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

How competitive are MO?

Discussion in 'PanOceania' started by Context, Aug 14, 2019.

  1. herod1204

    herod1204 Knight of Santiago

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2018
    Messages:
    174
    Likes Received:
    165
    Also, you would then need to state what was hackable by what. As that was the crux of my thing, I got him to pop the zero and waste several orders hunting a non-existant hacker, that was hackable.

    Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
     
    theradrussian likes this.
  2. Armihaul

    Armihaul Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    625
    Likes Received:
    457
    Well, the dude is in the hacking area of the camo, so the camo has the right to know if something is hackable or not because is public information. The problem is that asking that, the enemy will know that there is a hacker under the camo

    "I move this camo here, is that dude hackable?" just a yes or no. If the camoed hacker want to hack something, then he should be able to use his hacking area and all rules related to hacking
     
    Ariwch likes this.
  3. theradrussian

    theradrussian Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2018
    Messages:
    438
    Likes Received:
    658
    But by only asking when certain camo markers move, the controller gives up the shell game of which camo marker is indeed a hacker. Hence, you are incentivised to ask every time any enemy model is in the ZoC of any of your camo markers, otherwise you're revealing info that is not yet meant to be open.

    Hence, it slows the game down to a stupid degree.
     
    AdmiralJCJF likes this.
  4. Armihaul

    Armihaul Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    625
    Likes Received:
    457
    no, that is forcing rules. If the camo is hacker, he has the right to ask, because there is a hacking area. The camo that are not hackers don't have or increase the hacking area, so the enemy has not need to tell the info.

    yes, you are telling the enemy that there is a hacker under that camo, that's the price to pay if you want to know for sure if the enemy is hackable by that camo hacker. But you cannot apply that to all other camos
     
    Teslarod likes this.
  5. theradrussian

    theradrussian Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2018
    Messages:
    438
    Likes Received:
    658
    Then you're saying that the camo state breaks open vs closed information in this state. So it just kicks the issue up the chain again.

    At that stage hackable and being a hacker may as well be open info at all times. Sure sounds silly, doesn't it?
     
    #265 theradrussian, Oct 8, 2019
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2019
    Judge Dredd likes this.
  6. Armihaul

    Armihaul Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    625
    Likes Received:
    457
    where do I say that?

    If the camo is hacker, he has hacking area.
    If he has hacking area, he can know if an enemy is hackable or not, because is open information to him. If he has no hacking area then that info remains hidden because is not in the hacking area. Just that

    the enemy has to offer that info, but in cases like this one, he might not know that your camo has hacking area, so he will not tell you anything unless you ask for it. Is exactly the same as when a hidden deployed trooper wants to ARO to someone but is not sure if there is LoS to him, if you try to guess the LoS, then you are saying that there might be something. Or are you telling "wait, I check", and check from different points to hide that there is a TO (or even if there is not), during all the orders the enemy does? I don't think you do.

    Or are you saying that a camo hacker has no hacking area while it is hidden information?
     
    colbrook likes this.
  7. Doa

    Doa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2017
    Messages:
    146
    Likes Received:
    64
    I just think That the camo marker could bring pitcher/repeater and can ask. About hacker ability to lay down something
     
  8. SpectralOwl

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2018
    Messages:
    571
    Likes Received:
    900
    This is the crux of the issue. Hackers have a Hacking Area, but the Camo Marker rule conceals the existence of said Hacking Area to the player who controls the Holo1 troop. The Camo player can't prove the existence of a Hacking Area without revealing some Private Information unnecessarily. The Holo1 player cannot comply with the requirement to disclose their Open Information unless they know the enemy has a valid Hacking Area-which per rules you're probably not even allowed to measure until end of order anyway. Thus, the Hackable state of a Holo1 trooper in ZoC of a Camo Hacker is both Open (by RAW) and Private (because the Holo1 player can't act on triggers he doesn't know about) Information until after the Skill/ARO one of the Markers reveals itself.
     
    theradrussian likes this.
  9. Teslarod

    Teslarod Trebuchet Enthusiast

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    1,298
    Likes Received:
    2,600
    Not exactly on topic... but here's the relevant rule for Private Information:
    "Private Information is information you can keep to yourself that your opponent cannot ask about. Your Private Information remains secret until a specific game event forces you to disclose it."

    Contents of your Camo Marker are Private information if you want to (and usually, that's just the sane thing to do). In our case the player owning the camo Hacker is free to disclose that the Camo Marker contains a Hacking Device - friendly reminder that you're not allowed to bluff or lie, so there is no problem revealing Private Information on purpose.
    As a result the Player owning the Holo trooper would have to disclose all information resulting from now being inside a Hacking Area, most notably this one:
    "They automatically identify whether a figure—but not a Marker—inside the Hacker's Hacking Area is targetable by a specific Hacking Program."

    In logical terms there is no problem. However there are massive issues with this in the reality of a game. This is pretty advanced rule interaction vodoo, you have to be a bit nuts to play the game in a way that allows you to cover this interaction. The overwhelmingf majority of all players will accidentially reveal their Camo Hacker and attempt to hack the Holo trooper right away.
    Technically speaking though, they have all the information to know that their target can't be hacked with KHD Programs, so they "aren't allowed" to make that mistake, the same way you can't declare BS Attacks through solid walls.
    The attempted Hack doesn't turn invalid or Idle, because to begin with that Camo Marker can't declare a Hack and can't accidentially reveal itself (still technically speaking). To play by the rules would mean you can't make that mistake (but in reality you are very likely to do so).

    On the table that's pretty much a fumble along the same lines of dropping your Hidden Deployment map and revealing your TO trooper's position. In the rules that can't happen because it's Private Information, but in a game it definitely can.
    Since you can't retcon a fumble completely, you should inform your opponent about this fucking weird interaction and let him redo the Order (now with the knowledge the rules assume he had to begin with).
     
  10. theradrussian

    theradrussian Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2018
    Messages:
    438
    Likes Received:
    658
    So in short, it's an example of the game desginers not thinking about the realities of this in fact being, a game.
     
    Disko King and Hecaton like this.
  11. Armihaul

    Armihaul Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    625
    Likes Received:
    457
    is just an interaction where, if you want to get info, you have to give info too. I think they didn't think about it, but it resulted in a good result (give and take). If it wasn't like that, we would have 2 possible options: is always open info (and that includes camo, showing what are them from the beggining), or is always private (in which we will get too much more of those "gotcha" moments)

    well, actually there is a third option: the camo could have no hacking area until revealed, but that would mean that no camo hacker can do actual hacking until revealed by any other valid meaning (and that is not inteded at all)
     
  12. Andre82

    Andre82 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2017
    Messages:
    492
    Likes Received:
    571
    Ok that made me laugh because of how true it is. Now that they have fixed sticking people on walls with melee, mandatory actions like this, or mines is my new rules bugbear to see die.
     
    SpectralOwl and theradrussian like this.
  13. Teslarod

    Teslarod Trebuchet Enthusiast

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    1,298
    Likes Received:
    2,600
    Sticking people on walls is not fixed with the FAQ.
    Whoever told you that didn't read the FAQ properly.
    N3 Frequently Asked Question FAQ Version: 1.6, Apr 2019
    Q: If a trooper declares an Engage ARO, can they be placed “on a wall” if the active trooper ends their move near a wall?
    A: No.

    This only confirms that a trooper moving on the ground can't stick an enganging target up on a wall. Which previously was only possible if the trooper getting engaged on moved to a roofedge without railings that allowed him to be in basecontact.

    The above is an edge case and would be flagged as abusing the rule in every tournament I'm aware of.
    The "normal" application of a C+ trooper using his 2nd Short Move to drag an engaging Achilles up a wall is on the wall and still perfectly legal.
    Very shitty indeed and somewhat gamebreaking if used against an unsuspecting opponent, but it's how you have to play the rule if a trooper standing on a wall gets engaged.
     
    meikyoushisui and theradrussian like this.
  14. Zewrath

    Zewrath Nordic Master

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2017
    Messages:
    1,305
    Likes Received:
    1,882
    Well that depends on what you mean by "fixed". The original ruling was Palanka giving the okay for a Fusilier to be stuck on a wall, should he succeed the Engage-roll against Bran Do Castro and that was how it was until another FAQ fucked that up with the 2 silhouettes touching eachother, being counted as base contact, which then spawned the wall-engage all TO's had to basically ban.

    The FAQ you refer to seems to have "fixed" wall engage because CB seems to agree with Palanka, that the intention was always to make it terrible for anyone Engaging a C+ trooper, but not have that spill over to every single trooper in the game, even when they aren't on a wall.
     
  15. Cthulhu363

    Cthulhu363 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    105
    Likes Received:
    84
  16. Jason839

    Jason839 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2018
    Messages:
    77
    Likes Received:
    62
    I never played with the old MO, so I guess I don't have all the negative feelings about MO the older players do. I have been having a lot of fun and success with the crusade link. I feel like the biggest thing that has been giving me an advantage in my games is that I don't worry about keeping the link intact. 5 man Links are best utilized with crappy order monkey units to make them decent. I feel the knights themselves are great solos and keeping them in a link is overkill and kind of a waste. What I use the link for is to shoot my way out of my deployment zone. Once out I will keep the link together if its beneficial, otherwise I find a good position to break the link. From there I utilize suppressive fire, frenzy, melee, and combined orders to make the most of the knights abilities. Its been working really well for me and I am loving the list.

    Military Orders
    ──────────────────────────────────────────────────

    [​IMG]10
    JOAN OF ARC Lieutenant Spitfire, Nanopulser / Pistol, AP CCW. (1 | 51)
    KNIGHT OF SANTIAGO Hacker (Killer Hacking Device) Combi Rifle, Nanopulser, D-Charges + 1 TinBot A (Deflector L1) / Pistol, DA CCW. (0 | 38)
    KNIGHT HOSPITALLER HMG / Pistol, DA CCW. (2 | 39)
    KNIGHT HOSPITALLER Doctor (MediKit) MULTI Rifle / Pistol, DA CCW. (0 | 39)
    KNIGHT HOSPITALLER Boarding Shotgun / Pistol, DA CCW. (0 | 31)
    BLACK FRIAR (Albedo, Biometric Visor L1) MULTI Rifle, Nanopulser, Drop Bears / Pistol, CC Weapon. (0 | 28)
    SPEC. SERGEANT (CH: TO Camouflage, Infiltration, Forward Observer) Combi Rifle, Antipersonnel Mines / Pistol, Knife. (0 | 27)
    SPEC. SERGEANT Combi Rifle + AUXBOT_1 / Pistol, Knife. (0 | 17)
    [​IMG] AUXBOT_1 Heavy Flamethrower / Electric Pulse. (- | 4)
    ORDER SERGEANT Heavy Rocket Launcher / Assault Pistol, Knife. (1.5 | 15)
    ORDER SERGEANT Heavy Rocket Launcher / Assault Pistol, Knife. (1.5 | 15)

    6 SWC | 300 Points

    Open in Infinity Army
     
    Ayadan and A Mão Esquerda like this.
  17. eciu

    eciu Easter worshiper

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    3,515
    Likes Received:
    4,086
    What lists/factions have you been facing with this list ? (also which missions)
     
    Jason839 and AdmiralJCJF like this.
  18. Jason839

    Jason839 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2018
    Messages:
    77
    Likes Received:
    62
    Hi! I only get to play the people in my local meta mostly. So Imperial Army, vanilla nomads, Corregidor, onyx contact force, and recently 0-12/shasvastii. We usually pick the common mission types. Acquisition, supplies, firefight, countermeasures, and frostbite. Those kinds of things. I don’t remember individual lists I’m afraid.
     
    Ayadan likes this.
  19. daboarder

    daboarder Force One Commander
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2017
    Messages:
    3,456
    Likes Received:
    5,003
    just ignore him, hes trying to gatekeep you in order to dismiss you.
     
    Ayadan, Doa, Tourniquet and 1 other person like this.
  20. eciu

    eciu Easter worshiper

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    3,515
    Likes Received:
    4,086
    Uuuuuhuu strong words for someone who wanted to allow discussion only for people with high enough ELO rating ^^
     
    #280 eciu, Nov 11, 2019
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2019