1. My opponent walks a Kanren HD Holo'd as a Ye Mao Spitfire into my Hacking Area. 2. My Prowler KHD does nothing. 3. The Kanren HD declares CC Attack, and reveals as the Hacker they are. 4. My Prowler drops from HD and declares Trinity vs the Kanren HD. Is this still valid? I think yes, because while I technically had a valid ARO at Step 2 I don't have sufficient information to know that a potential ARO existed at that point so don't lose it. Or no, because at Step 2 I had a valid ARO (I just didn't know it) so lost my opportunity to ARO at Step 4.
Kanren would lose Holomask for the entire order when they walk into Engage with an enemy trooper, but if the Kanren had been in a position for declaring BS Attack and didn't use Stealth I would say you lost your ARO unless you declared you'd delay your ARO with the Prowler. P.s. I can't find any rule that says HD is cancelled if they Delay? That rule made the game more fair and upfront during N3, am I just missing it?
You're not delaying you're declaring Idle (because you declared an invalid ARO as per Step 5). So yeah, I'm leaning to losing your ARO as well. Which makes Holomasked Hackers VERY nasty. An yeah, CC was my bad. Make it BS Attack.
I'm only on my second cup of tea; could you elaborate what you mean with declaring Idle? If the Prowler declares Trinity as ARO, it's not measured until after the Kanren has declared both skills and would only become an Idle if the measure fails or if the "Ye Mao Spitfire" doesn't isn't a Hacker?
Assuming he lost his chance to ARO by declining to ARO during Step 2 he would have Declared Idle as part of Step 5. (I'm assuming that the Kanren isn't using their Holoprojector because I didn't want to discuss whether the Prowler could delay or not).
Actually Step 5 doesn't detail what happens if you declare an ARO at Step 4 after "a Trooper [could] declare an ARO [at Step 2] and [failed] to do so". But if we assume that "losing an ARO" = "declaring Idle", as per N3, then the Prowler would appear and would Idle.
You only declare Idle if you declared an ARO that failed its requirements check. Both in N3 and N4 you can simply not declare an ARO. "Idling" as ARO is something people have used erroneously because it uses game terminology in the wrong way. Losing your ARO = nothing happens Declaring an ARO = cancels camouflage state Failing ARO = skill becomes Idle
So, in this case (assuming that the Prowler does indeed lose their ARO... which I'm still not 100% on)... Do they get removed? Are they activated? In N3 this was solved by: Losing an ARO = perform an Idle. So in the case of a HD trooper that lost an ARO, and subsequently performed an Idle it was placed on the table when it declared the ARO that it lost and remained on the table having performed an Idle. IE. Losing an ARO and subsequently invalidly declaring one triggers the same results as everything else covered by Step 5 of the N4 Order Activation Sequence.
Ah... we are using the same word for different actions. Yeah, declaring (in bold) a skill makes the Prowler lose both Camo and Hidden (unless it's a short movement skill etc), just like in N3. Not much has changed except that the Holomask player don't have to declare whether they're hackable and the hacker can declare guess-hacks and it's the last one that makes things weird. Anyway, I don't have an answer I'm 100% sure of and will be watching this thread. I think that the Prowler will miss their ARO (and remain in Hidden) if they don't declare on the first skill, but am not sure.
Sure. But they lost that ARO. The reason a lost ARO = idle rather than a "undo that action" was either a FAQ or a HellLois post. Now I completely agree that "lost ARO = Idle" should be the case, but the rules don't actually tell you how to handle a lost ARO followed by a subsequent declaration, do they?
The rules do. If you do not declare on the first opportunity, you will lose your ARO. You have still declared stuff so the cancellations of camo and Hidden still happens because they are cancelled on declaration - not execution - of the skill. Now, if the Prowler Killer Hacker HAD an ARO (for Hacking) versus an apparent Ye Mao Spitfire acting in a Repeater... THAT I think we need clarified.
Yeah - I'll take that. Having an ARO you haven't lost is implicitly a requirement as well, so you can argue that as a reason they'd perform an Idle: for completeness I'd like that in Idle though. And yes, all this is off topic from the main thrust of the question: Can you lose an ARO that you can't know you had due to Private Information?
If the Prowler loses its ARO in this scenario, it's probably not that big a deal since it will just stay in HD. A nice benefit to Holomask. But for KHDs not in HD or marker state, it would mean that any time anyone walks into your hacking area, you'd have to say "I declare Trinity" just in case they turn out to be a Holomasked hacker. Otherwise, you'd face an unopposed hacking attack when they declare their second skill. Not a big deal either I guess, maybe a minor annoyance. You'd probably just start each game with "this KHD always declares Trinity in response to every order you declare, unless I specify otherwise." (And then if someone acted in your LoF or ZoC, you'd declare a different ARO). Although... I suppose one should do that anyway. No reason not to try to Trinity everyone who walks into your repeaters, since if they turn out to be a Holomasked hacker, it'll hit them.
The only - minor - additional point is when you use it to milk AROs: ie. walk into Hacking Area to eat a meaningless Trinity ARO prior to walking across LOF. You can do this now with Spotlight, but with the downside of allowing the Normal roll so it's pretty much fine as an advantage of Holomask: do you risk that trooper having a KHD or do you wait to get a shot off? Equally, for non-KHDs this is a reason to Spotlight EVERYTHING, it may just save your life. // You can replicate this with Morans (maybe, see other thread): Bob is a Reactive Hacker inside 8" of a Nomad Camo Marker. Alice is an Interventor. 1. Alice declares Move. 2. Bob does nothing as he doesn't know that Alice is inside his Hacking Area. 3. Alice declares Trinity. 4. Bob has lost is opportunity to ARO. Admittedly the defences are the same: assume the worst case and declare AROs as if it was true. IE. if Bob had declared Oblivion at Step 2 he'd be OK, and you'd determine whether or not the Camo Marker is in fact a Moran at Step 5.
If I remember right, IJW has written in other threads that this is part of the reason for the "ARO Check" step. 1. Alice declares Move. 2. Bob doesn't know whether Alice is in his hacking area. If he guesses wrong during N3, he loses his ARO. In N4, if Bob declares an ARO and its conditions become true by Step 5, it stands. So in N4, if Bob isn't sure, and doesn't mind the side effects of potentially switching to Idle, Bob can declare an ARO that may not yet be valid now. 3. Alice declares Trinity, because that player is better judge of distance or whatever. 4. In N4, Bob's glad that he preemptively declared ARO against Alice in Step 2. 5. ARO Check. The rules bless Bob's ARO as having its requirements eventually satisfied. It's certainly one of those "Thank God this isn't in CodeOne" situations.
