Now while you are saying this in such a context and with thinking about it a bit more, I totally agree with you. With the availability to repeaters and pitchers a reactive spotlight could alter many situations into our favour or at least to decrease odds for enemies attack. And each order spent on resetting the targeted state is an order less to kill your key-pieces. The question here is, how KHDs will change and how widespread anti-hacker programms will be. Nevertheless, Druze plays a strong hacking game and so this change may have a huge and interesting impact. But what doesn't satisfy me here is the fact, that the sector may become a kind of a one-trick-pony. If the increased coverage of targeted troopers will favor the LGLs and the Clipper can be discussed. Since we don't know anything about speculative fire, we have to assume that things won't change here. Even with this assumption, you give up all existing boeardcontrol and movement for a virtual coverage and an decreased number of dice. I am not a fan of this list-concept in general, as many of you will know, since you rely on one or to dice per attack and have to beat the dodge-roll. This probably won't change in general, so you are left with your weakened board-control in such list-types. Shortly said: Hacking and spotlight-AROs will be a big deal, but the speculative firing-aspect probably won't benefit much from this. The LGL is nice and I had quite good results with him so far. Roughly calculated he made 60% of his shots so far and killed valuable targets in each game. But that is nothing to rely on. @AssaultUnicorn said a lot about my biggest impact with him so far: I was constantly rolling below 10 in that game against quite high dodge-roles, while he grouped his whole core-team around a designated target right in 16". So it was the perfect situation here. Nevertheless, the Hunzakut burned the second order pool full two turns to kill three models, I guess. So we need to discuss the effectivity and the efficiency separated from each other. He can be damn effective, since you can deploy him in very nice spots if you know the map a bit and can calculate how the enemy will move. A grenade-hit on the right spot then can be devastating and fulfill many objectives with just one shot. But he is everything but not efficient. You have a 24% chance to knock out a Fusilier, so you can calculate five shots to drop him unconscious in many cases. This changes if you get more models under the template, but how often do you get such a gift and can shoot all of them more than once? In the end you are paying 18 points for a slightly chance of success in a sector that needs something better than just hope and a chance to do things! You are loosing the FO as a mobile specialist in the midfield in addition to this and I love the FO Hunzakut for the repeaters. The combination of mines without a LSG is the other odd thing here. Of course, mines are better than no mines, but if you want to use them in active turn, you want to build the trap with it, what is quite inhandy with BS 11 and 0 range for your rifle. Math changes for him, if you get the enemy targeted and his infiltration alters the problem of mobility for this strategy. But to get someone targeted, even in this sector, you have to invest four to six orders in most cases and put a Fugazi into suboptimal spots in the midfield or even more advanced. So you invest 50% to 75% of your turn to get a grenade at something you want to kill. This may be a nice opportunity for turn two or if you manage your Pathfinders in a way that they are usefull and durable in the midfield, because only in this case you may be efficient by having the sensor as a secondary product of your main-target fulfilled with the Pathfinder. To conclude this: If you want to get things done with a high efficiency, don't use him. The FO-Hunzakut is the better deal here. But even with all these arguments against him, I have no bad feeling about him and still see him as a valuable addition to my lists. I am 100% sure, that I won't hit anything in the next 10 games with him, but I will pick him for the chance to hit and to scratch an itch somewhere hiding on a spot my Peacemaker can't reach. In this case, I plan for failure and expect to burn the whole group he is sitting in, since that is the decision you have to make: Try to kill something juicy at all cost, or do something more reasonable. If Armand can do better in the specific turn, there will be no grenade. But if not, why not raining terror from a hidden spot? This is the value of experience here: Burning orders into speculative firing an essential game-situation or burning it for a random kill? Case one seems justified to me, while the second case is the mistake often made.