Aight, imma present a situation, and say how I suspect it works, then you all tell me if I'm off base. A Unidron and Umbra Legate hacker, both in a fireteam together, make a Short Move skill into an enemy repeater's ZoC, out of LoS of all enemy models. The Umbra Legate is the Fireteam leader. The enemy player has two hackers on the board - Bit and an E-Drone. Since the Unidron doesn't have Stealth, the E-Drone is forced to declare its ARO at this point or lose it - it chooses to Exile the Unidron. Since Bit doesn't have a hacking program capable of targeting the Unidron, she has no ARO at this point. For its second short skill, the Legate uses Brain Blast on Bit. Since the Umbra is now targetable with AROs and Bit has valid AROs against it, Bit uses Redrum. Is this the right sequence of events? Did everyone do everything right? The two ways I can see things going wrong (which I disagree with, but I'll bring them up) are that 1. Despite the Umbra having Stealth, the fact that the Unidron provoked an ARO allows Bit to target the Umbra with Redrum anyway, and 2. the idea that Bit must make her ARO immediately after the Unidron moves into her hacking area, even though she has no hacking programs that can affect it, or any other legal AROs.
I think that 1. is what muddles the waters with recent debate on Stealth and link teams. I do note however that I don't recall anyone bringing up that we have so far established (sort of kind of established) that: 1. If in the above situation both reactive hackers may target the Umbra because the Unidron gives it away but 2. If the Umbra doesn't move into ZoC the reactive KHD doesn't have to declare because she has no valid program against the Unidron. This strikes me as odd, too, even if I do see the logic, I still think it's a bit odd.
To be fair, I think that the Umbra is not targettable by either hacker in this situation, until after it declares its second short skill, as Stealth still applies. Was there a recent discussion that decided differently?
There's been plenty, even one thread on this forum I think. I would like ARO generation to be tied to ARO targetability because as is I see little benefit for spending 54/0,5 on a Crane Assault Hacker in a link (plus it really screws the O-Yoroi over - hard), though I believe that IJW's position was that Stealth prevents trooper from generating ARO not from being the target of a hacking attack if someone else generates an ARO - mechanically this line of reasoning holds up in my opinion even if I don't like it. The flip side is that if a trooper with Stealth is not a legal target for ZoC ARO skills then the ZoC hacking shenanigans that some link teams can do increases strongly, and I can see a need to limit this. It's just a shame that AHD are so weak currently.
Please, not again... How is it possible that we always run in circle? http://infinitythewiki.com/en/ARO:_Automatic_Reaction_Order ARO: Automatic Reaction Order A trooper owned by the Reactive Player can declare an ARO if any of the following is true: It has Line of Fire (LoF) to a trooper being activated by the Active Player. An enemy trooper activates within its Zone of Control (ZC). It has a Special Skill or piece of Equipment allowing reaction to enemy actions without LoF. The Reactive Player must declare AROs for all eligible troopers immediately after the Active Player declares his Entire Order or the first Short Skill of his Order (see: Order Expenditure Sequence). Troopers that fail to do so lose their ARO against that Order. If, by declaring the second Short Skill of its Order, the active trooper gives ARO to enemy troopers that did not have ARO against the first Short Skill, then those enemy troopers can declare their AROs. Each time the Active Player activates a trooper by spending an order, each eligible enemy gets one single ARO, regardless of the number of Skills the Active Player declares during that Order. AROs must choose the trooper activated by the Order as their target. http://infinitythewiki.com/en/Stealth Stealth A trooper with Stealth that declares a Short Movement Skill or Cautious Movement within the Zone of Control of one or more enemies but outside their LoF does not grant AROs to those enemies, even if he reaches base contact with them. Resolution Umbra does not grant an ARO while Unidrons do (we suppose they declare the first skill Move within range of an enemy Repeater). => If both activate (or enter) within an enemy Repeater range, any enemy hacker are granted an ARO (due to the lack of Stealth on the Unidrons). => An ARO must chore the trooper activated by the order. Are the Unidrons activated? Yes. Is the Umbra activated? Yes. => Any enemy hacker can target OR the Umbra OR an Unidron within repeater range.
I am not certain why you're quoting/raving at me. What you write in your conclusion agrees with my argument of how it works.
Not directed to you, sorry! Just quoted the bit because it referred clearly to the situation involved! P&L
No, not really. The passage that says "AROs must choose the trooper activated by the order as the target" doesn't make sense in the context of fireteams because it uses "the" - if it said "AROs must choose *a* trooper activated by the order as the target" then you'd be in the clear. As it stands that sentence straight up doesn't make grammatical sense to apply to fireteams.
Doesn't make sense to Coordinated Orders, either, but those cases specifically modify the singular case so any exceptions would have to be written in those rules.
Why not? http://infinitythewiki.com/en/Coordinated_Orders The group of troopers in a Coordinated Order provokes one single ARO to each enemy within LoF or ZC. So, if Stealth and Dumb (lol) models are involved, they provokes ARO. You can decide on which model (that obv need to be a valid target for ARO, so within ZoC/LoF/Range/restriction applied) you spend the ARO. The almost same line is in the Fireteam rules http://infinitythewiki.com/en/Fireteams_in_the_Active_Turn A Fireteam grants a single ARO to each enemy trooper within LoF or ZoC. A "noisy" model de facto "nullifies" the skill Stealth of his comrades when they move using the same order (being it Coordinate Order, Sync, Fireteam or any other future way to do it). Remember, Stealth is not invulnerability. It simply NEGATE the generation of an ARO. If the ARO is granted elsewhere, there is no way to avoid the stealth-model to be targeted. Edit: It could all be resolved adding a line to stealth, for sake of clarity."Stealth cannot be used if moving multiple models with a single order".
Funny how this tactic (show an attached model, then the main one) gets no complaints when Yojimbo uses it... but when it comes to specialists, the only ones with access to Stealth are CA or some Greek units, and none can also get a Servitor/syncronized remote... Btw, generic Aleph can pull this off aswell: the Myrmidon AHD in a coordinated order with a Dakini.
This is a different case. In the discussed case, BOTH models are in a position to grant an ARO (Stealth not included). In the case you posted, only the Koala grants ARO with the first skill. Am I right? And this is (again) pretty solid and in line with the rules.
Yes and no. Yojimbo has Stealth, the Koala does not. So Yojimbo can do the same: place both himself and a Koala inside the ZoC of an enemy, non SS1/SS2 trooper, with Yojimbo at the back of the model, and the koala generates ARO but Yojimbo does not... Meaning you HAVE to declare ARO against the Koala, which can be Change Facing (the Koala needs to remain inside Yojimbo's ZoC at the end of his first short order or gets disconnected, meaning both Yojimbo and his Koala will be inside the enemy's ZoC).
Again, the way the rules seem to work is that all you're doing placing a Koala like that is to allow your opponent to declare the stronger ARO Dodge rather than Change Facing. The way the rules work, it disadvantages to fully negate the advantages there are to Stealth for units with attached non-Stealth models. Specifically the O-Yoroi is disadvantaged to the point where I'd consider Koalas to be a dysfunctional mines that you must deploy asap in order to limit Total Control AROs as much as possible. I no longer recall the exact configuration necessary to pull off the shenanigans required to get a normal hacking roll, but I seem to recall it required you to place a model in LOF of the enemy as sacrifice.
I don't think this is the intent as they didn't intend for the O-Yoroi's stealth to be non-functional. As it stands the rules are actually silent on this issue; there's nothing that explicitly says you can target an enemy model with an ARO when they didn't provoke one.
Can you please find a point in the ARO rules where it says that the ARO must be spent against the exact model that generated it? Because my rulebook says "AROs must choose the trooper activated by the Order as their target." and selecting the Umbra does not break this point. Meanwhile, not being able to choose the Umbra is not supported anywhere. Again, active models GRANTS AROs to enemy models. Once an enemy model has chance to ARO, he can select any active model he can "reach" with his ARO. The only thing that Stealth does is TO NOT GRANT an ARO to the enemy model, not avoiding to be selected as target for one.
Exactly, it says "the" trooper. If there are multiple troopers being activated... that sentence just doesn't apply. So it's another one of those things that isn't defined and has to be ruled on by TOs/the community.
It says under Fireteam in the Active Turn that a Fireteam grants a single ARO (emphasis not mine). Who generates this ARO doesn't matter since it's a single ARO. If one member doesn't generate an ARO, it doesn't matter, because the team just generated a single ARO. Also, the Umbra was activated by that order that generated a single ARO. Regardless of number of Unidrons. It sucks for a number of models, but that's the only way to read it to make everything fall in place.
It says "the trooper" because it is in the basic rules, where a single model is activated. If you read any of the multiple-activation-rules, you won't find anything that negate the possibility to ARO to any of the models (as long as the requirements for the ARO are met - obv only one of them). This is not one of those things that isn't defined and has to be ruled on by TOs/the community. It's just something a little nested, but if you are able to read clearly you'll see it. That said, if you still claim that this is not the case, suit yourself.
@Hecaton I'm surprised you already forgot that this was the first question I posed in my outstanding rules question thread. While I'm actually of a mind like @tox and @Mahtamori, I did think it was contentious enough to add. Unfortunately, that thread has gotten zero traction /sadface.
