Today i recive a question from one of our players, & i cant answer it using a rules. so i want post it here & ask oppinion of comunity. We know that Hackable characteristic of Holoprojector L1 trooper is open info in enemy hacking area. But that heppened if unit with hackable characteristic would imitate another hackable unit? Actualy a question about Ayyar, who use only 1st level Holoprojector & want looks like Barid HD. & that happens if enemy KHD would try hit Ayyar with his programs. I was confused, cause cant find info about what Hackable characteristic has for example Li Hacker - Hackable or Not-Hackable? what owner of ayyar must say about hackable characteristic - his unit are hackable for sure, but not by KHD. or ( for example in case "not Hi" or "not REM" Hackers looks like Not-hackable but just as models with a Hacking device of some sort) must he say that KHD programs have no effect on his troper right when he enter enemy Hacking Area or can wait while enemy try & find it out with a ARO/order? Cause if he just say that he Hackable, enemy KHD could try attack him for sure. Can KHD program be targeted at actualy unapropriate target in this case, does holoprojector canceled if it hits?
The original rulebook state that you get to know the eligible hacking programs. HSN3 for Holoprojector etc changed this to hackable characteristic (but, I think, without taking into account that Hackable is a defined thing for TAGs and HI, that Hacking Devices do not have). This is an unresolved issue that I don't think has yet been officially resolved, one that I suggest you play according to original rules - you divulge which programs work (so Gotcha, Carbonite etc), not the nature of the Ayyar.
<something, something> Hacking devices automaticly detect if the victim can be targeted by the given program, so opponent already knows if a model can be targeted by AHD/HD/KHD programs.
Yeah, well, the difference between this version and the other one is that if an Ayyar hides as a Ghulam, a Killer Hacking Device won't find out that the Ayyar is hackable while with the other version the Killer Hacking Device would find out the "Ghulam" is hackable but not that the KHD has no programs that can target it. And that's not withstanding the outstanding issue of whether a Hacking Device actually has the "Hackable" characteristic.
According to @ijw holoing as a hacker makes your model appear as a hacker for all intents and purposes, including the hacking programs. I don't know what the reasoning or rules reference behind this was so you'll have to ask him yourself. It came up in this thread I started a little while back about about private information and holo projectors
IJW's answer in that thread is about what is private and what is public information about the model. He's stating that public information about an Ayyar pretending to be a Ghulam Hacker, would be that it is a Ghulam and that has a Hacking Device with the normal Hacking Device programs. Basically "what do I have to tell my opponent about the Ayyar when I deploy my Ayyar?" We're talking about the other end of the Holoprojector cycle in this thread, where the Ayyar gets near another hacker and that Hacker gets to find out either; * The Trooper is targetable by only [subset] of Hacking programs my Hacker is capable of performing, how strange that Sucker Punch isn't one of them, or * The Trooper is Hackable, but not which programs, or * Both of the above. Basically "what do I have to tell my opponent about the Ayyar when one of his hackers gets close?"
Because when your Holoprojected Ayyar "Hacker" or your Holoprojected Kanren KHD "Forward Observer" gets into range of a Repeater or enemy Hacker, the rules tell you you have to divulge information that was previously Private to your opponent. Same goes for the Holoechoes who aren't troopers and will thus always reveal to the enemy that they are not Hackable nor targetable with any Hacking programs. Especially with the Ayyar it's important to know to what extent you need to reveal that the model is Hackable when you get in range of an enemy hacker - and since HSN3 and N3 have different rules, plus that HSN3's rules are a bit confusing, it's not currently known how much you need to reveal about the Ayyar.
I've discussed this in my local meta chat, the thing is, unless it is stated somewhere else, hackers don't have hackable characteristics, because they are not stated to have it in the Hacker rule or Hacking Devices rules, and also hacking programs capable of targeting both hacker and hackable models specifically state that target must be a model with hackable characteristic or a hacker, but if all hackershad "hackable" characteristic there wouldn't be any need to state that both hackers and models with 'hackable' are valid targets. ( Oblivion, for example: http://infinitythewiki.com/en/Oblivion ) The main problem with this would be any hacker using holoprojector L1 to disguise as any non-hacker model, because the fact that this model is a hacker would be private info as for Holoprojector rules, and enemy hackers just won't be able to legally declare hacking against a hacker using Holo1, and I don't think that this was intended by CB. But then again, even if hacker using holo L1 would have hackable characteristics, but it would be disguised as any non-hacker model, other hackers wouldn't be able to declare any programs that specifically state that target is requiered to be a hakcer, so it doesn't really matter in case of a hacker with holo1 disguised as a non hacker to have or not to have hackable characteristics, there still would be a limitation of what can you target it with. The thing with requirements for declaration of skills really leads to a lot of broken rules interaction, like not being able to declare Breakwater until a model is a target of hacking attack. as for a non-hacker holo1 disguising as a hacker - I don't see it to be stated anywhere that hackers have the hackable characteristic, so a Hafza disguised as a Barid hacker walking in an enemy's hacking area won't have hackable characteristic as well as real Barid won't have it. In the rules segment about characteristics there's just "There are seven possible Characteristics, identified by their correspondent icons in the Troop Profile." and no hacker that isn't a HI currently has the hackable icon in its profile. I'm sorry if my train of tought is too messy, maybe @JoKeR would be able to explain my logic in a more clear way, since we've discussed this rules interaction with him.
That's not what the wiki says. It gives multiple examples of only providing information on whether the model is hackable and nothing more, it goes as far as including holo echoes fishing out hacking ARO attacks from the enemy. Are you completely sure on this? Because 100% holoechoes are a hackable target.
From the wiki: REMEMBER The presence of troopers in active Holoecho state is considered Private Information. This includes their Special Skills, weapons and Equipment. However, in Holoecho state the Hackable Characteristic is considered Open Information when the trooper is inside the Hacking Area of an enemy. Keep in mind that Holoechoes can not be Troopers, they are only Markers. As for the other stuff, I added underline for emphasis and you need to look at http://infinitythewiki.com/en/Advan...Devices_and_Hacking_Programs:_Characteristics Hacking Devices and Hacking Programs: Characteristics Hacking Devices and their suite of Hacking Programs obey a series of general rules: They act in Zone of Control, be it the Hacker's or a Repeater's if the specific Hacking Program allows hacking in Hacking Area. Their target need not be within the Hacker's LoF, unless otherwise specified by the Hacking Program's rules. They automatically identify whether a figure—but not a Marker—inside the Hacker's Hacking Area is targetable by a specific Hacking Program. They allow the player to enlist REMs in his Army List. See the conflicting information? There is some minor weasel way to get to treat Holoechoes as Troopers for purposes of Hackable characteristic by arguing that Holoechoes are Troopers in regards to enemy's equipment and that a Hacking Device is equipment (underline for emphasis); The Holoechoes are considered real troopers in regards to providing AROs, checking LoF, and activating enemy weapons or pieces of Equipment (Mines, E/Maulers, etc.), but since they act simultaneously, all three provide only one ARO to each enemy in LoF or ZoC. but as far as I've been able to follow things, this is not the correct way to read it.
Given that the holo echo section of the rules goes on to actually provide examples that conflict with your interpretation of the rules, I would say that the "marker" part you've underlined is talking about Camo markers, or the type of marker that reveals no information in general. Whereas a holo echo actually has a set of information you give to the opponent, albeit false information but that's the whole point of a holo echo. That's my take on it though. It's a question on whether we decide on section of the rules is poorly specified, or one section is blatantly incorrect. Personally I lean towards the specific game interactions being given as the correct interpretation as there's less room to misunderstand what's trying to be conveyed to the reader.
Specific trumps general in this case so I'd go with the holoecho rules over the general blurb in the hacking section. That not-withstanding, intentionally interpreting rules which break other rules is dumb and should be avoided.
Well if CB would write a tighter rules set, or at least get around to clarifying these issues on more reasonable basis we wouldn't have to do that. But we work with what we've got so here we are.
Do you not simply treat all three holoechoes as markers when they enter an enemy hacking area and thus don't have to tell your opponent anything until/unless you reveal?
Explicitly the rules tell you that Hackable trait becomes open information. The exact ins and outs are a bit diffuse regarding on whether you need to reveal which hacking programs or not, but one thing is certain; at the very least you have to say whether they can hack you or not.
As much as I'd hope it was that clear, it's really not. @Mahtamori summarises both positions well but it's discussed in more detail more stridently elsewhere.
