Gutier is a Hassassins fan, I believe, is the reason. On a wider point, if being hackable HI or a TAG makes one vulnerable to hacking, E/M, etc... then it should come with a points discount. The fact that it doesn't is a problem.
Not all complexity is bad, and adding something that that already has precedence (see other states) the added complexity is negligible. unlike like some other fixes I have seen floated for various problems that add complexity for the sake of complexity (which is the bad kind) to try and fix a niche problem. On possessed, I think what actions you can do while possessed need to be limited, as well as the state limited to just the AHD as opposed to being a baseline program. A "suicide jump" isn't the only way to get value out of it, most of the time I use it is to attack something from an unexpected angle, use it to make some portable cover, or most commonly to get it off a scenario piece/out of a zone so I can claim it.
I think an elegant solution to both problems is making jumps that would cause damage to become idle instead. Bonus this also cleans up impetuous.
Neat solution I think. They'd still be declaring an order and that would cancel Prone. In certain situations. If all you're using them for is to generate orders, then they aren't all that good. What makes them great is that you don't need to care about them and can thus use them frivolously to take out sneaky stuff like Taighas and Ninjas, the order generation is a side-benefit.
Another of those "translation differences" (in this case just gramatical). In spanish the cancelation clause is "Status change" (and in brackets some statuses as example), which means the moment they change, not the "future status" to be aqquired, but seems in english is a "status change to..." and a list of statuses to change.
There is no difference in translation worth noting, this is an interpretation issue where it has been noted that these prohibitions applying only to the moment of change makes little sense
I'm not so sure it would affect impetuous, and it would just bring an extra defense to those possessed TAG, and also anything else that misscalculates its jump. I think its unneded. Just make them unable to jump. That forces them to not use superjump, but not bring safe measures "midgame". I might be mistaken with some of the english rules, but I am completelly sure that in the spanish version, the cancellation clause is the action of "status change.", not the "status to be" (or "status change to...".
No, in the spanish version for fury states directly that a trooper that becomes impetuous "loses all the special habilities CO/TO (to become mimetism), impersonation, holoproyector, etc." in the effects section. Is quite different
The literal words in English is also status change, but the current community understanding (which isn't universal) is that limiting it to only change makes no sense when it comes to cancelling or denying states and clarification is necessary. In English, yes, literal reading would have an isolated or retreating model able to enter Suppression Fire (provided they are courage or similar in the latter case)
the english version is "status change to", there is a grammar difference there. They both cancellate at the same time with the same conditions. But the spanish version implies the cancellation is because of the change, not the status to be, so the status doen't forbids to enter again in SF. The english version seems to me is understod as entering/being in the "status" is the reason to lose SF, which forbids also later use (but I cannot find in which basis)
in the spanish version "the troop becomes impetuous (because has frenzy, or a game circumstance) or enters retreat.". Different wording than SF too
That would imply that a troop that was already Impetuous would be able to enter a marker state, and we know that isn't true.
I think the bit you're missing (which is the same in both languages) is that the state is cancelled, and the trooper no longer benefits from the Special Skills that would let them re-enter the state.
You're looking at it in too fine detail so you're missing the larger picture. The cancellation criteria do not express on-going effects. The entire section of cancellation clauses are all expressing triggers for leaving the state. Prevention to enter the state should be written in the governing skill or the activation clause for the state, but could conceivably be expressed as on-going effects under Effects or Cancellation. As this is not expressed explicitly nor appropriately, if you machine read the rules you'll be able to enter Suppression Fire while Isolated and you'll be able to enter Impersonation as an Aragoto using Cybermask. This should be no different to Spanish which should have the same macro-level logic structure. However, this leads to Dumb (see Cybermask on Impetuous models) so there's plenty of people who doubt this is correct and think cancellation clauses should continually be checked so they make sense.
