@psychoticstorm , could the OP be asked to stop accusing other posters of dishonesty, bad faith, and making rules up as they go along?
Ian spells out quite clearly in this post that except for certain circumstances (LoF Requirements, Silhouette Contact) checking ARO validity at step 5 is the intended and correct interpretation of the N4 rules https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threa...-skill-requirements-cc-aro-baiting-etc.39483/
And here I thought the OP just had a poor grasp of English and was using "honest" instead of "accurate". But wow, being accused of arguing in bad faith for just going with what the words say is a new one. Honestly, I *really* don't understand what's hard to grasp about this one. OTOH I do dislike that a Hacker can't Dodge when someone activates inside their Hacking Area, but that's purely from an elegance POV.
What’s so difficult to understand? Try explaining your thinking to a new player: When their trooper gets hacked you don’t Reset, but Dodge instead. When they look up Dodge skill ARO requirements, you tell them to ignore them. When his Isolated trooper is shot from ZVZ you tell him to Reset if the weapon uses template and telling him to ignoring the Reset skill ARO requirements. How about you Reset against hacking attacks and Dodge against templates?
You tell a new player that Dodge and Reset can be declared Speculatively as their requirements aren't checked until step 5 (Edit: 6) of the OES. Why would you tell them to ignore the requirements.
Because there is no mention of hacking attacks in Dodge requirements and no mention of template attacks in Reset? The “valid ARO” obviously refers to enemy movement in ZoC or LoF.
A trooper affected by a template weapon has a valid ARO https://infinitythewiki.com/Trooper_Activation#ARO:_Automatic_Reaction_Order
*Step 6 for checking Requirements. But, as to Tannan's point, I don't say to ignore them I say: "For an ARO to function you need to make three checks. First, immediately prior to declaration, you check to see whether you're allowed to declare the skill you want or any skill at all. You're not Immobilised or anything like that, so you're permitted to declare Dodge / Reset. Then after all AROs have been declared you check whether you got a valid ARO. Being hit by a Template or being targeted by a Comms Attack is a condition of your ARO being valid, so you have a valid ARO. Since your ARO was valid you then check whether you meet the Requirements of the skill. But, basically, in Reactive, you meet the Requirements of a Dodge or Reset ARO anytime you have a valid ARO at all. Which means that your Dodge / Reset will work, if it didn't it would become an Idle. I know that seems like a lot, but it'll become intuitive as we play it through."
@colbrook like I have said many times, I don’t think that template or hacking attack validate all AROs. Template attack only validates Dodge because that’s said in Dodge requirements. Hacking attack only validates Reset because that’s said in Reset requirements. I mean why write those specific requirements in Dodge and Reset requirements if they don’t mean anything? They even wrote “valid ARO or Hacking attack...” in Reset requirements.
They're redundant. They make it obvious that you can respond to a Hacking Attack with Reset or a Template with Dodge even if you don't have an intimate knowledge of what makes an ARO valid and don't think to check Trooper Activation. That is, the make the most common use case explicit and easy to understand even if you're a naive player. That doesn't mean they prevent the more exotic plays.
I think this is simply a gameplay balance concession. If Hackers were allowed to Dodge whenever an enemy activates in their Hacking Area, you'd be largely unable to stop them from repositioning all the time unless you were activating a hacker of your own - meanwhile, since a non-Hacker trooper do not have any Hacking skills they'd be unable to use this same advantage. It makes little sense from a symmetry point of view, but it makes all of the sense from a game balance perspective to do it like that.
What I do not understand is why the discussion needs to be so hostile. there are a few reasons why from one perspective one would not want hackers to do anything else except hacking and reset when using the extended hacking only ZoC that is a repeater network, there is also a reason why one would want to allow a targeted state model, or an immobilized-B state model (or a model in both such states) to be able to have the option to not dodge the attack, but reset to get rid of the state and not sit idle while been shelled to oblivion without any reaction.
@psychoticstorm I think you nailed it. It's one thing to read the rules and try to decipher the designer's intent. It's another to want an interpretation that is clearly against designer's intent. Like someone here is seriously thinking that CB intended that hacking programs should be dodged and template* attack reset against? * Shotgun direct template totally resettable, but non-template shotgun isn't? Really?
Could you please stop accusing people of wanting a particular outcome. Nobody in this thread except you is talking about what outcome they would prefer. We're just pointing out what the rules appear to pretty obviously say, regardless of what any of us might like. If you disagree, you can say so politely. The endless accusations are completely unproductive, and rude.
Yes I do seriously think that was a known and understood consequence of the way the rules were written. I thought I'd made that fairly clear. That is also, incidentally, the way I want the rules to work because I really don't want to have to explain that "no, where the rules say you only need a valid ARO to Dodge / Reset it ACTUALLY means you need a particular type of valid ARO". That means that I want the way the rules to work to be the way the rules say they work, which also, incidentally, is the least tactically painful way to play the game. That's not bad faith. Even if one assumes that I held position prior to reading the rules and interpreted them in a way that supported my impression (as you have done) that's also not bad faith: it's only bad faith if you make that argument in a dishonest manner, for instance by making as hominens by accusing your interlocutory of dishonesty (as you have done). Which is to say, I am saying that you are arguing in bad faith. This doesn't mean that your argument is wrong (it is wrong on its own merits) but it does mean that you are acting in a toxic manner. @psychoticstorm the conversation didn't need to be so hostile. That phrasing implies that there was a lack of agency in it becoming hostile. It gives no support to the people to whom the hostility is directed and provides no feeling of justice. It is, in short, a fucking cop out.
@Tanan i'm not sure if maybe you are missing something. You can Dodge against an Haking Attack. You can Reset against a Template Attack. You can. But you DO NOT EVADE the resulting attack. You do it to remove effects (Reset) or to get into a better position (Dodge) if you survive the attack.
You seem awfully sure that you know the designers' intents... Have you considered that maybe the one who "want(s) an interpretation that is clearly against the designer's intent" is you?
Follow the Order Expenditure Sequence, step by step, and remember that 'having a valid ARO' and 'fulfilling the Requirements of a Skill' are two concepts, and are checked separately. In sequence: At some point in steps 1-4, your Reactive Trooper thinks they get an ARO, and declares a Skill. In the ARO Check step, you check if they were in one of the four situations that makes an ARO valid: An enemy Trooper activates within its Line of Fire (LoF). An enemy Trooper activates within its Zone of Control (ZoC). It has a Special Skill, weapon, or piece of Equipment allowing it to react to enemy actions without LoF. It is affected by a Template Weapon, or is the target of a Hacking Program or other Comms Attack. Note that Skill Requirements are not mentioned in the list of situations, or in the ARO Check step. If the ARO is valid, in the Resolution step* you check if the Requirements of the declared Skill are fulfilled. *With the FAQ and interim ruling exceptions for LoF and Silhouette Contact Requirements. But that's still separate from the ARO check.
