This really isn't a can of worms. It's literally @Zewrath arguing his corner and literally everyone else trying to convince him that he's wrong. The way to play this is clear. The rules arguably less so (and even that I dispute).
literally 5 pages to read through were I explain everything in meticulous detail. You not reading or failing to understand it is not my problem. No one has shredded anything or even remotely close, let alone from you. I love that you're under the illusion that anything you've posted actually have any "gotcha!" value. Jesus.
Do you or do you not think that using a smoke grenade to check if enemy camo markers have LoF to a given point is the same kind of unsportsmanlike as checking to see if the enemy's sekban actually have 360 visors? Is using LoF to circumvent a hidden state unsportsmanlike?
Don't be facetious mate. Actually, people agreed from the very first page that LOF is Open info and what I'm saying is actually true, even if it wasn't me saying it in the beginning. You haven't demonstrated your claim to be true and Mahtamori basically summed up the entire thread on page 5. Still not an argument.
By people you mean @daboarder. Who was objectively wrong. And who you've since agreed was wrong. And frustrated does not mean facetious. You're arguing a bizarre interpretation of the rules for who knows what purpose. Because functionally your interpretation has no gameplay effect other than to force your opponent to be overly precise with their language. You're introducing confusion where there is none and making the game harder for no good reason than that it fits your own personal reading of the rules.
If you can't answer the question without making yourself look like a hypocrite, it's not a loaded question, you're just a hypocrite. If your viewpoint was coherent, you wouldn't be dodging my questions for multiple pages, you would have just answered it.
It seems you don’t understand my point at a fundamental level then, if that’s what you actually believe. And when the fuck did I ever agree that LOF was not open information? I said I understood your argument but didn’t agree, even if I granted you the LOF being private part. Are you autistic by any chance? I’ve explained my position several pages ago.
That doesn’t in any way shape or form say that acknowledge that the LOF of the imitated isn’t open information. The imitation profile cannot have a 360 arc. I’ve explained why several times now.
It's attached to a Tinbot and Tinbots gets disconnected if the host model is Isolated. REQUIREMENTS While the owner of a TinBot is in a Null state (that is, Unconscious, Dead, Sepsitorized...) or Isolated, the TinBot ceases to exert its effect. EDIT: Nevermind I remember wrong, it's not on a Tinbot. Doh!
What about a Sekban with a 90 degree LOF Arc on it ? I guess it would be illegal too ? Even though my Made For Infinity compass bar has 180 and 90 markings on it ? I don't see any issue (or rules against) having additional LOF marking on the base. A sekban 360 can have the additional 180 marking. And Odalisque (who choose the optional 360 visor only during deployment - the other option being SS2) can have a permanent 180 mark.
All of the details of a model in the Holo 1 state are private information. I infer this from the following rules text: The remember box, in the Holoprojector equipment entry: "The presence of troopers in Holoprojector L1 state is considered Private Information. This also includes the Special Skills they have and their weapons and pieces of Equipment, too. However, in Holoprojector L1 state the Hackable Characteristic is considered Open Information when the trooper is inside the Hacking Area of an enemy." You'll notice there the only exception it calls out is the hackable characteristic. The rules text i'd like to cite is bullet point 8 in the holo lvl1 cancellation list: "When you replace the imitated model with the real one, you are required to share all Open Information relative to that trooper." From that we can infer that all of the models open information prior to that point is considered private. You've cited the blue box to indicate that LoF is always Open Information. In the Open Information text it says "Consider any piece of information on a player's Army List that is not explicitly Private as Open and knowable to all. You must share Open Information about your Army List while you deploy your models during the Deployment Phase, and also any time your opponent asks during the game. 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." As you've also already cited, the presence of troopers in the holoprojector L1 state is private. I would hope this is sufficient to prove to you that a model's LoF is considered private while in the Holoprojector L1 state. Let's look at bullet point 1 of the Holo1 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. When you deploy the model with a holoprojector, instead of putting the actual model down you put a different model. Looking at the open information rules, when you put a model on the table you reveal all of its open information to your opponent. If I put a sekbhan on the table, i reveal to my opponent that it has a 360 degree visor and therefore a 360 degree line of fire. The true profile is Private Information I don't have to reveal that. If you approach my Sekbhan from behind, I cannot ARO, because my actual troop profile does not have a 360 degree visor, I do not have to reveal that as open information until the holo1 state is canceled, I simply say I have no ARO. You are stating that the open information status of LoF trumps rules that would make it private. This is where Hecaton's repeated question comes in or where the HD model example is also appropriate. The normally Open Information of a model in the camo state is Private, including whether or not it has MSV2. If my opponent asks "If i move my model into this smoke cloud, who has LoF to it?" Am I required to say "this camo marker here" because LoF is always open information even if a game state makes a model's open information private? Same question for a model in Hidden Deployment. I imagine you're going to go back to the 360 visor here, but the only equipment the holo rules explicitly call out that can't be imitated are deployable weapons and equipment represented by markers. I'm imitating mimetism, I can tell my opponent there is a -3 visual mod to hit me. I can't benefit from that during the resolution step of a BS attack, but I'm not required to reveal it. I can tell my opponent that because of my sixth sense I can absolutely ARO if I get shot in the back, but when it comes to declaring said ARO, I can't actually do it. I can tell my opponent, yes I can see in all direction because of my 360 visor, but I can't ARO if he comes at me from my rear a *edited to try and make the formatting a little less painful to read.
I am positive you can have a debate about the rules without such shameful behaviour, if it keeps on the thread will close. I am not sure why the debate about the arc is so hot and why it is needed, you need to mark the 180 arc, personally I mark the whole 360 on models with 360 visor and then make the 180 and front with separate marks if t needs be. The holoecho imitates a model and that immitated model model is what is public information if the model imitated has 360 visor you say to your opponent the model has 360 visor, as per the Lasiq example the truth is revealed only in the resolution stage (Hafza does not have mimetism and the mimetism modifier from the imitated profile is not used). The actual model cannot draw LOF and even if it declared ARO it would be reverted to idle in the resolution since the basic requirement (LOF) is not met. I have to comment this is a nice and clever exploit to use LoF to get private information from your opponent, I would not have guessed such a way for LOF to be used, I will see if such use needs to be addressed or not.
So there is a difference between, and I think this is the center of the debate, the following scenarios: 1. My opponent points at a spot on the table and says "Which of your models have LoF to this point?" Am I obligated to reveal at this point that one of my Sekban does not have LoF to that point on the table? 2. My opponent moves a model into the 'rear' arc of my Sekban and asks if I have any AROs. Since my Hafza does not really have a 360 visor, it cannon ARO and I say "No I have no AROs." The difference is that in option one, my opponent does not have to spend an order to gain the information that something is amiss with my Sekban. In the other, my opponents needs to activate a trooper in order to find out something is off, much like if he moved in the hacking area of a 'hacker" who is not actually a hacker.
1 As per the lasiq example the model on table has 360 visor and this is what the model declares to have, it is virtually no different than asking "does this Lasiq have mimetism?" the opponent will know the truth in the resolution step, not before 2 Indeed the true model will not generate any ARO because it cannot see.
I think we are too focused on LoF as the literal "can you see this" question. LoF is based on "is there enough open space to draw a line between two silhouettes, and if so which arcs is that line drawn between?" That stuff is open info. You can infer all needed data from that question and the unit's open info equipment regarding who appears to have a valid ARO, and it's all fair/legal. That should be all that's needed, and then any changes to that occur via revealing hidden information. I hate bring fluffy things into a rules argument, but I can't get this image out of my head. It makes sense that your survey drone over a battle goes "this guy has his back against that wall, you're in his blind spot!" It makes no sense that your survey drone over the battlefield sees a holoprojector unit with a 360 visor and goes "well we kept yelling through a loudspeaker if he could see behind him and he yelled back no so go for it."
Yes, this is what I was trying to say with some of my earlier posts. Thanks for phrasing it more clearly.
