Post faq 1.3: Can hackers declare any ARO when they get an ARO from their hacking area?

Again, I am not @ijw nor I am part of the rules staff. I presume they know better what does they imply with a “can”, and we are talking about @ijw ruling nor English semantics.

But if we want to delve into the meaning of a “can” please mind that, apparently to me, rules design for Infinity are “restrictive or closed” instead of “open”. In the sense that, usually, you can do only what is told in the rule, instead of saying what you cannot do. If you do not apply the logic of “I can only do what is told in the tule” to the whole game, it falls appart. Stop to think about it for a moment, and you will realise that what we have are degrees of freedom here and there spread in the rules

 

I think at this point waiting for a clarification is the best option.

 

I hope that is the case, and we do not have to wait until next year's FAQ. Although I would also understand if that is the case, after all, anything rules related surely needs to get the consensus of several people and resources deployed, and maybe the time for CB to allocate such manpower and effort has already pass for this developtment cicle.

 

The problem is under other rules you can declare speculative aros.

 

And that is exactly my point and what I suggest the Rules Team to do: to allow Hacking Area ARO to behave as any other ARO, allowing you to do what you call ‘speculative ARO’. Meaning: You have a legit ARO declaration clause thanks to the Hacking Area, so declare whatever ARO you want, but beware that it may turn into IDLE in step 5 of the Oder Expenditure Sequence.

 

Sure. But then you have people like @A Mão Esquerda who are pointedly avoiding the issue with their "don't be a dick" comments, which means that the issue will never get addressed.

 

Pointlessly calling out other forum members won't get the issue addressed either.

 

I agree with you @psychoticstorm about the need of being reasonable and civil. Even then, this thread started back in the end of November and there has been no updates coming from the rules developtment team since @HellLois intervention. So it seems that either this is being classified as a 'working as intended' feature, or as the people in tech-QA would classify as 'not an issue'. Or I was indeed right and we would need to wait a full year as there is literally no manpower nor resources allocated in rules until the next cycle circa October-November. Both of them quite unfortunate, in my opinion.

 

Just an small note to this topic. This shiny new toy that Nomads / Bakunin just got today:



Want to kill it without absolutely 0 possible counterplay from your opponent player?

TL:DR —> This lengthy post is just a reminder that there is still one ARO Bait situation in the game, and it is easily fixable just by changing one line of the latest FAQ:

 

TIL that BS Attack (Guided) is not an Entire Order

At any rate this is definitely something that needs to be addressed with an FAQ and a great candidate for a rules rewrite: there's no reason that activating a non-hackable trooper should provoke an ARO from enemy hackers in your repeater net unless the trooper itself is secretly a Hacker due to Holomask, and there are other ways to solve that rules conundrum.

 

wow all that to kill a 58pts mini-TAG with a rule glitch. here's an easier way that won't cost 5+ orders : use your anti-tag attack piece (which you have, as almost everyone has TAG) and simply kill that BS13 ARM6 TAG. Not as safe (as you face a HRL ARO), but much more effective use of resource.
Hmm, well I guess that was your option 2 anyway : use MSV2 smoke trick to kill TAG. You only added a few orders for manoeuvring to place a repeater down near the TAG in order to deny him an ARO roll (which was also an old glitch that msv smoke could do in the past).

edit : I'm curious, who has MSV FO for the FO thru Smoke trick you talk about ?

 

yujing, ariadna, nomads...

 

yeah, i found them. grenzer fo, guilang looks promising because of infil, maverick sounds good. But they all have MSV1 so -6 for smoke so unless you pull off the repeater glitch to prevent a Dodge; it is unlikely I'll add it to my tactics.

 

this thread is not about “hidden tactics” of the game. The ongoing theme is that latest FAQ removed all the ARO Baits of the game. And developer’s note declared that was the intention. But still one remains. And it is one with an easy fix.

 

sure, but sometime you stumble on gems in unexpected places. And if HMG thru Smoke is legit, then FO thru Smoke is probably legit too... to bad there are no MSV2 FO units even if there are plenty of MSV2 HMG units out there.

 

So far as I can read the latest 2.0 book has finally solve this issue by making hacking aros behave as a normal aro! Thanks lot for fixing this guys!

 

Edited my answer as I realize that you can indeed declare dodge if the active trooper is indeed a hacker.

 

Yep, you can now declare dodge as an ARO if you’re inside the ZoC of an enemy repeater with your hacker and it would be legal as long as the activated enemy is a hacker. I have edited my answer already.