This isn't really about how the rule is applied, but a philosophical/ethical question about how players ought to behave when resolving the rule. ---- Your opponent orders a trooper to move up--triggering no ARO's--and then uses sensor (successfully) as the second short skill. This reveals no hidden deployment troopers but might be close. You ask your opponent to look away while also asking an independent third-party judge to make sure your hidden model location is not within range. Once this is confirmed, your opponent can then look back and resume. Having found nothing, but still worried about your HD models, the opponent might move again and sweep some other area. Is it okay to bluff in this circumstance and pretend to carefully carry out this checking process even if you actually have no HD models for them to find, or if it is obvious that any HD models are a very long way out of range (perhaps in DZ)? Two views: 1) No, it might be unethical to deliberately mislead your opponent verbally, this is not part of closed information, and if there is no actual need to check to see whether any potential HD models are in range of the sensor sweep, then there should be no need to get out a tape measure or ask an independent judge to ensure that the sensor isn't within range of your hidden model location. or, 2) Yes this does need to be done, because otherwise the reactive player may be forced to give up information he/she may not normally be required to give. If the active player just moves out and activates sensor, taking care to observe whether you are calling for a range-check (telling them that they are close to finding you) or simply declaring straight away that nothing is nearby (telling them that they don't need to waste any further orders searching this area, or need to move much deeper afield to find anything), then the active player is actually picking up very useful information relating to whether it is worth wasting more orders pursuing this particular tactic at this particular point in the game.
You should know precisely where you deployed your Hidden Trooper. Have the Sensor'd area swept out each time with a quick ZoC measurement so everyone knows exactly which area was just revealed, and then you simply provide a yes/no answer. This doesn't need to be made into a big deal, or acted out so as to mislead, it's quick and simple.
If it came down to it, on discussions along these lines I fall towards faking it out. The hidden information of the game is a key element of its design, and its for this reason that I support the occasional "TAG on the army tray that isn't in either list", or having time alone with the table to take HD photographs even without HD in the list, etc.
You should simply ask them to measure the ZOC if you want to. Even if you don't have a HD anywhere near the zone (or even as an option) the size of the Sensor area is useful information to which you are entitled (on both sides). But it should be a simple "could you please measure the area, I'd like to see what it is". There's no need with the palava of getting someone else to come over to the table. Ie. pretty much what @macfergusson said
I need to clarify this a bit. Your opponent declares sensor. You actually have an HD model nearby, but not sure if it's in range. Your opponent is watching your reactions physically to get an idea about whether it's a close call or not. This is a lot of information to them. You play it cool, put on poker face, measure the range, give them an answer. Later, they are doing the same thing. You pretend that it might be another close call. This is important because if you don't do this, it's a tell. The difference between your easy yes/no response and your more difficult, strenous, yes/no response, tells a lot to someone paying attention.
This. If your record of the HD position isn't accurate enough for the ZoC sweep then you're going to have bigger issues than close shaves with Sensor...
Sorry, I still don't think I've explained myself well enough for the point to have been taken. You know exactly where the model is. You've recorded exactly where the model is. When the opponent is measuring for it, there legitimately may be some doubt as to whether it is within range, just the same as a measurement needs to be taken for any other ZOC check. The point is that your physical reaction matters. If you are putting effort into the range check, it means your model might be close. If you aren't, it probably isn't close. This matters. I started this thread to find out how people generally feel about faking your response in order to disguise this information. Maybe nobody here has played poker before, fair enough.
I think I'm still missing the point somewhere - you measure the Sensor sweep as accurately as you can every time it's done. There's no reason to act differently.
It's possible that the Sensor model measurement may be marginal, even with your exact knowledge of where your HD is. You may therefore have to carefully inspect the range between the models, as it may be 8.1 inches or 7.9, so what is being asked is - should every single Sensor interaction be treated as though this is the case? It is psychologically important, because if you are usually casual about inspecting the 8 inch radius and suddenly need to check it more carefully you have given something away. That's the key point here, is it appropriate to always maintain your poker face by scrutinising the measurement - even when you don't have a model in HD at all. I don't think the psychological aspect of the game has any rules at all. You are therefore free to gasp in astonishment or maintain an icy calm as you sip your iced tea every time Sensor is used. The etiquette will almost certainly be varied from meta to meta.
I would consider deliberate faking of concern as bad sportsmanship but it's not like you could identify it enough to be cheating. Be sensible and discuss it with your opponent. Something like "Alright, measure it out, I'm going to look closely at the whole sweep whether or not I believe I have hidden troops close enough because if you are miles away it benefits me for you to waste orders trying to find it and if you are close, I don't want you to know how close"
NO! that is a deliberate delay of game for no reason. Faking having a HD model close and calling a TO/Judge to verify is bad sportmenship.
I think that asking opponent to measure ZoC on every Sensor use is fair and right thing to do. There could be corner cases, of course, but playing poker faces and mind games with false interests to some building or map location is not good for game experience. This is also IMHO.
Sensor isn't something that's going to be declared very often, unless you're deliberately trying to flush Fusiliers out of cover (Sensor is a comms attack and creates a danger zone) and even that is note very effective. Measuring exactly is not a big deal for something that's declared on average less often than LT roll off per game.
Sensor is an attack. Here's from Guts roll requirements: Surviving one or more successful Attacks from weapons, types of Equipment or Hacking Programs with the Non-Lethal Trait, or that do not provoke ARM or BTS Rolls.
i knew you could Dodge when an enemy smoke lands on you (as it is an impact template BS Attack), but looking at Guts requirements, it seems that as a Non-Lethal attack that does not provoke ARM roll, you could also guts away. And for sure, being in a template even if the primary target is a point doesn't mean you can't be a secondary target (if being a target even matter at all).
To declare Sensor, you do not need to have LoF to the target, or indeed designate any target at all. Sensor and Area of Effect Sensor is an Area of Effect Special Skill: it does not require a target, but instead applies equally over an Area of Effect and may reveal several Markers and enemies in Hidden Deployment with a single Roll. My emphasis.
