This is probably a simple answer, but this scenario came-up in the game I played today. I had an Evader move into ZoC of an Asura Hacker (I forgot Evaders were HI!); passed my Reset. On my next order I moved closer, then declared Place Deployable to put a mine at the corner of the building (I was setting-up the old mine & BS Attack combination). The Asura again attempted to hack me, with Carbonite. As it turned out, I passed my BTS and nothing came of this: I placed the mine and was ready for my next order. What should have happened if I failed the BTS? Does the IMM-B state prevent the mine from being placed at the conclusion of the order, or do these two independent interactions (Place Deployable vs Carbonite) have no influence on each other and the mine appears?
The Place Deployable rule says "The Token is placed at the Conclusion of the Order in which the Trooper declared this Skill. The enemy may only react against the Trooper that declares the Skill, not against the Weapon or piece of Equipment that is placed on the table during that Order or ARO." Given the second sentence, I think that the purpose of not placing the Token until the Conclusion of the order is so that it can't be interacted with during the order. If it were placed at Declaration, people might want to shoot it with their second short skill. If it were placed at Resolution, there would still be questions about Resolving template attacks that it was inside. I think that the Requirements of the Place Deployable skill are still checked at Resolution, simultaneously with those of all other skills. So even if the Evader becomes Immobilized (or Unconscious, Dead, Stunned, etc.) during the Resolution phase, the Place Deployable skill will still succeed and the mine Token will still be placed at the Conclusion. In short, I think the rule is specifying when the player places the Token on the table, not when the Evader performs the Place Deployable skill.
It's the same situation as someone declaring a bunch of BS Attack AROs and causing a billion damage to the person (sending it to dead) who declared Place Deployable--they're independent interactions that have no influence on each other. In order for the hacking attack to prevent the place deployable, it would have to be face to face. As long as it isn't, it won't.
Thank you! In my head, that was what I was thinking. My opponent thought it should not work and I could not articulate the rules well enough to why I thought it should ("in my head it just does" is not a great explanation). Thankfully it did not matter in that game, but I will feel better able to explain this rule interaction if it comes up again.
