That's funny. My point was as follows: if you assume that it's immediately apparent that a model either does or does not have 360 LoF, regardless of its holo state, then you can simply ask at the beginning of the game as to whether or not that Sekban is really a Hafza in disguise and receive a real answer. Which is even lower-effort than the situation you said you'd put the kibosh on as a TO.
Did I miss something about base marking? My its document clearly states you Mark a 180 degree line of fire arc. I don't quite follow how that became you must clearly show figures with 360 visor... I think trying to use the good sporting clause of open lof as a "clever" way to find private information is also what I'd consider poor sportsmanship.
That’s not what it says. You must display your 180 Line of Fire Arc. 360 visor increases the models Line of Fire Arc. Line of Fire Arc is an actual rule in the game, not something ITS arbitrarily came up with. The 180 degree Line of Fire Arc is the standard on all troops and every trooper is assumed to have it. It’s increased to 360 with the 360 visor. Are there actual rebuttals to my arguments at this point? It seems we are stuck in the circle of “I don’t like it, therefore it should work”-logic. I get it, it sucks that you can’t use your Hafza for this purpose.
You can readit either way you like. The rules are not definitive either way. There's what you propose, which is that the 360 visor increases the LoF arc, so therefore a model with one simply does not possess a 180 degree front arc, and therefore cannot legally indicate it. The other is that a model retains its 180 degree "natural" facing even if a piece of equipment gives it 360 degree vision. In this case, the ITS rules still require you to mark that 180 degree line, even if it has no significant gameplay effect. There would be a gameplay effect if there were a way to disable 360 degree visors, but I don't believe that exists in N3 and I don't remember if a 360 visor was on the list of E/M vulnerable equipment in 2nd edition. Edit: Notably, Infinity does not have wording like Warmachine where it explicitly says that you don't have a back arc.
A pragmatic proposal. However, there’s some conflation going on here. You’re not required to paint your facing, you’re required to paint the line of fire arc, to indicate where your model starts to have LOF and where your model stops having LOF, hence the name LOF Arc. This is because LOF is open information all the time. If we implemented your way of doing it, you will simply run into people stopping the game and ask if every single one of your Sekban has LOF to their backside and you’d be required to share and disclose this anyways, so you’ll just end up with negative attitudes in games and people being dicks.
Considering you're making a point of ignoring people who argue against you, you're stuck in a circle of navel-gazing and solipsistic self-affirmation. Everybody else is stuck in the cycle of assuming you're arguing in good faith and then realizing you're not...
I get what you're saying, but you're mischaracterizing my way of doing things. My way of doing it is that a Hafza pretending to be a Sekban appears to have the same LoF as an actual Sekban, and the opponent can't tell the difference until you enter situations such as the "Sekban" not declaring AROs even though they're about to get shot in the back, etc.
@Hecaton You haven’t made a single argument mate. Not one. Your own projection is pathetic at this point. Yeah, I get that. So you’re marking the base to indicate the front/back Arc, which is still there regardless of the visor. Is that correct? I mean, I guess that could work but I don’t see how that solves the issue of someone showing up to a tournament and asking about LOF on the back side. I don’t see how you can justify saying you can’t tell him and I even suspect bad situations can occur, like I could see one make the argument that marking the front facing is merely a way of “cleverly” implementing Hafzas, without revealing them. Which could have the ill effect of that person constantly harassing and meticulously asking about LOF in future games with Hafza’s. Which is why I think it’s simply the most healthy solution to just disclose LOF up front.
The problem is that holoprojector lvl 1 model uses the models its pretending to be's lof arc. If you use a sekban who has no markings on their base, how do you determine what is the hafza's back? What is barely in their back?
So are you going to answer as to whether or not a Hafza disguised as a Sekban is immediately apparent upon deployment, in your eyes? Or are you going to continue evading to avoid paying the piper for your hypocritical and unworkable position?
You have a model in HD. Your opponent asks 'does anything have LOF to this point'. Your model in HD has LOF to that point. What do you tell your opponent? The only position that I find supportable is that: LOF based on Open Information is Open Information, and that LOF based on Private Information is Private Information. The specific rules that make some information about a deployed Trooper private trumps the general rule that LOF is open. For the record this is about the third time that this argument against your position has been made, despite you stating 'no one is arguing against me'. Regarding base marking: we all agree that a Sekban's base needs to be marked such that the possible LOF of a Hafza is visible. The easiest way to do this is to mark 180 degrees which also inherently marks 360 degrees. Complying with both interpretations of the rules. I really don't see what else is possible.
Solid argument and handles the issue i was seeing potentially arise of hafza being sekban with no markings that would be legit argument come up in game.
To read the rules? “The Line of Fire (LoF) is an imaginary straight line that joins any point of the volume of a model or Marker to any point of the volume of another.“ “Troops in Hidden Deployment are neither figures nor Markers, so they cannot react to a Cautious Movement even if they have LoF.” And the FAQ: Q: When a Camouflage Marker prevents an enemy troop from reverting to the Camouflaged state, does it reveal itself? A: No. If the trooper was in Hidden Deployment you will have to place the TO Camouflage Marker. My emphasis.
Well, for what it’s worth. I agree that your solution to the base markings is probably the most pragmatic way. I still raise concerns about what you will do about people who ask about the back side LOF. This is where I mainly disagree with you. Here’s what the rules says about LOF: In Infinity, troops have a LoF angle of 180˚, that is, they can see with the front half of their base. Players should clearly mark the limits of that arc on their troops' bases. For a troop to be able to draw LoF to its target, it must meet these conditions: The target must be within the troop's front 180˚ arc. The troop must be able to see, at least, a part of the volume of its target with the size of the target's head, or a minimum size of approximately 3x3mm (the size of the black squares on the Silhouette Templates). LoF can be drawn from any point in the troop's volume to any point in the target's volume. LoF can be obstructed by figures—friendly or not—and pieces of scenery. Unless otherwise indicated for specific purposes, Markers do not obstruct LoF. And once again, the 360 visor: 360˚ VISOR This piece of Equipment expands the user's LoF arc. 360˚ VISOR AUTOMATIC EQUIPMENT Obligatory. REQUIREMENTS EFFECTS This Visor gives the user a 360˚ LoF arc, instead of the usual 180˚. My emphasis. I you’re saying that your Hafza does have 360 visor while Imitating a Sekban, then that statement can only really be true if you actually benefit from the 360 visor equipment, despite the fact that you cannot have that arc without that equipment, which the Hafza does not have. Again, this would be like me deploying Madtraps with my Killer Hacker Kanren. I don’t see how you can justify answering “yes” to a question like “does your Sekban have LOF on his back?” Or hide it in any other way. This is what I meant from almost the beginning of the thread when I said the 360 arc is something the equipment gives and nothing to do with the profile. You can only claim to have that arc if you have that piece of equipment.
I think asking if a model sees lof to its back is like asking if shooting at an odd model is at a -6 mod. The answer is "yes" as that is what the current open information gives you. Then when the time comes for it to be relevant the answer is actually no. That is why the hafza sekban needs to be marked, because there will be a time where that marking will actually be relevant. As for the mad trap kanren example, the model can totally say he bring mad traps, but no madtraps will actually be placed as his illusion only hides public information of himself, not creates new fake models to assist in the illusion.
If a hafza pretends to be a barid with an AHD and my opponent asks what his hacking area is do I say “any point up to 8 inches away from the model or those repeaters” or do I say “he doesn’t have one.”?
There's two possible interpretations. There's no definite answer one way or another. One means that the skill functions with any set of equipment. The other means that for particular sets of equipment the skill doesn't function. Which interpretation do you choose? Ultimately, that's what convinces me of one interpretation over the other. And no 'claiming to be able to see behind you' is not the same as 'actually putting 2 Madtraps on the table'. But you're free to claim that you have 2 Madtraps and you've legally deployed, it'd be pointless but you can do it. You also still haven't explained why the specifics of private information is trumped by the general of 'LOF is Open Information'. Usually Infinity works the other way around.
While I agree with you, I caution you not to bring HDs into this. They're quite distinct/contentious because of the way Holo 1 treats Hackability.
The Mad Trap example isn’t really serious, it’s more of an exaggeration of the fact that, in principle, claiming to have 360 LOF is the same as using Mad Traps. In both cases, your trooper is using equipment from the trooper you’re mimicking. Also we really need to stop bringing up the ODD as it muddies the water. As I’ve stated multiple times, you can NEVER know the mod before AFTER declaring a BS Attack. It’s not the same as LOF and has nothing to do with anything. LOF is ALWAYS open information. You can’t get around it and no one has cited anything in the rules that says otherwise.
