Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'repeaters'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Universalia. Maya in general
    • Maya news
    • Reports From The Front
    • Infinity news
    • Users
    • Infinity Events and Tournaments
  • VissioRama. Commercial channel
    • Antenocitis Workshop
    • Bandua Wargames
    • Battle Foam
    • Customeeple
    • Information From Distributors and Shops
    • Micro Art Studio
    • Plast Craft Games
    • Warsenal
    • Luxumbra
  • Sabot! Your war channel in Maya
    • Online Events
    • Rules of Engagement
    • Campaign: Paradiso
    • Infinity Tournament System (ITS)
    • Infinity Army
    • N2 Archive
  • Vergilius. Personal assistant
    • Access Guide to the Human Sphere.
    • PanOceania
    • Yu Jing
    • Ariadna
    • Haqqislam
    • Nomads
    • Combined Army
    • Mercenary Market
    • ALEPH
    • Tohaa
  • Fussion. The artistic channel
    • Miniatures
    • Fan Art
    • It has been written...
    • Arcologies
  • Arachne. Out of Maya
    • The Bouboutique of the Caravansary

Found 5 results

  1. Hi Guys! A question for you all. Let's say I am fielding an Iguana, which brings to the field its own repeater. My opponent attempts to hack it via its own deployed repeater. Am I entitled to AROs with my hackers? In the repeater description it says: REPEATER AUTOMATIC EQUIPMENT Comms Equipment, Obligatory, Zone of Control. REQUIREMENTS EFFECTS Repeater broadens the Hacking Area of all Hackers in play. Hackers in the same Army List as the Repeater, and their possible allies in multiplayer games, can hack in the Zone of Control (8-inch radius) of the Repeater as if it was their own. In the same way, they can also react with Hacking Programs to enemy Orders declared in the Zone of Control of the Repeater as if it were their Zone of Control. Hackers can also attempt to hack through an enemy Repeater only if the Repeater is inside their Zone of Control. By doing this, they can perform hacking attempts against targets inside the Zone of Control of the enemy Repeater, and also against any enemy Hacker, but they suffer the Firewall MODs (a -3 MOD to their WIP Roll, while their target gets a +3 MOD to his BTS). So I guess a repeater extends the hacking area but not the Zone of Control, so I can't ARO on an hacker using an enemy repeater in my Hacking Area. Is this correct?
  2. Hello, I stumbled into a couple of conundrums while I was thinking about random scenarios in Infinity. I know this first topic has been up for debate for a long time. But all I seemed to come across were long winded debates from two years ago with many of them ending with 'solved' on either side of the spectrum. I am of course talking about Repeaters and using an ARO through an enemy's. Now I would prefer not to have to get into another long winded debate, so I'm simply looking for a short yes or no answer with the least amount of explanation needed. From what I've read from the wiki, having an enemy repeater in your hacker's ZoC allows you to use the hacking area provided by that repeater, as well as being able to target any enemy hacker. Now... The only dilemma I have here is: Can you ARO hack any enemy hacker with your own hack at any distance, and without LoF, so long as you are in range of an enemy repeater? Onto my second question. I have slowly been unraveling this question whilst typing this thread. But I simply need confirmation on the matter. Netrods and Imetrons, along with their AI Beacon equipment. I know you can isolate them to stop them from providing orders, and also stopping Proxy AIs to move into the beacon and continue existing. While I was googling an answer for my question, "Can you Blackout an AI Beacon?", I was met with more mixed results. People in the few discussion threads said that AI Beacons were Comms Equipment, which would make sense considering they're in the unit's equipment line and are treated as deployable equipment. But, while attempting to confirm this on my own by using the Wiki, I saw nothing of the sort regarding AI Beacons as Comms Equipment. This of course then made me think, No. Simple enough. Then, as I looked further, I realized that Netrods and Imetrons aren't classified as any of the usual 4 hackable targets, HI, REM, TAG, or Hacker. Furthermore, they don't even have the hackable trait whatsoever. Naturally, the reasonable thing to say is no, Netrods and Imetrons cannot be Isolated through hacks; thus, the only way to stop them is either by using E/M weapons or straight up killing them. Okay, sounds simple enough. But I still remain curious if this is as intended. It seems rather silly to me that a technological spike in the ground labeled as an AI Beacon isn't hackable in the slightest, nor that it isn't comms equipment of any sort. I am simply looking for confirmation on whether or not a hacker can be used to Isolate an AI Beacon. As a bonus, would blacking out the AI Beacon do anything to a jumping Proxy AI?
  3. Just had a situation in a game where opposing repeaters were within 8" of each other, active side declares hacking to immobilise enemy repeater, reactive player counter hacks but can only target enemy repeater? Did we play this right? Robert
  4. I've always assumed hackers were also repeaters, but now I can't find where in the rules it says this. Do you know? Bonus thought: Ambush tokens don't generate orders, so isn't it obvious how many are on the table when you compare the number of models with number of orders generated? Cheers!
  5. The situation: Somehow a wardriver (defensive hacker) is facing off vs. a valorous Noctifier hacker on a Transmission Matrix table so that there are the five "frenemy" repeaters present. So the misguided Wardriver (defensive hacking device) is sitting off, and the valiant Noctifier hacker activates. It goes 1. First skill: Move into ZoC of antenna 2. Wait for AROs 3. Second skill: Sucker Punch targeting the Wardriver 4. Wait for AROs So, when does the defensive hacker declare AROs, and what can it declare? Option 1, "Shield programs can't be declared before being attacked, but don't trigger in hacking area either": - The defensive hacker has no hacking programs that it can declare through the repeater so it has no ARO at Step 2. - At Step 4, being attacked by the valiant Noctifier hacker satisfies the "The user must be chosen as the target of a Hacking Attack." clause on Breakwater, Counterstrike, and Zero Pain, so the Wardriver gets to choose between those programs and Reset as its AROs. Option 2, the "Pre-emptive Shield Declaration" option: - At Step 2, the defensive hacker has an ARO because the enemy model is in ZoC of the friendly repeater. The "The user must be chosen as the target of a Hacking Attack." ends up being similar to the "Must have LoF to the attacker" condition in Dodge, where it's a bit misleading and it's okay to declare Breakwater, Counterstrike, and Zero Pain before the enemy hacker acts. Naturally, if the defensive hacker isn't attacked, the programs don't do anything. Which is the right answer? The justification for not having an ARO when the enemy hacker moves into the repeater range The repeater rules specify: That's not the same as saying that the hacker treats the repeater's ZoC as an extension of its own. Especially if the hacker has no hacking programs it could declare. If the model has no AROs it could declare, it has no opportunity to declare an ARO. This is, of course, taking the second and third bullet points of the Repeater rule as explaining and defining what the rules mean by "Repeater broadens the Hacking Area of all Hackers in play" in the same manner that mines spend several bullet points defining what happens when a mine triggers; and is treating the definition of Hacking Area on page 150 as a summary of how the repeater rules work. Naturally, there's a related problem concerning when the defensive hacker can declare the Shield programs vs. an enemy hacker. Defensive hacking devices practically need sixth sense for the shield programs to function properly in that context.