Absolutely, but as i brought up, forcing a hacker to reset against another hacker is quite op. So are you capable of forcing to delay against a repeater bot in cybermask instead of cybermasked syclla/bit really acceptable?
Actually this doesn’t appear to be true. You don’t get a reset ARO if someone activates in your hacking area (and outside ZoC): https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threads/immobilized-reset-and-hacking-area.1694/#post-25709 Which makes me wonder if your umbra+unidron team activates in my repeater range does my KHD even get an ARO? I can’t reset and I have no hacking programs that can affect the unidrons. Am I forced to Idle and eat normal rolls, or since I have no valid ARO to declare is one even generated?
My question is a devabot repeater in cybermask moves without stealth to within 8" of an enemy hacker. Scylla is within 8" of the devabot but outside 8" of the enemy and not in lof and also in cybermask. The enemy hacker can declare hold against the devabot as its within 8" but cannot declare hold against scylla as she is outside 8" and not in lof. If she declares maestro, she will reveal herself and the bot will reveal itself as well. Because the hacker declared hold against the devabot, they can declare any hacking programs against the bot. The enemy hacker can declare change facing (rather uselessly in this example). Or the enemy hacker can declare reset to be a ftf against scylla. Besides reset, no hacking program from the enemy hacker can be used against scylla as they could never hold against scylla. Is this correct? If so scylla vs an enemy hacker is extremely one sided and unfair.
Not entirely. Delaying an ARO (for Camo and Hiding) doesn’t have any requirement except that you are reacting against a particular trooper (represented by 1-3 markers) and it’s not technically an ARO. It’s basically you saying ‘I’ll use my ARO against the trooper associated with that marker should it reveal and I have a valid ARO’. What happens is as follows (it’s a borderline rules interpretation, but I’d let you have it): 1 and 2. You opponent activates Scylla and her Devabots (which are in a marker state and spends an order) 3. Your opponent moves them to new positions on the table, nothing gains LOF to your Hacker. The Devabot moves inside what looks like 8” and doesn’t use Stealth. 4. You declare that you are reacting to Scyllas marker and are delaying your ARO 5. You opponent declares Maestro with Scylla and all the troopers drop from the Cybermasked state. 6. You declare a Hacking Attack or DHP back. 7. Now you measure and determine mods. Now you discover that Scylla never was inside 8” of your Hacker. But you also check the requirements for your Hackers skill declaration and realise that it was valid. Since you can’t know whether or not you have an ARO to Scylla until Step 7 of the order expenditure sequence, I see no reason why you can’t delay it at step 4. The consequence of doing so is that if you don’t gain a valid ARO against the Marker you delayed against at Step 6, you lose your opportunity to ARO. Where this will bite you in the arse is if your opponent moves the Devabot into LOF of your Hacker at (what turns out to be) 8.1". If you delay vs Scylla's marker (which is out of LOF, ZOC and Hacking Area) then you'd have no legal ARO to declare at step 6 when the Devabot flames you. However, I'll caveate that this turns on a particular interpretation of delaying vs markers that may not be RAI.
Oh, and re: the Umbra Unidron thing. If you don't have a valid ARO, you don't have an ARO. So it's true so long as the Umbra is not a Hacker or the KHD is not Kerr Nau.
You can only declare aro hold against one model. We learned this from the coordinated marker troopers example that say the raicho could only delay against a chosen TO marker. Because the enemy hacker had an aro against the devabot, he can respond to that bot when it reveals. He never had an aro against scylla so could never hold against her. Or is the example "Coordinating Marker troopers" in coordinated orders not as stringent as this thread has discussed?
You can only delay against one marker. I see no reason why it can't be Scylla. At the point that you say 'I delay my ARO against Scylla's marker' it's entirely plausible that you DO have an ARO against that marker. You can't KNOW either way. The consequence is that you can't subsequently react to the Devabot. So the conclusion of those rulings (delay vs markers effectively has a target) still holds true. This would be different if we were delaying due SSL1 where the marker needs to have been inside ZOC at prior to the moment you delayed.
What would happen if it turned out that Scylla wasn't in your ZoC? Wouldn't your Delay become an Idle as it was illegal?
Delaying vs a Camo Marker isn't a skill or a declaration. It's opting not to ARO at step 4 in the hope a valid ARO becomes available against a specific target in step 6. What would happen if a Camo Marker approached you without Stealth on the other side of a Smoke template as part of a co-ordinated order with a Morlock. The Marker appeared to get to approximately 8" and the Morlock was in your LOF, you opted to delay your ARO. It reveals as an Intruder and BS Attacks you, the Morlock throws Smoke. You BS Attack back at the Intruder. It turns out that the Intruder was 8.1" away, was your delay valid?
Yes. Because plausibly you get a ZOC ARO. This doesn't work for SSL1 mind. My understanding is that: Delaying is essentially "I opt not to use the ARO I may or may not have now so that I can use it against that specific target later if one becomes available."
Honestly, that doesn't make sense to me. The way I read Delay is "I would have the opportunity to ARO against that marker state unit, but due to the marker state can choose to delay". You can't Delay an ARO that you do not have. Note that delaying specifically says "when reacting" and there is nothing in the rules that says I can react to something that doesn't grant an ARO.
Yes but you can't know whether you have an ARO or not until you measure. So you can always have a plausible ARO. It also can be read as specifically designed to allow you opt not to ARO vs one Trooper (where you have an unambiguous ARO) IOT retain the option of AROing vs the Marker (where you have an ambiguous ARO): the fact that your opponent is manipulating ZOC and LOF to achieve it should not necessarily change that intent. I am sympathetic to the argument that 'if you don't have an ARO you can't delay it, and if you delay vs a target you didn't have a valid ARO to - at the time you delayed - then you lose your ARO. It's RAW. I just think it's worse than 'if your opponent activates a Marker then you can always react* by delaying an ARO against the trooper associated with that marker'. Which is also RAW. It literally only affects Hackers and Intruders. *note not ARO just' react'. I'm reading 'react' in a broader sense than 'declare ARO': rather I take it to mean 'make a response that changes the game state'. Delaying as I conceive it still does that: it limits you to AROs against the marker you specified. The ARO mechanics vs multiple active troopers are a mess and prone to exploitation. I'd like to see the scope for exploitation minimised as much as possible. I'll be entirely unsurprised when I lose this argument. But I think that resolving it the way I suggest is materially better and not in contradiction to RAW.
When the ZOC is debatable I totally agree that you should be able to delay your ARO, but that is anticipating that you will get an ARO from the unit. In the situation that sparked this though it is entirely possible that Scylla is far enough away to be obviously out of ZOC and not granting an ARO. Given that we know for sure delay is actively choosing who you ARO against as you are declaring that you will be AROing, just opting to wait for the second order before doing so. Your second one is a bit of a stretch to me. But we can disagree there. There are a lot of grey areas with multiple units and AROs for sure. I looked and the delay mechanic is stated a little differently under Impersonation. Perhaps that clears it up. This is much more straightforward than the wording in CH. You can't delay to declare an ARO that you do not have. Even if we take this to be just Impersonation and not for CH it clears up Scylla (or Bit since her and Kiss would give similar possibilities) pretty well.
In that situation I have no idea why you would choose to delay when you should be dodging. :P You chose who to focus your ARO on and gambled wrong. It is lost. More importantly, why is the Morlock throwing more smoke when it should be BS chain Rifling you too?
Because if they were at 7.9" you could flame them. :) And the Impersonation wording still doesn't invalidate delaying any ARO declaration plausibly generated at Step 4 until Step 6. It simply says that you may delay it: it appears to be a universal option to me.
You didn't tell me I had a flamethrower. I'd still try and place it on the Morlock to catch both though. ;) But we have a listing of what have does grant ARO declarations (quoted earlier, having LoF to an activated unit, activating inside ZoC or having a skill or equipment that allows reactions without LoF. Note that last one is specifically tied to the reactive unit in the way it is written). Nothing in the Impersonation or CH delay rules says that you get to bypass that, only that you can delay any declarations you have. I think the key here is "plausibly" Your earlier statements made it seem liek you were claiming you could delay ARO against any marker no matter what, which doesn't seem to fit properly. I look at the way you can trick the game here as the hacking version of ZoC Change Face into CC shenanigans or getting an out of ZoC shot into someone's back with Bran. BS and CC have ways you can do it so why should hacking not have the same opportunity?
Which brings us to 'at what point is it plausible to claim ZOC'? The only answer that is coherent is 'whenever you want to'. Which you can avoid by punishing people who guess wrong (your preferred solution re: the difference between the Intruder at 7.9 vs 8.1") or just allowing it universally (my preferred solution: I activated a Marker so my opponent can always delay). I think what you gain from the second solution is of more value than what is lost. The other point to note is that if you never get an ARO at all, nothing happens. So it doesn't allow you to do anything you couldn't otherwise do.
I think we will have to agree to disagree there. To me that explanation is too open ended and could create situations like the one the Hacking and Holoprojectors thread quickly devolved into. To me Plausible excludes situations like me activating the first order of the game in my deployment zone that "whenever you want" would allow. My problem with your solution is that it feels like it penalizes the marker unit and takes away the advantages you paid for in orders and points. Using your example from earlier if the Intruder was not in a marker state then I could not delay a declaration against it even if I thought it was in my ZoC. It just doesn't make sense (knowing that there are a number of times that logical exceptions are taken for gameplay reasons) that you being more sneaky would suddenly give me a boost.
How about this then: 3. A Devabot advances to ~8" away from your KHD (inside LOF), Scylla is clear of your ZOC 4. You declare Redrum vs Scylla 5. The Devabot moves roughly parallel to your ZOC and ends ~8" away 6. No additional AROs 7. It turns out that at step 4 the Bot was outside ZOC but at step 6 it was inside. (Ignore that the actual play is dumb, it's legal) So you didn't actually get a valid ZOC ARO until Step 6 but declared it at step 4. What happens? Consensus is - I think - that the hack works. Personally I'd treat this as the same as delay/ARO.
