the same stat, e.g. two inspirations from two different bard sonds, doesn't which keeps the AC levels relatively sane even when the player have a highly synergistic/buffing party. I have read that thread, I do not think it contains a sufficiently conclusive answer to be applicable to other situations; not least because I don't think Surprise Attack is meant to be applied outside of face to face let alone stack. Honestly, MOD stacking in N4 so far has been the bigger let down. It seems to stack in some places and not stack in others, almost so ad hoc that it's like there's been two teams developing rules and the coordination meetings between the teams never brought MODs up. With mines and martial arts it's face to face only, with Reset and Surprise Attack it seems to be universal, and with Dodge it seems to stack (IMM) except when it doesn't (ZoC). But that's a tangential rant.
Bumping this because reading the other threads didn't give me an answer either. https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threads/controlled-jump-as-aro.37953/ https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threa...r-how-does-controlled-jump-work-in-aro.38314/ https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threads/supportware-interactions.38687/#post-381972 I have Controlled Jump active. My opponent has Controlled Jump active. I declare Combat Jump with a troop. Supportware section in the rules tells us that the troop can only "benefit" from one program at a time. My CJ is active, so we're fine there. But CJ affects opponents - so that makes my opponent's Supportware potentially stack on top of mine. Do we take "benefit from" literally (instead of meaning "affected by"), and thus, the MODs both apply and it's a standard PH roll (my +3 MOD, their -3 MOD)? (Admittedly, this felt like a bigger problem until I realized that you can't end up with several EVO hackers in any army list.) Update: It seems like bullet point 4 for Supportware answers my question: "A Supportware Program is automatically cancelled if the Trooper or Troop Type targeted by the Supportware is targeted by a new Supportware Program". This situation would not arise, because the last CJ declared nullifies the previous CJ declared. (So, don't use CJ while your opponent has an EVO on the table..!)
I just read through this thread to find out how it works and it looks like this is the answer. But there is still technicality with word "benfefit". You mentioned that there is nom big issue becouse you cant have multiple Evo's. Basically any faction can have 2 at a time, and the ones with acces to Scylla can have 3 Evos at a time. IF (and its a big if) negative bonuses in this case stack and exclude beneficial bonuses per Supportware rules then we could end up with -9 PH without any counter other than smashing well hidden Evo's. And this is the job that combat jumpers are actually good at so here we are.
