The skill is listed on her mounted profile, but not her dismounted one, so presumably when on foot she doesn't have the skill for panoplies (presumably it comes from her ability to carry stuff on her bike). But if she deploys mounted, rolls booty, then dismounts does she keep the gear she gained? For reference, a Kiel-saan has metachemistry on both its symbiont and damaged profiles. Also, I'm assuming that Batard doesn't benefit from Booty due to sharing states.
The skill itself says it is added to the "trooper's gear" and both the mounted and the dismounted profiles for motorcycle troopers are the same trooper. I agree that Kiel-San does muddy the waters Batard doesn't share states nor gear with Carmen.
Ok, thank you. I thought so. Regarding states, what I was thinking of was this: "If any scenario condition or Skill causes the Controller to gain the Impetuous Special Skill, the Controller's Peripherals will also be affected. ... If the player activates a Hacking Program that grants a MOD or State to the Controller (such as, for example, Cybermask), that MOD or State will also be applied to their Peripherals." On that last bullet point, do you think "the player" means "the controlling player"? Or does an enemy Spotlight hack get shared to the Controller of a servant bot? (That could be an interesting risk to using them).
Doesn't synchronized peripherals receive the same states their controllers are in? Eg. If the controller enters the imp state, the peripheral does as well. In a game Carmen was hit with flash, therefore entering the stunned state, which we played applied to batard as well.
No, Peripherals only share states and MODs as a result of Hacking Program activation targeting the Controller - e.g. Cybermask (by the Controller) or Fairy Dust (targeting HI would also apply to a HI Doctor's helper bot).
Looks that way, my bad! I see, thanks. One more side question just before I make a whole thread on it. The controller bring stunned would still prevent attacks because the stunned state disallows "declaration" of attacks right?
Not really; Unlike Fireteams, Peripherals (and Coordinated Orders) do not follow the skills declared by the leader. If the leader is stunned or immobilized, all that will happen in the situation you describe is that the leader would fail the skill if unable to declare it and perform an Idle. In ARO they will gain their own ARO, only limited to declaring the same skills if more than one gain an ARO. Fireteams though... pain in the ass to get the rest of the team to help out in melee because of them doing only what the leader is able to declare... Edit: I did note one thing when double checking my answer about Coordinated Orders; it says "Trooper, a Marker, or a mission objective as a target" so smoke doesn't seem restricted by COs
"Fireteams though... pain in the ass to get the rest of the team to help out in melee because of them doing only what the leader is able to declare..." This is besides the point - mostly because you just don't make the Stunned trooper the Team Leader in this situation - and, I think, wrong or at least misleading. If a Fireteam has an IMM-A trooper, even if that trooper is the Team Leader, you can still declare Reset. Everyone who isn't IMM-A will perform Reset. With multi-trooper activations @ijw has previously made it clear that if at least one trooper is not prevented from declaring it then you can declare it for everyone - anyone who can't perform it will Idle.
You missed the point ;) It's about movement. If the team leader is Engaged or if they are IMM-A, you can not declare Move so none in the Fireteam will be able to Move. This is not the case for Coordinated Orders or Peripherals, if one (even the controller or spearhead) is Engaged, you can still declare Move so that the other troopers can Move.
That's exactly what I'm saying: you can declare Move. The Team Leader doesn't determine what skills can be declared the Fireteam does. It's the same for any group activation: if it's legal for one of the activated troopers then it's legal to declare. This is based on @ijw saying, somewhere I can't find, that if you have a group activation and declaration is legal for any one trooper then they all can declare it. Any that are allowed to declare it themselves will Idle instead. I'm fairly sure that his response was in the context of Peripheral (Servants) but the way it was phrased was deliberately general and also covered Fireteams. Yes, this is more permissive than a strict reading of the rules: which does indicate that Fireteams are constrained by what the Team Leader can declare. It's possible that I'm wrong. Edit: I probably am, the only place I found a similar discussion was in N3 where I was strongly arguing that the rules for Peripherals / Coord and Fireteams on what they're allowed to declare should be the same, but they weren't at the time. @ijw can you fix this please. It's stupid that one set of group activations is handled differently for what you're permitted to declare than another set. A simple "if any trooper in a group activation can declare it, then it's permitted to be declared and any trooper who shouldn't have declared it Idles rather than performing it" would be nice.
Hmm. Would seem to be a loophole that would allow Spotlight to target the connected group. Unless we assume "the player" is referencing the controlling player and not the opponent.
That's my assumption, yeah. The rule would work really weirdly otherwise as IMM-2 from Carbonite would also spread in that case.
