AD:Combat Jump and valid AROs from Hackers

I have never thought of it that way, but I think you are correct. A hacker MUST use hack transport or waste their aros as that is the rule in every other instance.

 

AD4 inherently includes two sets of ARO declaration - one for Hackers that have Hack Transport Aircraft, and a second once the final landing point of the AD trooper has been determined. And AROs are use it or lose it.

 

i always played it that you declare AD4, place your unit on the board, reveal what he is.
THEN you declare hacking ARO (hack transport or gotcha or other ARO like change facing)
Then if you deviate, you make new ARO considering the new position. But if you passed the landing you take the other initially declared ARO.

So my meta was wrong on the whole AD4, we'll see how that change gameplay.

For one, it does mean you never reveal a camo (mine or otherwise) until knowing if the roll is successful or not.

It just felt so wrong to make a roll before the order is complete, after all that is why you never discover, roll, then shoot or move. but you declare everything and only roll at the end, it is core mechanic of the game, so it is so weird to roll AD4 before declaring any ARO. And recently CB has pushed even more with removing all form of pre-measuring, so that you can declare Change Facing ARO without meeting its requirement if in good faith you thought you were in range. Rather than being allowed to double check before declaring an ARO you were not meant to have. So bottom line i think the only two out of sequence things that are left is rolling AD4 before declaring ARO, and double checking a mine/CK/etc trigger area between two short skill (you can't double check anything else but you can double check the trigger as you must declare a explode/boost if legal and you must not declare one if not legal).

 

For reinforcement, Palanka’s post on the timing of Combat Jump on the old forum:
http://infinitytheforums.com/forum/...ent-scattering/?do=findComment&comment=667606

With follow ups here:
http://infinitytheforums.com/forum/topic/47056-dispersion-and-aros/?do=findComment&comment=896060

Edit: For the record, I’m eager to see how the Explode rule in 2nd edition gets rewritten in the new book. I hope it specifies a timing for the template placement that doesn’t make landing on hackers the best choice for the exploding trooper.

 

I lol'd.

 

No it doesn't, nothing in the AD rules or the Hack Transport Aircraft rules say you add a third ARO step to the order, we know the structure of an order, it's clearly outlined and has 2 points where you check for AROs. You don't forgo the ability to declare other skills because you didn't hack transport aircraft because it's still the same ARO phase.

The idea that you can jump your troops in in the face of hackers (note: this wouldn't even be limited to exploding AD troops, anyone could do it) and they can't shoot is one of the most preposterous ideas I've heard in a long time.

 

I mean, there is two separate ARO stages for AD combat jump.

When you declare it hackers may ARO with hack transport.

After the roll you deploy your model and other ARO's are declared.

Thats explicitly different to the core order sequence.

So whats your basis that hackers get two AROs?

 

Not that a Hacker gets two AROs but rather isn't prevented from opting not to Hack Transport Aircraft in favour of using a different valid ARO against the AD Trooper after it lands.

It's all one step, you just deal with some of it first.

 

I'm not so sure its one step, it involves rolls which is very much outside the normal order sequence. The logical opposite of the IJWs argument might actually be hackers can take two AROs.

 

Seems plausible.

I'm suggesting that it's all nested with the ARO step, so all ARO Declaractions happen during Step 4 of the Order. Which means that a Hacker who BS Attacks a trooper ADing in their LOF hasn't 'delayed their declaration' because they're still doing it during Step 4. But that doesn't seem to be supported by Palanka's special timing. So fair enough.

 

So how do you want to resolve what has been confirmed to be two separate and consecutive ARO declaration steps? Add in an ability for Hackers to delay their first chance to ARO?

 

Understanding that declaration and deployment of the model on the table is the same thing and only the first aro part.

Ie you declare jump, place the mini on the table, generate aros from hackers zoc and lof all at this point.

Roll the jump drop

If you scatter then recheck additional aros for zoc and lof.

Finally resolve the aros.
Bs attacks now out of lof or outside zoc auto become idle as per core rules.

 

That's not how Combat Jump is resolved. :-(

Apart from Hack Transport Aircraft, no AROs are generated until after the AD trooper has landed in their final position, after the PH Roll and any Dispersion have been resolved.

 

Can you explain why you don’t want to take Palanka’s answer as authoritative?

Because you’ve just managed to work through one of the horrid, complicated version that the rules forum worked out and then threw away in relief when Palanka confirmed the official way to do it—making an exception so that you don’t put hidden troops and marker state troops at a complete disadvantage against AD.

And, as a bonus, please explain why you’re making an exception to the ARO mechanics to allow ARO declarations to the scattered position, which isn’t determined until well after AROs could be declared according to the order declaration sequecence. In other words, you’re having AROs declared during resolution, and then resolving those, so getting that step twice.

 

Bevausr the idea that an ad troop cam land directly in front of any hacker in the game and be totally immune from being shot by said hacker is bloody stupid

And so utterly divorced from any reading of the rules outsidr that thread that i honestly cant understand how anyome could have thought of that as a serious option.

 

It's not a separate ARO phase of the order expenditure sequence though, despite the segmented nature of it.

You haven't "failed to [declare an ARO]" until you resolve that entire stage including the segmented resolutions of the AD because it's still the same part of the turn sequence and you are still capable of declaring AROs.

What I'm saying is, failure to act on one possible ARO doesn't constitute failing to declare an ARO at all until you fully close off the single ARO stage prompted after each order declaration.

 

So you also want to ignore the Combat Jump rules as well, where they specifically tell you that AROs are generated based on the final location?

• Then, the trooper makes a PH Roll. If the trooper passes the Roll, he successfully deploys on his chosen location. AROs are generated taking only that location into account.
• If the trooper fails his PH Roll, make a Dispersion Roll, placing the center of the Dispersion Circular Template on top of the center of the trooper's base. The result of the Dispersion Roll determines the troop's effective deployment location. AROs are generated taking only that location into account.

My emphasis. This is why HTA involves an additional ARO step, because otherwise it couldn't actually be used.

Thanks for the explanation. I still think it would require an FAQ to work that way.

 

For things like Hidden Dployment, markers in general, and mines (*I know those aren't technically AROs) it's important to know what the final landing point is before anything is declared.

 

Sure. The issue is that a Hacker with Shield-1 programs can only ARO with Hack Transport Aircraft, or do nothing.

This is extremely limiting.