Situation: A Kanren KHD is disguised as a basic combi rifle Zhanshi and moves into an enemy repeater zone. An enemy hacker has no ARO, they think, because the target isn't hackable and Reset isn't legal. The Kanren then uses Redrum, and the reactive hacker has no ARO available because they gave up their chance to ARO (when they should have used Brain Blast or whatever on the enemy not-hacker that was really a hacker). Does this sound right?
If I'm remembering correctly, the Hackable trait becomes open information upon entering the Hacking Area of an enemy. You'd have to tell them the Kanren is Hackable, but they wouldn't know if it was an AHD, KHD or Spec Op Hacker with Holoprojector.
You have to advise that it’s Hackable. You don’t have to say what type of Hackable target it is, but you are obliged to advise your opponent. It’s one of the examples under Holo, with a KotHS moving into Morgana’s Hacking Area and have to declare so.
@SpectralOwl @A Mão Esquerda Kanren hacker doesn't have the hackable trait; the hackable trait is on remotes and heavy infantry and such.
The Hacking Device makes him Hackable, and since he is a valid target for the enemy Hacker, you have to advise your opponent.
The problem is that the rules talk about the “Hackable Characteristic”, which isn’t the same as “Is this trooper hackable?” Neither hacking devices or the Hacker skill updates that characteristic.
I think the hacking device makes him lower-case hackable, it does not give the Kanren the Hackable characteristic. Something for the FAQ, I think, to clear up the confusion if nothing else.
It actually does address it, albeit indirectly. The section about Scavenger states that using the skill to gain a Hacking Device from an enemy confers Hackable.
No, it says it can be targeted with Hacking attacks. Unfortunately there's a disconnect between "Hackable" and literally "can be targeted with hacking attacks."
I thought that carrying a Hacking Device does make you a Hacker, and therefore definitely Hackable, but I recall this required reading in several places and working out the implication. Maybe we need to distinguish exact Skill/Traits etc. from whether the unit can be hacked, whether or not we can properly call it Hackable? Watchwolf Disclaimer: Call me weird, but I'm perfectly capable of waiving a rule or making up a new one if I don't like it. I just need to know how we're supposed to play before I can do that, thank you.
Good point. Do the two descriptions ever mean different things, or are they always just different descriptions for the same thing? I thought it was the latter, but if we can think of a situation where they're not effectively the same thing, I'd be happy to see the distinction (user's signature checks out, as always )
No, it says: Q: A troop with Special Skill: Scavenger, if this troop take a Hacking Device, could it be the target of a Hacking Attacks? A: Yes. For comparison, the definition of Hackable: http://infinitythewiki.com/en/Hackable Then, if you look in Army or in the profiles, Hackable is that weird looking green square that’s placed on the profile depending on its nature. Remotes, HI, and most TAGs are marked with it. Troop profiles that are only ever hackers (like the Danavas Hackers in Aleph) don’t get marked as Hackable. So we’re left with “You can be hacked if you have a hacking device, or you have the Hackable characteristic.” This is a definition no one really cared about before Holoechoes because it was otherwise useless information—the Hackable characteristic doesn’t tell you a anything about which of your hacking programs works on the target. The FAQ entry for scavenger dates, for example, from a period where we just wanted to know that the trooper using Scavenger to pick up a hacking device gained the Hacker skill (to become a specialist, and be targeted by anti-hacker programs).
The question is “Why doesn’t CB put the green Hackable box on the Danavas Hackers?” We’re not going to have a non-hacker Danavas, right? Or the Wardrivers.
The Hackable trait was a good idea, but the execution wasn't perfect. I think the holo rules work better if you take "hackable" to mean "can be hacked" rather than "has the green icon on their troop profile".
For the record, it’s specifically callout as: However, in Holoecho state the Hackable Characteristic is considered Open Information when the trooper is inside the Hacking Area of an enemy. So it’s a matter of looking at words “the Hackable Characteristic” and editing them to “whether the trooper is hackable”. While all the examples are all things involving the green box Hackable Characteristic. Edit: Obligatory Spanish: Sin embargo, en estado Holoproyector N1 la Característica Hackeable se considera Información Pública, siempre y cuando se encuentre dentro de la Zona de Hackeo del enemigo. So the rules are consistent that it’s a reference to a Characteristic. Did they leave out the instructions for deriving and/or recalculating that characteristic? Edit #2: Hmm. For comparison, look at the page for Characteristics: http://infinitythewiki.com/en/Characteristics Hackable This Characteristic identifies those troopers technologically advanced enough to suffer attacks from or be aided by infowar and hacking systems.
The disconnect between the Hackable Characteristic and being a Hacker is very extensive in the rule set. I haven't found a single place where the rules imply that having a Hacking Device makes you (capital H) Hackable. In fact, the rules go to extensive lengths to exhaustively keep the two concepts apart such as in literally every IMM-inducing hacking program: The target must be an enemy with the Hackable Characteristic (HI, TAG, REM...) or an enemy Hacker.
Well... The second you say "I move this guy without using Stealth" the plot is outed, I think... Because if you do not, then the disguised Kanren had used Stealth (Martial Arts 1), and thus his target had no ARO until the Hacking Attack was declared. As for the "if disguised, Hackable?", I have nothing but my opinion: carrying a hacking device makes you a hacker, and thus a "hackable" target, else the game goes in tatters (again XD)
@xagroth & @Mahtamori I read both of your posts daily, and would be happily guided by pretty much anything you say - but you both seem to be posting at odds to one another, so I’m none the wiser. What is the actual effective difference between Hackable and ‘can be the target of s hacking attack’; why are they not effectively the same thing? Isn’t this just CB.s flaky rules writing again? They generally know what they mean, but don’t feel they have to explain it to us any more because They’ve Spoken, so we should Understand
What's the difference except when there is a difference? You either follow the rules by the letter or you interpret them more freely. When do you decide the rules are flakily written - when it doesn't suit you? If you choose to interpret the rules more freely, then more stuff can fly - Patsy gets to be an Orc in vanilla, Reset doesn't need you to be attacked, Zero Visibility Zones do not interfere with melee LOF, Guts moves can be taken towards closest cover even if you can't reach it, Delay doesn't need a specific target, Forward Observer gets to get Fireteam bonuses, movement up vertical surfaces has the model moving in a vertical orientation, etc. Who gets to decide what flies and what doesn't, though? Or we discuss the rules as the rules are strictly communicated and make conscious and deliberate choices when we house rule something to work differently from its communicated form.
Certainly, the game needs a revision of the Labels system, with a total unification, removal of some and adding of others. The Kanren is not a problem, because of what I already said: either you announce you activate him wihtout using Stealth, or AROing on the second order is legal. You could, however, trick your opponent into shooting with his combi instead of using Redrum, of course... The problem of all this comes, simply, with the Specops. Let's say I make a Deva Specops with a Hacking Device, Engineer, Holoprojector N1 and BTS 9. And disguise him as a CSU (I'm not 100% sure the Fireteam could be 3xDakinis +1 CSU + 1 Deva, so I'm flying with x4 Dakinis + 1 Deva). So now the Fireteam gets into the Hacking Zone of an Enemy Assault Hacker. And NOW, the Hackable Vs Valid Hacking Target gets in a tight spot. Mind you, I tend to ask my opponent "Are you hackable?" when they get a troop inside one of my hackers (that can affect something like that troop) ZoC. And all holoecho-capable troops are obvious depending on who you are facing, aside from the Specops, but if that extra is available and I see none on the table, I can assume that there is none or is carrying an holoprojector. Pano? AHD. YJ? S3=> AHD, S2=> KHD, etc... Bottom line: I'm all in on pressuring CB to release working rules as tightless as possible, but when it comes to play? Let's not chew the new guy. I prefer to win because I play better, not because I used tricks to deny ARO declaration (or dice rolls... urgh xD)
