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 PolĂ­tica 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. DukeofEarl

    DukeofEarl Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    1,355
    Likes Received:
    1,319
    I'll agree with that exchange. It is different though in that as the repeater is not a marker it allows you to use it.
    The delay though I will disagree with as the ability to delay is connected to having an ARO to declare.
     
  2. DukeofEarl

    DukeofEarl Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    1,355
    Likes Received:
    1,319
    On a side note. I did just think of a fun thing to do if you opt to delay against Scylla. Move the bot into CC. She stays in marker state so you can't hack through the bot. Next order you either reset and eat an electric pulse or CC and take a hack. :P
     
    inane.imp likes this.
  3. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    4,484
    Likes Received:
    5,342
    Which is why I'm ok with making delay universal. You still control the engagement.
     
  4. DukeofEarl

    DukeofEarl Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    1,355
    Likes Received:
    1,319
    Let's be honest. The odds of these situations popping up aren't great. Still it is fun to parse out possibilities and such.

    My main problem with delay as you propose is that it opens up the possibility that your opponent could declare AROs with every unit on the table given that "you might be in my ZoC" . Kind of like someone claiming you need to ask him for open information instead leading to problems.

    On the table I'm sure any of these could be worked out quickly by the players in reality.
     
  5. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    4,484
    Likes Received:
    5,342
    That possibility already exists. DBAD is the only thing that prevents it.
     
  6. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    7,315
    Likes Received:
    9,154
    Reset has two requirements of interest; either enemy is in ZoC or you're targeted by a Hacker.

    ZoC we can't measure, but in the situation above where a Repeater provide Hacking Area over a trooper, and the trooper's controller says "I'm not sure that's in range of my ZoC, but I'm going to declare Reset if it is" - and it turns out that they are not in range of ZoC, but the enemy's second short skill is to Carbonite said reactive trooper.
    Is this ARO declaration still valid?
     
  7. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    4,484
    Likes Received:
    5,342
    Clearly I think the answer is 'Yes' because I think all ZOC AROs need to be rechecked for validity at Step 7.

    But nobody seems to agree with me :'(
     
  8. DukeofEarl

    DukeofEarl Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    1,355
    Likes Received:
    1,319
    I agree with the end result in this case because either way you would have that Reset available, making the ZoC need immaterial.

    My disagreement comes in when the marker states, stealth and multiple units come into play. As I said before, I see it as similar to Change Face shenanigans allowing you to use the ARO ordering system to your advantage.

    In reality we are both right as the rules are. Both views could be correct as the rules are written and without official input I don't think there is a way to figure out definitively.