After having seen a few episode of the latest GitS adaptation, I've come to realise that hacking have had a severe overcorrection. It's no longer a tactical tool in a tactical game, it's a strategic tool in a tactical game. Your gameplan is pretty much set if you spend the required resources to get effective hacking. Hacking should be, like the rest of the game, adaptive and tactical to use in your gameplan, instead you have models that are only really effective if you (if you use an EHD) or your opponent bring X. What I imagine is to make having hacking devices more generally useful, in addition to them also having unique strengths according to what type they are. This would also make them more expensive, which is fair with an expanded use. All the below would have Target: Any. Spotlight would get Negative Feedback as well. Disrupt: ARO (Negative Feedback) The target's coms get temporarily overloaded. Any message going to or from the coms is affected by heavy static. Any model affected by Disrupt requires two Orders to be Activated. If they're part of a Fireteam, the Fireteam requires two Orders to be Activated. Haze: Order/ARO (Negative Feedback) The target's FiFo module's ability to interpret signals gets frazzled, which affects the ability to lay down accurate fire as the gun occasionally sputters or the sight goes off target. The model affected by Haze has -3 BS this round. Interference: Full Order The target's FiFo is severely affected in a way that makes normal operation impossible. If the model affected is in Suppressive Fire, cancel Suppressive Fire. Spotlight: As now, except with Negative Feedback. The Negative Feedback is to avoid models being absolutely overloaded with these, which would be unfun. Name is to explain the concept as I know that NFB only counts for the model doing it. The idea is that if the enemy model gets affected by another attack that also applies NFB, then the original effect vanishes. So it would be impossible to just stack negative effects on a model until it drowns in them. In addition to this, each Hacking Device would still have some programs that are unique to it. They would become the situational tools, while the above four would be the mainstay, because they can be used against everyone. Even Ariadna has FiFo, else Cybermask would have no effect against them. This would give hackers a general purpose on the battlefield, rather than only be effective if the opponent has X. While the same could be said about some equipment, like MSV, Mimetism is so omnipresent that it's really difficult to make an army without, meaning that you almost always get benefit of the MSV. If an opponent has no hackable targets, which is easy to do for Haqq and, especially, Ariadna, then aside from being a specialist, a normal hacking device can be used to Spotlight, or Spotlight, or perhaps even Spotlight. This would give them more to do, and make hackers a more general influence on the battlefield, rather than only really working against certain targets.
Definitly too strong. Two orders or the orders to cancel the effect. This will shut down a fireteam from a safe distance through your repeater. While I agree to see some uses for "unhackable" troops beside Spotlight maybe nice to have it make "unhackable" a bit pointless. A irregular troop for example should not be affected at all from this stuff.
I support giving Hackers a broader role in the game, but I don't support making the rules unnecessarily more bloated. Before introducing new mechanics, I think it's important to first ask whether an existing rule could already accomplish the same goal. Regarding your proposed Disrupt program, its core idea is that it makes activating a unit cost more Orders, effectively discouraging the opponent from activating that model again. In practice, if a model requires two Orders just to activate, many players simply won't activate it again that turn. That is already very similar to what Isolated achieves. Instead of introducing a brand-new state, perhaps we could add a new Hacking Program that inflicts Isolated with a lower PS, but can target any unit regardless of Hackable status. Another option would be to let Oblivion target non-Hackable units with a significant penalty, such as WIP -6. Regarding Haze, to be honest, I don't think many players would choose it over Spotlight. Since it only lasts until the end of the turn, its value seems fairly limited. You also mentioned that Haze and Spotlight cannot be stacked. There are certainly situations where Haze would be the better choice, but I don't think it creates a meaningful enough functional difference to justify adding another program. At the moment, I think the biggest weakness of Hacking is defending against close combat units. High-tech units like HI and TAGs can be stopped by IMM-B or Isolated. Non-Hackable gunfighters become much riskier to use in Face to Face Rolls once they are Targeted, and if they survive until the opponent's next turn, they also risk being hit by a Guided Missile. However, close combat units—especially those with Camoor Imp—can almost completely ignore a Hacker's defensive network. If your opponent isn't even running a Guided REM, then even non-Camouflaged melee units have very little reason to fear Hackers. This creates situations where factions that rely heavily on Hacking for defense simply have no effective way to stop certain threats. For example, when Sheskiin charges into your lines and starts healing by killing your troops, your Hacking network contributes almost nothing to stopping her. Your entire battle line can collapse like a row of bowling pins. Or consider Kitsune in JSA. Suppose she gets lucky and succeeds on a PH 19 Infiltration roll. She can leave Hidden Deployment, kill one of your models, return to Camouflage, continue moving and killing, then end the turn safely on a rooftop in Camouflage again. Your Hacking network has virtually no way to interfere with that. What actually stops her are things like Mines or CrazyKoalas—deployable weapons, not Hackers. If Hackers had some way to inflict Isolated on non-Hackable targets, I think it would help address this gap. It also wouldn't feel unreasonable from a thematic perspective, since these same units already become Isolated when hit by E/M weapons. If E/M can disrupt them, it doesn't seem far-fetched that advanced Hacking could achieve a similar result. However, I think the main issues are that Hackable units are not always significantly stronger than non-Hackable ones, and that Hacking tactics currently rely too heavily on Guided Missiles. I've mentioned this in another thread before, but I don't mind explaining it again here. My conclusions are: Hackers do counter high-tech units such as HI and TAGs, but the strength of that counter depends heavily on engagement range. The closer the fighting is, the stronger Hacking becomes. In theory, Hackable units should have noticeably greater combat power than non-Hackable units. In practice, this is often not the case, especially for midfield HI and TAGs. As a result, midfield HI and TAGs—which are the easiest Hackable units to interfere with—often provide poor value for their cost, while long-range HI and TAGs, which are much harder to Hack, frequently offer better value. Here's why I think this is the case. Take Sheskiin as an example. In terms of combat performance, she outclasses many Hackable units. Compare her Red Fury profile to the Spitfire Wrecker from O-12. They have similar effective ranges and Burst values. The Wrecker only has BS 13. Its weapon gains AP Ammo, and although it has higher ARM, it lacks Nanoscreen. It is also essentially incapable of fighting in close combat. Despite all of that, it costs 55 points. I don't think anyone looking at these two profiles objectively would argue that the Wrecker is comparable to Sheskiin. On top of that, the Wrecker even costs 5 points more. And this isn't an isolated example. Similar cases can be found throughout the game. The problem isn't just efficiency—it also feels like a design contradiction. Hacking networks are most influential in the midfield. However, HI and TAGs are generally designed around long-range firepower rather than midfield combat. When forced into close-range firefights or melee, many of them are actually inferior to other unit types. As a result, players usually gravitate toward only two kinds of HI: 1. Long-range gunfighters These are much less likely to enter enemy Hacking Areas, and even if they do get Hacked, they're usually far enough away that removing the state isn't too difficult. 2. Cheap frontline assault HI They're inexpensive enough that getting Hacked isn't a major loss. Let me use another comparison: Mendoza and Hippolyta. I think most players would agree that both units have excellent stats and skills, and their point costs are now fairly close. Both are capable melee fighters, and both have Mimetism (-6). So why is Mendoza still questioned as a worthwhile investment, even after receiving a significant point reduction and several buffs? One obvious difference is utility. Hippolyta has Smoke Grenades. Mendoza does not. But another major difference is that Mendoza is Hackable, while Hippolyta is not. Physically, however, Mendoza isn't dramatically stronger. Both have 2 Wounds. Mendoza has only 1 extra ARM, which isn't enough to create a meaningful durability gap. In close combat, Hippolyta is clearly superior. Mendoza has better shooting, but Hippolyta has Super-Jump, which often compensates for that advantage. So let's assume both units are fighting in the midfield. If Mendoza is using the common Firewall support from your Deployment Zone, he costs 40 points, while Hippolyta costs only 37 points. To me, that simply doesn't make sense. Of course, they aren't identical units. My point is simply that midfield units—the ones most exposed to Hacking—often end up having worse cost efficiency than comparable non-Hackable alternatives. Meanwhile, long-range HI and TAGs are relatively difficult to Hack while often receiving some of the strongest weapon loadouts in the game, such as HRMCs or HMGs combined with Mimetism (-6). This also ties into another issue: the game's long-range Mimetism (-6) advantage. In theory, MSV2 is supposed to counter Mimetism (-6). In reality, it doesn't truly counter it—it merely removes the Mimetism penalty. Most MSV units are not HI or TAGs, which creates an odd situation where HI and TAGs are often shredded by long-range Mimetism (-6) gunfighters. Without Smoke support, using an MSV unit against a Mimetism (-6) shooter is still largely a matter of winning dice rolls. This becomes especially obvious with units like the Swiss Guard. Without MSV, most units simply lose the gunfight. With MSV but without Smoke support, you're still gambling on the dice. And because the Swiss Guard has 2 Wounds and ARM 5, it can comfortably afford to play that game of probability. On top of that, its engagement range is so long that your Hacking network often can't reach it in the first place. So even though Hackers are theoretically supposed to counter Hackable units, in practice the engagement distance often prevents that counterplay from ever happening.
