I didn't quite want to start a thread on this of its own, but have you noticed that you can't shut off a Repeater using hacking unless it's carried by a Hacker, Remote, Heavy Infantry or TAG? When Isolated, a Repeater shuts off, but a Repeater carried on a Deployable Equipment or by a Skirmisher such as the Moran, can't be targeted by Oblivion because Oblivion is limited to Hackable units and Blackout is gone. The same goes for Tinbots, but that's not really part of the hacking game, for a Repeater you might want to try and get a Repeater of your own near that building with one on the roof so you can clear the Repeater, but it seems in this edition you're going to have to do that the hard way or using grenades (the launcher for which no longer has a +3 range band), stealth units capable of scaling the building, or non-hackable units just soaking those Spotlight attacks.
Hacking Area isn't something you can accurately describe. You can only accurately inform your opponent about the information Hacking Area is derived from. So you can say, accurately, "this trooper has a Repeater" but you can't say, accurately, "that Trooper is within this Hacker's Hacking Area because of this Repeater" until you measure at Step 5/6 of the Order. It's analogous to declaring a BS Attack that may or may not be out of range: you can't say whether or not you're in range until you measure it, so you're not obliged to declare what range band you're using.
Exactly right, which is why when you declare a BS attack, you say where you are taking the shot from, and then i can judge for myself what the risk is likely to be. Im just saying the same should available to hacking attacks. with the change to morans and now lu duans, looks like that'll be the case going forward for a bit.
First, that's an interesting change that I missed. It's got interesting implications that you do need to nominate where you take the shot from prior to measuring, it's no longer assumed to be from the most advantageous position. This will result in people choosing a position that is in a worse range band than is actually possible. That being said, I still don't think you need to nominate which specific Repeater that you're using: it's not a decision the player is required to make which means that it's not a detail that you know prior to Step 5. Simply saying "I Hack you using [Program] because you're in my Hacking Area due to one of these Repeaters (identifies all possible options that are Open Information) or because you're in my Hacker's ZOC" is all that's required: because you won't know what Repeater you actually are using until you measure. Otherwise you get into a situation where you're out of range for the specified Repeater but in Range for a different Repeater: in such a situation the Hack still works. Ofcourse in the vast majority of situations there is only one possible Repeater (and this is Open Information), in which case it's courtesy to specify. But equally, I remind my opponents that they're in a BSG's +6 range band when it's unambiguous.
i think this is pretty spot on. Id be pretty happy if the player was required to indicate that they were hacking through a repeater, without specifying which one. i think that serves to alert them to the method of the hack, and gives them some limited number of variables to respond to. @JoKeR I think @inane.imp is suggesting that you have to specify the spot of the shot instead of declaring "i intend to shoot from where it is best for me." its a minor change, but once we get in the habit i suspect it will be essentially identical.
Because the Red Box on page 21 sates: "For instance, if you declare... a BS Attack, specify which Weapon will be sued, who the targets are, where the Trooper shoots from, how the Burst is divided, etc." @Vanderbane it's quite plausible to have a situation where you don't know whether a Hacking attack is direct path or through a Repeater. Particularly in Nomads where Vostok + Hacker is a valid Fireteam in every sectorial. You can't say (in a large set of plausible scenarios) "hey this will be through a Repeater" but you can say "the Vostok has a Repeater, it'll extend the Hacker's Hacking Area, so it's possible if you Hack back in ARO that it will be through a Repeater ". Which basically means that you can't oblige a player to "alert their opponent to the method of the hack": a player can only be obliged to say what troopers/markers have Repeaters and what Troopers are Hackers (where that information is open). It is then up to both players to make their own assumptions about the likely method of the Hack and the likely extent of the Hacking Area. OTOH, it is helpful and courteous to explain the implications (Hey, so I've pushed my Repeater into ZOC of your Hacker, my Hacker is the Team Leader, so my next short skill is probably a Hacking attack. If you ARO with Oblivion you'll be on -3 WIP due to the Firewall, or if you Reset you'll be on flat WIP), but you can't expect that outside of teaching games. Ultimatley, understanding the implications of your opponent's actions is - arguably - an important skill in Infinity, and certainly some players treat it that way. Edited: because Rob is a pedant. ;)
But that's kinda my point, and my reading of the red box. if you are required to declare a point of fire for BS attacks, wouldn't it make sense you might similarly have to say "i will hack you using this repeater" and if it's too far away, tough luck (as we see with troopers who choose one BS weapon vs. another thinking they are still in a good range band. this can often result in an idle with, say, suppressive fire). This become more clear and important in ARO, where as you point out you might have to choose to hack through an enemy repeater definitely with you hacking area, or risk a direct hack attempt that might be outside of it. My reading of the red box is that you have to describe how you intend to shoot- i suspect that means you have to describe how you intend to hack as well.
Your math here is throwing me off. Trinity includes a +3 and the relevant tinbots in this example generate firewalls that don't stack with other firewalls.
You're correct that CB might have written the rules that way, but - as far as I can tell - they didn't. My argument is: 1. The Red Box obliges you to declare all information that is required for the skill to function. 2. What is required for a Hacking attack to function is: the specific program and that the target is inside the Hacker's Hacking Area. 3. Ergo, you don't need to specify what - if any - Repeater is used, as that information isn't required for the Hacking attack to function because, during Resolution, you measure ALL ZOCs and check the entirety of the Hacker's Hacking Area so you won't actually know what - if any - Repeater is used until you measure, so you can't declare it before then. You're arguing that 2 is should be interpreted as: What is required for a Hacking attack to function is: the specific program and that the target is inside the Hacker's Hacking Area as constrained to the specified path during declaration. That is to say, by introducing a requirement to specify the method the Hacking Area was established you're introducing a requirement that does not exist in the rules (if it does explicitly exist in the rules, please point it out to me and I will change my tune). It's worth noting that in the case of White Noise you can simultaneously use multiple different Repeaters to perform the Hack. So, from what I can tell: If at Step 5/6 it is determined that the trooper is inside the Hacker's Hacking Area and is a valid target of the Program then the requirements are met and the declaration is valid.This is true irrespective of the path used to establish the Hacking Area, indeed all possible paths are required to be checked (although for expediency obviously irrelevant paths can be ignored). So saying "Charles has a Repeater", when information about Charles becomes Open Information, and "Alice will hack Bob with [Programme] because it's possible it is inside Alice's Hacking Area", during declaration, provides all the information that is required by the rules: it provides all the known details about the Hack.
They don't stack?! I did not realise that *cries in EVAder* And I forgot the +3. The point still stands though: situation where it's potentially better to Reset/do-something-else than Hack vs a Firewall that may or may not exist.
But that's not what it says. It says, "All details and choices related to the execution of a Short Skill, Short Movement Skill, Entire Order Skill or ARO must be specified when it is declared." I think how one intends to hack a target, e.g., program, through a repeater or not (as this has implications on the target number and the feasibility, much as range bands and firing position with BS weapons) fall under those details and choices that must be specified. Your position is that you have to specify some things, but not others until they are measurable. But that's not what it says in the box. It says all details and choices up front during declaration. Again, look at the examples with movement and BS attacks in the box. You have to specify the path for a reason, to make clear to the opponent what options they might have to respond (even before they are measurable). Same goes with the BS attack, knowing what weapon and where they are firing from will provide details on modifiers that you can use to respond to them as the opposing player. I think CB's intent is the same with regards to hacking: if you are hacking through a repeater, that's useful information the other player can use to make decisions. I really don't think I'm the one adding the extra step in here. You're focusing on what you see as necessary for the attack to function and then cutting out other details and choices relevant to your opponent's response. In essence, you're saying "I want to hack you in the most advantageous way possible" which goes against the spirit of the BS and movement examples. This is a great point, actually. You could have your KHD hack a HD+ trooper using the opponents' repeater across the board, and simultaneously hack a HD trooper within their ZoC. These would imply different penalties, different risks, and therefore should be specified (again, details and choices) so your opponent understands what they're up against.
Hacking Area section of the rules is a bit under-developed. The Order Expenditure Sequence specifies that all ranges are measured while the Hacking Area section do not specify how that is measured other then that target being in the area is "verified". Weighing the two against each other, I would interpret this as that a Hacking Program does not ever take a "route" through a Repeater, but that the Repeater's ZoC is simply added to the Hacker and that the Hacking Area needs to be measured to the target whenever a Hacking Attack is made which would reveal the presence of a Repeater under a Marker (but wouldn't cancel the state as that is not specified) as soon as the Hacking Area comes into play, even if it is not nearby.
Perhaps. But again, 1) the "path" an attack takes has implications on mods for one or both players, as it does with BS ranges and 2) is a detail or choice a player can make during declaration, and therefore must be specified (as all such choices must). If hacking area had no implications on the mods used for either player, I would see no reason we would specify it, as it would make no difference to the roll. But it very clearly does matter in cases involving repeaters, e.g. due to firewall mods of hacking through an opponent's repeater network. This is a detail and a choice you can make as a player, e.g. hack through the opponents repeater to guarantee that the enemy hacker is in "range" @ -3, or hack through my repeater to hit the same enemy hacker who might be _just_ inside ZoC of my repeater. As far as camoed repeaters go, I suspect that declaration of hacking through it is a game action that would reveal that bit of private information of the camo marker, but that issue has been made moot by the Army changes to those relevant profiles for the moment.
I was paraphrasing, but as to ""All details and choices related to the execution of a Short Skill, Short Movement Skill, Entire Order Skill or ARO must be specified when it is declared." My point is that which Repeater is used is not a choice nor a known detail at the time of declaration. You can't choose which Repeater you use: the skill works vs any target inside the Hacking Area, so you don't choose. Given that, how can you oblige someone to declare it? It is akin to saying "I attack you with my BSG in it's +6 range band". The fact that you're inside the +6 range band is a detail related to the execution of the Short Skill or ARO, but it's not one that the rules oblige you to declare. It certainly has implication son mods for one or both players. You're effectively arguing that we need to declare what range bands we need to use during a BS Attack and that the skill would fail if we declare wrong.
Somewhat related, and I'm like... 60% certain this isn't intended... ► Hackers within the Zone of Control of an enemy Repeater may use Hacking Programs against any enemy Hacker, but they will have to apply Firewall MODs (-3). From what I can read of this, it seems simply being in ZoC of an enemy Repeater causes you to have to apply Firewall against enemy Hackers. Reason being there is no qualifier for gaining the firewall MOD other than being in ZoC of the Repeater. It would, however, support my reading that you never "use" a Repeater, but that the Hacking Area is no different than a range limiter.
