Speaking of Intruders, under Daboarder's reading the Ariadnan player would toss smoke on a Warcor and then make a move with the 3-point model with an Irregular order and ask the Nomad player "which camo tokens just saw me?". Cheap information fishing that should be obvious is not the intention of the rules.
I'm not sure whether or not you're being facetious or petulant so I'll cross off the frustration of your post as a result of me segmenting your post. I'll try my best to avoid doing that again, when quoting your posts. As for the citation needed part, they can all be broadly answered with "LoF is open information". No one is arguing that the Hafza has to declare that he lacks the 360 visor, however he CANNOT claim to have LoF on his back arc, as that would be benefiting from the equipment. It's no different from rolling on the ARM value of the unit you're disguising as. As for the Djanbazan scenario: Additionally, it allows the user to draw LoF through Zero Visibility Zones, and ignore the -6 MOD imposed by those Zones on BS Attacks. That's from MSV2. If you're telling your opponent you have LoF, you can only do that if you benefit from the MSV2 equipment, which you do not have. So yes, you'd be cheating. I don't care about the Jammer as that's a weapon that's infamous for being notoriously difficult to figure out in its usage and is a mere exception to the rule. Doesn't refute my point though. As for your "Gotcha!": 'And here's where your cut up quoting fails spectacularly. I am not commenting on marking miniatures at all.' Not really? This is actually one of the main points of this thread and the ITS marking is simply a requirement that is in place to speed up the game. The LoF is still open information at all given time, so the marking is simply a way of avoiding slowdowns like 'What can this model see?' 'What's this model facing?' etc. etc. The LoF arc is literally a rule in the game, which is constantly open information. ITS simply wants you to illustrate it to avoid any discussion and improve the "agility of the game". How is my claim "Categorically false"? The base with a LoF arc is not part of the model. Perhaps you're the one who should do some reading. And as for the mines. Not sure about the snide remarks since they literally do have LoF and prevent recamo, as long as they are in camo state. O_o Very good answer. Although you're not allowed to say "yes" in any given time.
You're conflating what a trooper can 'claim' and what a trooper can actually benefit from. A Holo 1 trooper can claim all the benefits of a the figure they're disguised as (except whether or not they're Hackable once inside a Hacking Area). They can only actually benefit from their organic skills. Holo 1 provides an exception to the standard rules for what is and is not Open Information: the LOF statement should consequently be read as 'the apparent LOF of a figure is open information. If you disagree with this position then answering 'it appears so' should be disallowed as dissembling: it doesn't actually answer the question of 'does that figure have LOF to this trooper'. And permitting 'Based on the information of which you are aware, it appears so' but not 'Yes': is specious. All answers in Infinity implicitly have the caveat 'based on the information open to you'. It's good practice to make this explicit when teaching a new player, but amongst experienced players this understanding can reasonably be assumed.
Frustration is part of it, but also that you're assigning my post opinions that simply aren't there. I wasn't expressing opinions regarding LOF marking, so you assigning parts of my post as being relevant to that part of the debate is irritating and rude. Most of all, do cut what is not necessary, but don't cut up several parts of an ongoing reasoning - if you divide up an entire line of reason that is required to be together to be coherent, you'll be making mistakes. Such as thinking I'm commenting on LOF marking a miniature - particularly since I do think you're correct in that a model with 360 visor should not be marked with a 180º arc. (However, I do not agree that a Hafza hiding as a 360 Sekban should have 180 arc painted on it - Holo1 rules literally says you place the model of any other trooper instead of the Hafza, so if that trooper should have 360 arc painted on it, so should it have if the Hafza pretends to be said trooper) Here's the thing; when in Holo 1, the Hafza's real profile is private information. So citation in the rules where it says that the Hafza's actual LOF is open information is needed to overrule the fact that it is private information that the Hafza does not have 360 Visor or MSV2 (depending on model it pretends to be). As for the mine; mines don't block a model from re-camoing (it is not a trooper), but a mine in camo does. Even if it is obvious that that particular marker is a mine (since the Guilang declared AP Mine as skill when said marker was placed on the table). The point being that even if the mine itself doesn't prevent re-camoing - the opponent's trooper doesn't get to know because that is private information and is forced to react on the information that is open, which is that it's a camouflaged token. They don't even get to know that the mine doesn't have LOF because it's S0 and a low wall is blocking LOF - the camo marker is still S2 and can "see" over it. Hence, from other rules we have that relevant seemingly open information can be private and you can be forced to act on incorrect information because the source of said open information is private and doesn't have to be revealed. Edit: For obvious reasons, all models regardless of 360 visor or not, should have a front point marked so that when they are revealed to be a Holo1 model you can retain the correct facing.
Fair enough, I'll take your points to heart the next time I cite your posts then. As for the cited part: Effects While in Holoprojector L1 state, players don't place the Holoprojector L1 bearer's model but the model of any other trooper (known as the imitated model) fitting the Holoprojector L1 Requirements and declaring which weapon option it is replicating from the imitated model's Troop Profile. However, players use the Troop Profile of the Holoprojector L1 bearer, as it appears on their Army List. This state does not affect Automatic Special Skills or Automatic Equipment. And on to the 360 visor: 360˚ VISOR AUTOMATIC EQUIPMENT Obligatory. REQUIREMENTS EFFECTS This Visor gives the user a 360˚ LoF arc, instead of the usual 180˚. Q: How do you gain 360˚ LoF Arc? A: By having an automatic special skill or equipment active. Q: Are you allowed to appear to as a profile from the army list? A: Yes. Q: Can I place a holo1 trooper with a 360˚ arc? A: No, because your automatic equipment isn't active. Holo1 does not affect automatic equipment. Q: Isn't the 360˚ LoF Arc part of the troopers profile? A: No, only the 360˚ Visor equipment grants the user a 360˚ LoF Arc. 360˚ Visor is Automatic equipment. Holo1 does not affect automatic equipment.
So @Zewrath your argument is: A Sekban with a 180 degree LOF arc on it is legal. A Sekban with a 360 degree arc on it is legal. A Hafza pretending to be a Sekban with a 180 degree LOF on it is legal. But a Hafza pretending to be a Sekban with a 360 degree arc on it is illegal. Right?
It's saying the Holo 1 state does not affect automatic equipment, referring to the equipment of the Holoprojector user, not the imitated trooper. All that means is that your other automatic equipment of the real trooper doesn't turn off in Holo 1 state.
Not quite but close. A Sekban with 180 degree LOF Arc is not legal. The 360 visor is automatic equipment and is obligatory and cannot be switched off.
I’ve never argued to the contrary, except in the beginning of the thread, until I was reminded of the LOF Arc. You can appear as the profile from the army, you cannot benefit from profile you’re imitating. Saying you have 360 LOF Arc is the same as saying you benefit from mimitism and ODD while you’re shot at or using the ARM value of the trooper you’re imitating or the same as me deploying Mad Traps when my Kanren is actually the Killer Hacker profile. The 360 LOF Arc is not part of the trooper profile, it’s the result of the equipment. Equipment he does not have.
@Zewrath you're positing a situation where a model holo'ed as a model with ODD could be found out by asking "if my model shot at him, would I suffer a -6 to hit?" That's imbecilic.
Who are you calling an imbecile when you clearly lack the cognitive ability to read my previous post? Again, ODD has NOTHING to do with LOF, it’s a MOD imposed on your BS attack. You can never find out whether or not a model have -6 to hit until AFTER you declare a BS attack. This is basic rules. Don’t call people stupid when your own post make you look like an idiot.
So I can assume that you expect your opponents to inform you upon deployment of any of their models has a LoF different from the arc on their base or their profile would imply?
What are you talking about? Mate, riddle me this. Why does the Sekban have 360 LoF Arc? Like what do you think grants the trooper a 360 LoF Arc? Do you think it's arbitrary? Answer the question. Go ahead.
Ouch. Yes, that's a dick move for sure. It's hard to argue against, as whether or not that's intentional is dependent on who you ask. Personally, I'd disallow it as a TO, merely for breaking the mandatory sportsman conduct.
You're avoiding the question. And you're avoiding the question because it puts you in the exact same position as what you implied is unsportsmanlike in your very next post.
I don't think this is a reasonable position to take. There's nothing wrong with painting a model's base to indicate facing, even if the model can see in both the front and rear arcs. By your reasoning, if I want to be able to swap odalisques between their Sixth Sense and 360 visor versions I need two different sets of models with different base markings.
Top kek! You're avoiding the question because you cannot refute my argument and answering the question forces you to concede my point. You reply by trying to spin it as if it's me who's being malicious and avoiding a question. Keep being the meme you're infamous for in this forum. I'm ignoring further replies from you in this thread. While I understand and am sympathetic to the issue, it's simply not a good argument in this game and this is merely debate on the rules. There's a lot of shitty and unreasonable rulings that have been passed through the FAQ's, for God knows what ever reason I can't even imagine. - Holo Echos Changed from 360 degree vision to 180 degree, making nearly all accrylic markers uselss - FAQ's makes it legal to stick people on walls, which people don't do unless they want their house burned down - NWI nerf on multi wound models, which really just needs to update their red stupid box to match the red box from viral and we would never have this problem. - LOF on same facing no longer reciprocal, which means RAW everything with Super Jump can force normal rolls on everyone which, again, no one allows unless they want their house burned down - Don't get me started on the pilot rules - Coordinated orders that could be taken from other pool, which CB had to reverse fast, as that was exactly as stupid as it sounds. Saying essentially that something is a bother, is not really an argument, even if I agree with the fact that it's a hassle. Regarding the Odalisques, I kinda solved the issue myself, by marking my TR REM with a front dot and two arrows going each direction along the base, ending at the 180 degree mark and wrote "360 visor" on the back side. That way, I can still use the front arc for when I'm proxying the model as a Flashpulse/FO REM.
