1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hemos actualizado nuestra Política de Privacidad acorde con la nueva RGPD. +Info // We've updated our Privacy Policy to comply with the GDPR. +Info
    Dismiss Notice

Do we have currently ruling about "multiple activations with stealth hacker" combo ?

Discussion in 'Rules' started by eciu, Mar 9, 2018.

  1. Sabin76

    Sabin76 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    1,430
    Likes Received:
    1,782
    None taken. I think ijw is a "freelance" playtester and rules editor. Which is to say, he has no authority to rule on things one way or another, but has plenty of authority when it comes to clarifying rules that people are clearly getting wrong.

    My point is that if it was as cut-and-dry as you claim, I believe ijw would have simply come out and corrected those in the wrong.
     
    Zewrath and DukeofEarl like this.
  2. Vaulsc

    Vaulsc Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2017
    Messages:
    131
    Likes Received:
    375
    Abusing the basic order structure is a thing that we've talked about on the forums a lot before. Here are the examples I can think of.

    • Hacker in link team moves up within ZOC of enemy hacker, other members of the link are not using stealth, enemy hacker has to declare reset or change of facing, then your hacker attacks him. This could be done with an MO link for example, with De Fersen. Stealth is an optional rule so technically you could have one or more members use it while others don't.
    • Unit declares short skill move (with no stealth) within ZOC of a model with flamethrower or supression fire. They are right around the corner from each other, but no LOS. Enemy model can only change/face or reset unless it has sixth sense. Our unit now just moves 4inches around the corner safely into close combat, regardless of the direct template weapon or suppression fire.
    • Friendly MSV2 unit moves into a smoke template, within ZOC of enemy model. Friendly can see enemy but enemy can't see friendly yet. But enemy model MUST use changeface/reset unless it has sixth sense. Even if it has plenty of tools to shoot back at friendly model, all it can do it change/face dodge while being perforated by bullets.
    • Co-ordinated order declared including MSV2 hmg model standing in smoke cloud. Another friendly unit (perhaps a cheap Kuang-shi) moves into LOS of enemy missile launcher in link team, forcing it to respond to that particular model as it can't see the MSV2 shooter yet. MSV2 shooter now gets normal roll shots (although at half burst, still very much worth it).
    These aren't new. I'd just thought that by now the community had accepted them. The only thing I find annoying is having to explain these loopholes to new players, or even casual players at a tournament. The game is fine even withstanding this stuff, personally I would like to see some tech added that gives you a tool to anticipate it if you know you are vulnerable. Imagine if the (currently underpowered) defensive hacking device had a supportware program that could be used on a friendly model that would simply allow it to delay ARO?
     
  3. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    4,484
    Likes Received:
    5,342
    @Vaulsc you're conflating things that are different. Your points 2-4 are correct, but your first point is not.

    As per ALL* previous discussion of this, the only interpretation that has been actually IAW RAW is:
    1. Stealth prevents an ARO being granted.
    2. Once an ARO has been granted it can be declared vs an active trooper that otherwise meets the requirements of the ARO.

    The result is that if you co-ordinate a Stealthed hacker and a non-Stealthed trooper that generates a valid ARO and both are within the Hacking Area of a Hacker (who has a valid ARO to both) either is a valid target IAW RAW.

    The argument is about RAI. Whether it was intended that Stealth stops the Stealthed trooper being targetted by AROs rather than merely stopping a Stealthed trooper granting AROs.

    It's also important to note that this is fundamentally different to your points 2-4, where in all cases the victim gets a chance to respond (they get a Change facing ARO). In this case you can abuse it to grant Normal rolls or to prevent Hackers from gaining a meanginful ARO at all.

    A CA player has Ker-Nau and a Nexus hacker (for simplicity without SSL2#); a Crane hacker + KSCD activate inside a CA players repeater, the Crane uses stealth. Ker-Nau gets a White Noise ARO vs the KSCD and the Nexus Hacker gets a Black-out ARO vs the KSCD; the Crane Hacker then Oblivions Ker-Nau on a Normal roll. Next order they do it again vs the Nexus.

    Or vs Nomads. A Nomad player has a repeater net set up to stop a Crane link advancing on a Sin-eater HMG. The ISS player advances with impunity into the Repeater net (using Stealth) and moves into LOF of the Sin-eater; the Nomads hackers all get to ARO with Blackout vs the KSCD; the Crane then shoots the Sin-eater and doesn't need to worry about those pesky hackers.

    The result is that however we resolve the RAI argument it's a buff to Stealth and a nerf to Hackers or vice versa.

    * This is the original thread, where the counter argument basically came down to 'fuck, that seems to be the rules but I don't like it, we'll need clarification': @Mahtamori @Zewrath unless I'm mischaracterizing your position on this matter?
    # There's an outstanding argument whether the ability of Sixth Sense to delay AROs extends to the whole Hacking Area or just to the actual ZOC of the Hacker; consensus is 'just the actual ZOC' but it's not as clear as it should be.
     
    #23 inane.imp, Mar 10, 2018
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2018
    DukeofEarl, eciu and Zewrath like this.
  4. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    7,316
    Likes Received:
    9,154
    @inane.imp Seems like an accurate way to express my Crane's thoughts on the matter :)
     
  5. eciu

    eciu Easter worshiper

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    3,673
    Likes Received:
    4,309
    Points 2,3,4 are crystal clear. Point 1 is what is this discussion is about.

    For funzies: after short talk with our local Warcor it's against the rules to exploit that, but he agrees that the rules are not clear on the matter.

    @inane.imp thanks for writing nice summary of the problem. Tbh I was too lazy to repeat myself.
     
    #25 eciu, Mar 10, 2018
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2018
  6. Tom McTrouble

    Tom McTrouble Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2018
    Messages:
    545
    Likes Received:
    536
    So would I be correct in assuming then that if the stealthed hacker in question happens to be in marker state, you can choose to delay your ARO as normal?
     
  7. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    4,484
    Likes Received:
    5,342
    Fairly certain that the answer is 'Yes', the various rulings seem to indicate that delay effectively targets a marker.
     
  8. kinginyellow

    kinginyellow Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2017
    Messages:
    550
    Likes Received:
    400
    Except in a certain case, in which case this ruling is false.

    You can delay against all 3 markers of holoprojector level 2.

    Why can you delay against those 3 holo markers but not against syclla and 1-2 of her bots when shes in cybermask?
     
  9. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    7,316
    Likes Received:
    9,154
    It's against the trooper under the marker you delay.
     
  10. kinginyellow

    kinginyellow Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2017
    Messages:
    550
    Likes Received:
    400
    Except in holos, you do not know which of them is the trooper. The order is spent on all 3 of the markers. Otherwise the other 2 in active turn are even more pointless.
     
  11. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    7,316
    Likes Received:
    9,154
    It really is semantics and visualization, but I do mean that it is the trooper you delay your order expenditure against. If there is no trooper, well you don't get to spend that ARO.

    Sixth Sense and Holo2 is a bit more special, though.
     
  12. M0Dark

    M0Dark Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2018
    Messages:
    16
    Likes Received:
    7
    I might be being dumb but I'm failing to see how this is an issue. 1 trooper from the CO/Link/whatever gives the reactive trooper an ARO, He has to decide what to do, after the first short skill of the active order is declared.
    Why is this different to my Umbra Legate Hacker walking out in front of a reactive trooper on his own and them having to choose to shoot/dodge or reset, allowing him to do the opposite?
    Or is it that the CO allows the Hacker to be unopposed, because if that is the case I don't see that it is much different to some of the Smoke shenanigans you can pull with MSV (as in Strong but heavy investment to set up).
    Or have I got this wrong somehow?
     
  13. eciu

    eciu Easter worshiper

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    3,673
    Likes Received:
    4,309
    Its different as it is not technicly a active hacker who triggers an ARO.
     
  14. kinginyellow

    kinginyellow Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2017
    Messages:
    550
    Likes Received:
    400
    Is cyber masked scylla/bit as busted against other hackers that this thread makes her out to be?

    Imagine she and her bot is cybermasked. She walks her bot into lof and with 8" of an enemy hacker but she herself is outside 8 and lof.

    They can ONLY declare hold against the bot and not her so when she responds with maestro (the bot reveals as cyber mask is removed) they can shoot the bot, dodge or reset.

    They can't declare a hack against her as they didn't hold against her specifically as they legally couldn't?

    That is op levels of hacking as she can do this extremely easily and a reset vs surpise maestro has no chance. Regardless if you are a khd with lightning or maestro as well.
     
  15. tox

    tox SorriBarai
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2017
    Messages:
    1,735
    Likes Received:
    1,850
    The target of an hacking attack can always try to reset, if he gets an ARO.
     
  16. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    4,484
    Likes Received:
    5,342
    Unless it gets an ARO earlier when Reset wasn't legal: ie a BS Attack vs a Zondbot when you're in Zoe's Hacking Area (but nothing activates inside your ZOC).

    But I don’t see why you can’t choose to Delay against Scylla rather than her bots. At the point you say ‘I delay against that Marker’ you don’t know whether or not you have an ARO against Scylla’s Marker so delaying is perfectly appropriate. If Scylla subsequently reveals and it turns out you have a valid ARO you can declare it, if you don’t then you lost the chance to ARO.

    *Assuming you use the interpretation of Hacking vs Stealth I outlined earlier.
     
    #36 inane.imp, Mar 19, 2018
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2018
  17. tox

    tox SorriBarai
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2017
    Messages:
    1,735
    Likes Received:
    1,850
    @inane.imp i was answering to a specific case that is different from the one you presented.
    Please, re-read my statement. "The target of an hacking attack can always try to reset, if he gets an ARO."

    Edit: moreover, you can ALWAYS declare a Reset. ALWAYS. (then eat a slug/flame, but it's a different problem!!!)
     
  18. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    4,484
    Likes Received:
    5,342
    No you can’t ALWAYS declare Reset.

    1. Your TAG is in the ZOC of one of my Repeaters.
    2. I Move Zoe and her Zondbot. I move the Zondbot such that it’s in your TAG’s LOF but obviously out of your ZOC.
    3. You declare Dodge or BS Attack (there might be another couple of options, but Reset ain’t one)
    4. I declare a Hacking Attack on Normal rolls

    You ‘got an ARO’ and weren’t allowed to declare a valid Reset and ‘were the target of a Hacking Attack’.

    Edit: in the specific example you were responding to Reset would be a valid ARO but it’s not universally true that Reset is an option, which is what you’re saying by using the word ‘always’.
     
    #38 inane.imp, Mar 19, 2018
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2018
    Icchan likes this.
  19. tox

    tox SorriBarai
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2017
    Messages:
    1,735
    Likes Received:
    1,850
    http://infinitythewiki.com/en/Reset

    REQUIREMENTS

    A trooper can only declare Reset if at least one of these is true: [omissis]
    i.e. if a model gets an ARO, he can ALWAYS declare a Reset. ALWAYS.
    Then the attacker is allowed do shot him dead, but that (as i said before) is not his problem...
     
  20. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    4,484
    Likes Received:
    5,342
    No. In the situation I described no trooper declared or executed an order in his ZOC.

    The TAG gets an ARO due LOF not ZOC. There is no clause for LOF being a possible requirement to Reset.

    Consider this example instead:
    1. Your TAG (let’s assume BS15) is inside ZOC of one of my Repeaters
    2. I Move my Custodier into LOF of your TAG through a Sat Zone at ~48” (so your on at least -12 BS)

    What are your ARO options?