This seems accurate. It seems folks are simply nit picking around the edges, @Triumph. You’ve been clear.
I was more trying to point out that answering open questions isn't actually a problem, unless they're getting too vague to answer easily. At which point asking the other player to narrow it down a bit to prevent a misunderstanding is a reasonable response. In a more realistic scenario these types of questions are not going to come up often because people behaving sensibly will use a process of elimination to figure out a majority of their opponent's active pieces can't be Holoprojected. If I put down a combat group with a Su Jian Duo, 7 Kuang Shi, and a Celestial guard that's an entire combat group and more than half an army you're 100% certain for various reasons cannot possibly be Kanren KHD.
I don't need to narrow it down. You're obliged to provide me with the information. I mean if we're being dicks about it And no, until you spend an order on them I can't be certain that they're not a Kanren KHD. There's a whole turn where it's plausible I just don't know. Hell it could be 2 x Holo Troopers being powered by a Celestrial Guard and 3 Kuang Shi (and yes, it needs to be a Hsien not a Su Jian, but it's doable).
Just to detail this highly productive argument. Has this actually been ruled by a FAQ yet or are we still at community consensus about Holo hackers?
The crossed text in red is not open information... only the hackable characteristic is Open Information, and a Kanren posing as a Hsien is hackable both in disguise and out. So you first iteration of "I Carbonite" would be followed by "My Hsien was not a Hsien but a KHD Kanren, that will ARO using Redrum" is perfectly legal. The way to do it would be: An enemy Hsien (in truth, a Kanren KHD disguised using Holoprojector Lv1) on total cover, no LoF with anything. Allied Hacker with pitcher, no enemy unit has LoF to him, and has LoF with the cover the Hsien is using. Both are outside of the Hacking Area of the enemy. Order 1: Pitcher fires, Repeater lands in range of enemy Hsien. Model can move or not, no hacking ARO will be generated since the Repeater won't be "on the table" until the end of the order. Order 2: Hacker declares Inaction, a real Hsien cannot declare ARO, but the Kanren has to or lose the chance to do it. The Kanren declares Redrum, revealing himself. The allied hacker declares now is program of choice. In this case, if you go directly with "I hack the hsien with Carbonite", you can only blame yourself if your opponent answers "it was a Kanren KHD that will Redrum you as ARO". I know it's harsh, but it's just a "think before acting" in the end ^^U
The red text IS open information as per the Hacking Device rules. Whether the Holo rules override the Hacking Device rules or not is open for debate and is not resolved; my view on this is covered earlier in this thread. But yes, if it's ruled that someone who posseses a Hacking Device isn't entitled to know what programmes of theirs work vs a particular model your correction would be correct. It's worth noting that I'd still be best off Carboniting because it's the best chance an AHD has of surviving a KHD ARO. Edit: in the other Holo vs Hacking device thread.
I just want to repeat this because it's worth repeating. This is an open question and no amount of arguing among the community is going to resolve it, it seems. In case you are wondering what the text is... They automatically identify whether a figure—but not a Marker—inside the Hacker's Hacking Area is targetable by a specific Hacking Program. [emphasis mine]
one doesn't prevent the other. Not only is which program work open info by the rule; but the troop type and weapons loadout is also open info by the core rules. That is, the troop type, weapon loadout, and which programs work on the model are all open info that you give out as accurately as you can considering that the figure placed on the table is a HSIEN. But everything that pertains to the Kanren is private info until he's revealed (except for the Hackable icon which is specifically written as being open info).
If you are brazen enough to want to charge up the field and put a repeater zone into the DZ of your opponent before they've even made a move, against an army that is known to commonly contain Holoprojected and TO Camo troops to protect their HI, of which both could or could not be KHDs, that's a gamble you're making. And again, I'm obliged to provide you with that information if you ask for it. So if you want to go up there and place that repeater by all means do it, but it's on you to remember to ask if you think there might be a disguised trooper there. To which you will freely be given the correct answer.
Triumph you seem to be opperating oin the basis that you are entitled to "tadaa" your opponent with your holo echo. and that if it fools them then its their fault not yours. Heres the thing though, theres a reason Holo Hackabillity is not private info and that reason is that your opponent is expected to know that information at the moment they have to make the relevant choice, ie: you've moved into a hacking area. You are not entitled in the least to hide that information from them, or to act as if they should not be privy to it. it has expressly changed to open, from that point on you never have the right for it to not be known and you arent being "stripped" of an advantage because its an advantage you are not supposed to have
No matter what your intent was originally, at this point comments like this really are just trolling man.
Yes, that's the purpose of a holoprojector. To fool your opponent. Holo Hackability gives your opponent a tool to work with to unmask your deception. If they don't use it then that is on them.
And this is the fundamental disconnect, No, you are only entitled to fool your opponent until the point that you arent, the point private information becomes open information, and that point is when your holo is in a hacking area. To argue otherwise is to argue that it essentially should be private information which it quite clearly is no longer.
We've already been over in length why your interpretation of the rules is wrong, and that the rules give examples that contradict your arguments.
I think I can make that even more stupid; to find out what hacking programs are viable, you need to be near a figure (not marker). Holo2 is marker state while Holo1 is a figure, and the line in HSN3 about Hackable characteristic applies to Holoecho - so... er... if a Kanren KHD hides as a single Crane, it is open information the programs it can be targeted with, but if the Kanren KHD hides as three Cranes it is sufficient with only revealing Hackable characteristic? Or not even that?
