^ You don't know the source of the Hacking Area until you measure ZOC. You can make informed assumptions (which is where information assymetry comes in), but uou don't know. A player can't be forced to divulge information they don't know.
What I mean is that I can see an interpretation where Hacking Area is a property of each Hacker and as such Open Information if there is a Hacker that's visible. Knowing there is a hacking area near a Repeater isn't the same as measuring it, because there is a point of origin - a reference point - for the hacking area.
Sure, if you want to try to ignore the entire rest of the private information rules. For instance: Private Information is information you can keep to yourself that your opponent cannot ask about. Your Private Information remains secret until a specific game event forces you to disclose it. For example, you've got a Camo(-6) trooper that declares a Move and proceeds to walk up a vertical surface because it has Climbing Plus. And note that things like the Private Information label for skills is defined as: Private Information. Whether or not any troopers have Special Skills or Equipment with this Label is Private Information and a player is not required to reveal it to his opponent until it is used, or the game is over.
so, by @solkan 's reminder, i think its fair to argue that the repeater is being used as part of the ARO, and should be included in the declaration (as per the red box on page 21 which indicates that "all details and choices" must be specified).
Taken together you and Solkan are arguing that the fact a specific Marker has a Repeater is Open Information as soon as you Deploy a Non-Marker state Hacker: Deployment being the game event that forces you to reveal Open Information about a Non-Marker Hacker. My main point is that for a specific Hack the point of reference is not required: because it could be one of several or indeed several different ones. I can see the point that in the event that a Moran's Repeater is the only option for achieving a Hacking Area then it would need to be announced during Step 5. But prior to that point you don't know that you are using the Moran's Repeater, you could very well be using the Hacker's own ZOC or a different Repeater entirely. Without measuring we can't be sure: we can just make better or worse assumptions. IE. Alice Moves within ZOC of 2 Camo Markers, during Step 5 you'd measure Hacking Area from one of them. Although, I still think that you don't need to provide even that much. The minimum amount of information you need to provide for the game to function is "Alice is within ZOC of a Repeater", so that's the information that you're forced to reveal IAW the rules of Private Information.
You don't know that the Repeater is being used at the time of Declaration. You only discover that during Step 5.
Maybe, but the Alguacile's Hacking Area exists around the Moran's Camo Marker regardless of if there's an enemy trooper in it. This is not a Line of Fire that is specified to only exist between two points on game elements (or a a game element and a valid target).
Oh absolutely. But Hacking Area isn't - as far as I can tell - Open Information. It's derived from a combination of Open and Private Information and incomplete distance information. Hacking Area isn't something you can inform your opponent about: the information that Hacking Area is derived from is something you tell your opponent about.
It seems like the N4 hacking rules favour very frequent "just in case" hacking declarations. That might be fine, once we get used to it. Every time the Nomad's opponent acts, the Nomad declares hacking AROs just in case there's a nearby camo marker that might be a Moran. By always declaring, the Nomad player conceals whether the camo is actually a Moran. Plus, when the active trooper isn't hackable, the Nomad still declares the ARO just in case it's a Holomasked hackable unit. It will probably feel weird at first, but once we get used to it we'll probably take it as a given to the point that the reactive player won't have to keep explicitly stating his hacking AROs at every action.
Well... you only get like... 15 "just in case" hacks that aren't Spotlights (which are a great idea to begin with) per game. No point declaring Trinity against something you know is immune to Trinity.
It'll only last until the first declaration where a particular Camo Marker is inside ZOC of an active trooper. At that point you will know whether or not the active trooper is inside a Hacking Area or not, and therefore whether or not the Camo Marker is a Moran. I certainly intend to say, during Step 2, for a while at least and then when teaching Morans: "If that trooper is inside ZOC of that Marker and if that Marker is a Moran you have an ARO now. Do you want to declare an ARO?" The other thing to note is that you don't check requirements at declaration, you only check them at Resolution. So if you declare an ARO at Step 2 (but don't actually have an ARO yet) and all its requirements are fulfilled at Step 5 then it's a valid ARO. Which means that you can't lose an ARO by declaring early. There's also the fact that's there's likely to be a CK within 8" or the Marker to make it more obvious what is and is not a Moran. I'm personally looking forward to both of these interactions: 1. @daboader moves a Jotum into ~8" of a Marker, inside 8" of a CK (with another marker also inside 8") 2. Zoe Total Controls 3. Reset 5. Yeah, nah. No Repeater in range. 1. @daboader moves a Jotum into ~8" of a Marker, outside 8" of any CK 2. Zoe Total Controls 3. Move 5. Guess I get to do it on Normal rolls then. That there is a Moran: God I love that Minelayer is optional. Follow up to clarify: But I'm not looking forward to forgotten AROs at Step 2 'just in case' and then getting hit on Normal Rolls. I see a definite distinction between the above where there is a deliberate decision about to whether to call my bluff or not, and getting Normal rolls simply because someone forgot that something is possible. Having agency matters.
@Koni bringing this to your attention; issue remains on the Lu Duan. How does hacking through its repeater work? Do we reveal which Echo is the Repeater?
That's how my group played it in N3 anyway, it was just simpler and it was the whole purpose behind holo1.
hacking area isn't on the list of private information, so it is open, no? by analogy, range bands and move distances are open, but the exact reach of either isn't determined until resolution/measurement. where we get hung up is at what point you have to reveal private marker contents - at declaration or at resolution. In every other case I can think of, it is at declaration, but all of those involve the marker making the declaration. this is clearly a different question, so I think it's ambiguous as written. the other germaine text is in that red box on p. 21: For instance, if you declare a movement, specify the entire route; if you declare a BS Attack, specify which Weapon will be used, who the targets are, where the Trooper shoots from, how the Burst is divided, etc. The question is whether that "etc." covers identifying hacking through a repeater in the same sense it would require the you to specify a path of movement or where you are shooting from. And this isn't just a moran thing - I'd think the lu duan just got a lot better if you are correct.
As pointed out by @Mahtamori, the Lu Duan still has holomask, holoprojector, and a repeater, which has fundamentally similar issues.
Ok... So the question boils down to: Does hacking through a marker state reveal a repeater? Similar question: If I move a hackable target in a marker state into a ZOC of a repeater or hacker do I immediately tell them if it hackable?
No. 1. Hackability attribute is protected as private by the marker state. 2. Hacking is not a legal ARO against a marker, anyway.
