Why is this so funny? You said, "yes" you like this. I don't need to know why you like it if my only concern is that you like it. I certainly don't need to comment on it. I followed that up with another question but you haven't answered. Your thoughts on what I ignore or don't ignore would be relevant if I hadn't already discussed these points earlier in this thread. And you trying to lump my suggestions up into some ridiculous notion that I want to combine everything into a form of Yahtzee is not worth responding to. The other side of things lol. If you don't think i've been responding to the other side of things you've been reading the wrong thread. We clearly see the situation differently. It is not my responsibility to respond to every comment being made. I've tried to steer the discussion on topic. There is only so much I can do in that regard. At worst, I've done a poor job making my point clear. But it's just as plausible some have done a poor job listening.
Obviously there is a point where 'this type of game play would harm their whole game experience'. That's going to be true of all rules. It's a slippery slope fallacy because that's not the current situation and there is no indication that it's going to change in any major way.
At the end of the day, CB specifically divided attacks and their responses for a reason. It is a proactive change in N3 vs N2, and seems to function quite well to most, with the proposed “solutions” not offering much or even offering more complex and cumbersome interactions.
This entire thread feels based on negative interaction with Ghazi. I think removing the Dodge/Reset choice is dumb. If you make a catch-all skill declaration that "becomes" a Dodge or a Reset you may as well also change a Shoot ARO to let you pick what weapon you wish to fire *after* the active model does. Or perhaps a catch-all "Attack" ARO where you get to choose Hacking/Shooting/CC after seeing the second Short of your opponent - ridiculous. Example - Model A is set up covering a path of advance and is equipped with a normal BS gun and a DTW. Model B pokes out from cover and has a normal BS weapon, a DTW and Smoke grenades. Model A declares "I might attack you or something". Model B chooses to throw smoke. Model A now gets to lol for a while as they determine which action best counters the active model - they opt for the DTW.
That's why in one comment I said I was specifically excluding Ghazi. The combination of both Jammer and a DTW means that they can always avoid a FtF roll, even if they approach from the front. And the fact that they are dogged means that doing a BS attack vs. the chain rifle won't stop them from getting in more hits. The Heckler with a Jammer doesn't offer nearly as bad of a set of choices; if they are in total cover, you know they are going to jam you, so you can reset. If you have LoF, you can ARO with a BS weapon, and it's going to be a FtF roll, whether they use their jammer or combi. They can still put you in a bad spot if they are within 8" and behind you, but at that point you're probably better off doing a change facing. The jammer is really annoying, but it can't actually kill the model, and if you have a pair of unopposed normal rolls they only really get one shot at it.
Forcing your target into a normal roll has been a part of the game since N1. The N2->N3 change was generally away from realism and towards simpler gameplay (though hacking and CC got greatly increased in importance and viability at the same time) That's generally your PH attribute, if you're referring to throwing Smoke Grenades. That's been part of the game since N1. You should be trying to force your opponent into eating Normal Rolls!
In the context of an ARO against an active trooper, the reset would be an attempt to prevent the attack from finding a target. My meaning is that the trooper would be having to choose between expecting the electronic warfare attack and trying to counter it or by physically moving themselves to avoid enemy fire. If they chose the latter and began moving it, they would then be wide open to the hacking attack - if they'd began resetting straight away, attempts to hack them would have constantly had to be started over (all subject to the FtF outcome, of course). As an aside, some kind of dual-defensive measure could be a likely candidate for special skills/equipment, such as a cybernetic device that improves your BTS against hacking or comms attacks by +3 when you declared Dodge - maybe a bit of over-complication, or too niche though.
Aside from Jammer and a combination of Mines/Hacking... Is there any other circumstance where Dodge/Reset is a problem? I suppose a Repeater over a model and the Hacker moving into LoF at range, maybe? EDIT - Wait - that'd just be shoot as FtF with the hacking. So it'd require the reactive model to have no guns?
It happens whenever a Hacker walks up behind a hackable target. Either they Change Facing and get hacked, or Reset and get shot in the back.
True - though I think the crux of the argument from the OP is around situations they perceive as unfair. Someone walking around you and shooting you in the back is more bad deployment that "unfair" tactics/weapons :P
Also, what would happen if a player coordinated a Jammer unit and a non-Jammer unit to attack a model who declared this "Evade" skill and it is attacked simultaneously by both Jammer and a normal BS Attack?
