Does Hacking through a Camo Marker reveal it...?

If I remember right, in N3 there was the extra mechanics to reveal the repeater in the Repeater rules. Presumably so that you're not going "No, trust me, I have a repeater here."

 

This is actually a great question, interested to know

 

I feel the rules are pretty clear, that usin a camoed repeater does not reveal it, because it is not listed in the clauses, but the question that bugs me, is when do I inform my opponent of the repeater?

Because the content of markers is private information, so clearly not at the beginning of the game then.

Probably when a hacker ends up in the ZoC of the repeater, you go: that is inside a repeaters area originating from this camo marker.

But if a HI or REM/similar walks in, you only tell them when you ARO, usin the repeater this CAMO marker has, unless the are hackers obviously.

So as I understand it being hackable would not be enough to force me to tell you you stand in a repeater, because it does not affect you as such, and you do by default still know you walked in the ZoC of the CAMO marker?

Clearly you are forced to disclose that information when it is or could be used, but is there any other stipulation to reveal?

 

Hmm... After reading them both and pondering this for a while. So:

• Contents of Marker State are Private Information (at least if you deploy something at the beginning of the game in marker state this is true).
  
• Repeater is automatic equipment and doesn't affect the Camo's Marker state.
• Using Repeater through Camo Marker doesn't seem to reveal the marker.

I'd say the information about Repeater being there stays Private as long as the marker doesn't revel itself OR a situation occurs where the Repeater is used. As "Your Private Information remains secret until a specific game even forces you to disclose it." The information that would be disclosed at this point would be "This Marker has a repeater." What events would do this? Hackable thing moves inside the Repeater area and a hacker using said repeater does ARO. This would make the information that there is a Repeater to become public information. Nothing else of the content of the marker. Just this.

It would be sportmahsiplike behaviour to mention in your written Private information that "Marker XXX has Repeater" so if someone wants to know if this is true, you can show them that text. Later when the Marker reveals and the complete public information is revealed it could be double checked. But this is wholly my own approach to this unless something else concrete comes up.

EDIT: Fixed some typos; yet again

 

This seems to be right.

Although, for what it's worth, the 'remains secret until a specific game event forces you to disclose it' bit does not (as far as I know) require a person to remind the other player of previous disclosures. For instance, if a trooper reveals from Camo, does some things, and then re-enters the Camo state, the trooper's back to being private information.

As far as partial information leakage in Camo markers, consider what happens when you've got a TAG like the Sphinx in Camo. At the start of the turn, you've got an S6 Camo(-6) marker with an irregular order marker, and you're likely to see that marker walk up walls without using Climbing. While all of that is happening, the other player doesn't have to say "Yeah, it's a Sphinx" while it's in a marker state.

 

But how does this work for Holoprojectors? Would you have to identify which is the true trooper, or would you in that case only identify that "one of these have a Repeater"?

 

So reading this, would I have to reveal which one is a repeater?
Ie. if a model walks within zoc of 2 camo markers, one is a repeater, one is something else.

 

I'm watching this space for a definative answer.

 

During Step 5/6 when you measure to confirm that its within ZOC of the Repeater you would need to reveal which Marker needs to be measured to.

 

I'd say that because a hacker can only target a trooper or peripheral that is "in model form", it cannot target the marker state repeater (p60 - "hacking devices and hacking programs: characteristics"... 3rd bullet... but i could be wrong

 

It's not about using the Repeater as a target, it's about using the Repeater to extend the Hacking Area so that something else becomes a viable target.

 

i think you'd have to declare it in step 2 or 4, as part of the ARO declaration. " my hacker is hacking you through this repeater with this program" would be needed to meet the full description as per the red box on page 21.

 

There's no requirement to explain why something is in a Hacking Area (that I'm aware of?). So "I think you're inside my Hacking Area so I'm going to declare [Program] with this Hacker." is valid and fully details the interaction.

That is to say "I think that you're in my Hacking Area" DOES meet the requirements of "full description" because the source of that Hacking Area is unknown until you measure ZOC.

Otherwise you get the situation where:

My Hacker is Hacking you through this Repeater with [Program] .

Step 5. Huh, turns out you were outside ZOC of THIS Repeater but you were inside ZOC of THAT Repeater... So, uh... it works?

My gut reaction is: Declaration is valid because the requirements were met (target was inside Hacking Area).

In which case then you can do this:

"I think you're inside my Hacker's ZOC, so I'm going to declare a Hack"

Step 5: so... It turns out that you were outside of the Hackers ZOC - who could have guessed, right? - but - Surprise! - you're within ZOC of the Repeater under this Camo Marker. So the Declaration is still valid.

Either way you effectively say "one or more of the Camo Markers you're within ~8" of is a Moran", but one is FAR more dickish.

 

Since you can hack through an enemies repeater I would assume you are forced to reveal that the camo token has a repeater if your opponent moves their hacker into its ZoC regardless of whether you intend to ARO Hack or not since they need to know that they can declare a hack against your hackers.

 

The total definitive text I can find on this is that:
"The contents of Markers are Private information."

So I'm not convinced that you're actually required to inform your opponent what is and is not inside a Hacking Area. The Fair Play box is what would apply in the event that we were talking about a non-Marker Repeater; but, that depends on all the relevant information being known to both parties.

To put that another way: if Alice, the active Hacker, walks into the Moran Charles' ZOC I don't see why you need to tell Alice's player that Bob, an Interventor, is inside Alice's Hacking Area at all. Alice's player does not know that Charles' Repeater exists so does not know information derived from that fact.

Notably, in N3, there was a specific section of the rules that told you that this was a requirement (you explicitly had to tell you opponent what was and was not a valid target of Hacking Programs when they were inside of a Hacking Area). As far as I can tell that section does not exist in N4.

But even if you're obliged to say "hey look, my Interventor Bob is in Alice's Hacking Area" you're not obliged to say why, if the why is due to Private Information.

To illustrate that point:

Alice, the active Hacker, Moves + Moves into ~8" of 2 Camo Markers. No AROs are declared. During Step 6 you measure all Zones of Control* and determine that both Camo Markers are within Alice's ZOC. At this time you would say "hey, BTW, Bob is within Alice's Hacking Area". When your opponent asks why, I'd then explain "one of the Camo markers within Alice's ZOC has a Repeater": this doesn't give away Private Information (which Camo Marker is a Moran), it just clarifies the interaction by providing general knowledge.

Tl;dr IF you're obliged to reveal Bob is within Alice's Hacking Area, you are not obliged to reveal that Charles is a Moran with a Repeater because that's Private.

* Yes it says, measure all Zones of Control... Let's assume that it actually means measure all active Trooper's Zone of Control, but either way it doesn't matter for the purposes of this discussion and I can't be bothered necroing the Code One thread I asked this in previously.

 

My concern is this creates an avenue for degenerate states.

1. My HI walks within what might be 8" of a midfield camo token to gain LoF on a trooper

2. you say "i shoot with this guy in LoF and i hack you with my hacker over here in the DZ. trust me, it's legit"

3. i have to choose a response to that ARO threat without the ability to know where that threat is coming from. i might assume its that camo token, and decide to reset instead of shoot, hoping my armor can take the hit.

4. we get to resolution, and turns out there was no repeater under there, you just "misjudged" the distance from your hacker in the DZ.

for these reasons i think we need to know where the attack is coming from, and how you intend for it to get there, or the opportunity for abuse gets really high.

 

Yes. Morans are extremely good now. Yes you need to treat all Nomad Camo Markers as if they're Repeaters until you know better.

Realistically you made the decision to risk the Hack ARO as soon as you Moved into ZOC of the Camo Marker. The fact that you don't know whether you are inside Bob's Hacking Area until Step 5/6 is no different to eating a Suppression Fire ARO at ~24": maybe you need to care about it, maybe it's just a bluff.

Basically, you can't know before Step 5 whether a Hack is valid irrespective of Camo markers (without testing it in a previous order). Bluffing Hacking AROs has long been a thing (intended or otherwise). But - equally - so has bluffing HD, AD and a lot of other Private Information.

Exploiting information assymetry is the point of Private Information. It's hardly degenerate if you do it in a forthright manner.

Aside:

The way Step 5 works "misjudging" ZOC isn't really a thing. Every Trooper can, effectively, declare Idle at any Step 2 or 4: they do this by declaring any ZOC ARO they have access to. This is just the way the N4 Order Activation Sequence works.

Notably, this means that choosing to tank a Deployable or dropping from HD is something that anyone can do at any ARO opportunity.

 

On thing to add to the recent line of discussion; you are no longer forced to inform your opponent when something hackable that they don't know about is inside their hacking area and your opponent can test-hack stuff that appears to not be hackable.
I.e. walk a Kanren HD into ZoC of a Fusilier HD and you do not need to inform your opponent that it's in fact a Kanren HD and not the Ye Mao AP Spitfire it appears to be. Ditto, the Fusilier can still declare a Oblivion on the Ye Mao AP Spitfire which will fail if it isn't a Holomask trooper with a HD/KHD.

That is to say; I don't think you need to inform your opponent when they enter a Hacking Area. I'm less certain whether the Hacking Area's source would qualify as private information, though.