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

Multiple Hackers in a Fireteam

Discussion in 'Rules' started by Hecaton, Mar 7, 2018.

  1. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    4,743
    Likes Received:
    4,620
    So all members of a Fireteam have to perform the same ARO during the reactive turn, or else some will leave it or the fireteam might break entirely. While in a Coordinated Order, models can perform different hacking programs and still have it be legal, but that's specifically mentioned as something possible in the EVO repeater's entry.

    If you have a fireteam with two hackers in it, and they both hack in ARO but use different hacking programs, are those considered to be the same ARO for the purposes of determining the Fireteam's ARO, or are they different?
     
  2. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    3,740
    Likes Received:
    4,224
    Can you Flash Pulse back and Panzerfaust back as the same BS Attack ARO?

    Hacking is analogous to that behavior. That's the extension of the co-ordinated order logic. No, I'm fairly certain this isn't specified anywhere so it's (probably?) yet another case of relatively tenuous logic being used to support RAI. If I'm wrong and there is actually a reference I'd be very interested :)
     
    ChoTimberwolf likes this.
  3. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    4,743
    Likes Received:
    4,620
    It would be nice, but it's one of those "Too good to be true" things. I legitimately don't know, and I don't know if it's analogous to using different weapons in a BS attack, since each program is expressed as its own skill in the rules.
     
  4. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    6,300
    Likes Received:
    7,875
    Writing Hacking Programs as individual skills was a mistake.
     
    Hachiman Taro and Hecaton like this.
  5. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    3,740
    Likes Received:
    4,224
    You need 2 separate Hacking Skills: 'Hacking Attack' and 'Supportware'. I'd happily lose the ability to co-ordinate a Spotlight and Supportware for the simplicity that would offer.

    Chatting to a couple of people apparently this was formally clarified that 'no it does count as the same ARO' on the old forums, fucked if I can find it though.
     
  6. Arkhos94

    Arkhos94 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    1,414
    Likes Received:
    1,344
    EVO hacking device allow to hack in coordinated order without using the same program. While it's not enough, it hints toward hacking working like BS attack : hacking is the ARO, the chosen program is the "chosen gun"

    I did a quick check on the old forum and couldn't find a post related to that either
     
    ChoTimberwolf likes this.
  7. xagroth

    xagroth Mournful Echo

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    5,708
    Likes Received:
    4,591
    I think the main point is that the EVO allows to make a coordinate order with hacking programs... and specifies that those don't need to be the same.
    Aside from that, can't say much more since I never even considered placing 2 hackers inside of a Fireteam :S
     
    ChoTimberwolf likes this.
  8. kinginyellow

    kinginyellow Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2017
    Messages:
    544
    Likes Received:
    393
    this is a weird situation, but as hacking programs are seperate skills, the evo hacker explicitly states the individuals can do seperate programs while fireteams has no special clause.

    I am under the belief that the programs may be required to be the same. As weird as that may be.
     
    Hecaton and DukeofEarl like this.
  9. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    4,743
    Likes Received:
    4,620
    Yup. It's usually fine if I put a Nexus hacker and an Umbra Legate Hacker Plus in the same fireteam, because their ARO is probably Sucker Punch. But Kerr-nau changes that.
     
  10. kinginyellow

    kinginyellow Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2017
    Messages:
    544
    Likes Received:
    393
    Oh, i never had this thought/ situation before so this is really interesting. And yea, this is going to be a surprise if your opponent is like gotcha! (as jerkish as that may be)
     
  11. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    4,743
    Likes Received:
    4,620
    People at my local playgroup were saying that I can throw different hacking programs in ARO without breaking a fireteam, but I wasn't 100% convinced. So I guess I gotcha'd myself lol.
     
  12. kinginyellow

    kinginyellow Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2017
    Messages:
    544
    Likes Received:
    393
    To be fair, using different hacking programs are looked at to be very similarly to firing different guns. If you can do one, why not the other.

    That logic makes sense and is very sound thought process. Except of course that tiny detail of 1 is a broad skill that lets you choose the gun, the other is many small skills that are very similar.
     
    #12 kinginyellow, Mar 7, 2018
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2018
    ChoTimberwolf and Hecaton like this.
  13. Sabin76

    Sabin76 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    1,231
    Likes Received:
    1,525
    Hmm, you are right about the Kerr-Nau interaction, and now I'm sad.

    As you pointed out later, I don't think this comparison is the one you want to make.

    It seems the argument for having to use the same program in ARO is a little stronger than not. It is similar to, but with a fairly large caveat, to laying mines in ARO. If you have multiple models in a fireteam with different types of mines, you wouldn't be able to lay the different types, right... as they are all different skills? That said, we actually have a clarification with mines that they cannot be mixed in a coordinated order, where (on the program side) we have a specific piece of equipment allowing both coordinated hacking and for those hacks to be different programs. As written, the EVO provides two special exceptions to existing rules, as neither one implies that it's not an exception.

    Rule suggestion time: Agree with the previous idea of lumping all hacking (or classes of programs) into a skill (like a Claw/Sword/etc. skill). Also, do that for mines... "Lay mine" skill that is more like BS Attack, where you have to decide what type of mine to lay on declaration (which, then, gives the possibility of profiles with more that one type of mine).
     
    ChoTimberwolf likes this.
  14. kinginyellow

    kinginyellow Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2017
    Messages:
    544
    Likes Received:
    393
    Apologies if my previous post is misunderstood.

    The train of thought of many different guns is allowed so many programs is a logic assumption. While it seems solid, it is incorrect from what i can tell.

    I was just saying that this one is easy to get wrong is all. I do believe its all must be the same.
     
  15. ijw

    ijw Wargaming Trader, Freelance Editor (UK)
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    5,245
    Likes Received:
    10,647
    Ruleswise, different weapons is fine because the troopers are all using the BS Attack Skill.
    Different Mines is not, because they all involve different Skills.
    Different Hacking Programs is not, because they are all different Skills.

    Would blanket Skills like 'Place Deployable' or 'Hacking Attack' be good? Yes, but they don't exist at this time.
     
  16. eciu

    eciu Easter worshiper

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    3,515
    Likes Received:
    4,089
    As we are at it, can you actually recamo TO and standard camo (or Holo2) as part of coordinated order ? I don't remember seeing "explicit" skill "recamo" (just usual wording "by spending whole order you get benefit of marker state again")
     
    Sabin76 likes this.
  17. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    6,300
    Likes Received:
    7,875
    No, you're using the skill "CH: LEVEL 3. TO CAMOUFLAGE" and "CH: LEVEL 2. CAMOUFLAGE" to enter their respective marker states. Exactly the same as IJW answered regarding Hacking Programs.
     
    eciu likes this.
  18. Sabin76

    Sabin76 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    1,231
    Likes Received:
    1,525
    The way it's written, it seems like the skill isn't actually activated by the order expenditure. It's more like "spending" an order to perform a coordinated order. You are using an order, but not declaring any skills. It's the marker state itself that allows you to do this (though the model must have the skill). The skill itself doesn't even have any tags other than "automatic" as far as usage is concerned. It's not a short skill, long skill, or ARO.

    It's odd, and not worded how it probably should be if the intent was to use the skill to activate the state.
     
  19. solkan

    solkan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2017
    Messages:
    744
    Likes Received:
    1,258
    "Using an order but not declaring any skills" directly contradicts the instructions in the coordinated order rules.
    And the skills in question for the actions in question specify things like:
    "
    • During their Active Turn, troopers with CH: Camouflage may revert to the Camouflaged state by expending one Entire Order while outside enemy LoF."
    "Entire Order" in this case is referring to the classification of skill. In other words, it's an unnamed Entire Order Skill being used to perform the action described in the bullet point.

    Otherwise, you would have to claim that the rules are presenting you with an incomplete rule that you have no mechanism to use to resolve, Because there's otherwise no such thing as "expend one Entire Order".