Do holoechoes block LoF?

1 makes the most sense, but it would be interesting as it would now allow someone to make a huge LOS blocking wall. Holoprojector feels expensive, so maybe this was as intended?

EDIT: Meant to say 2 due to the LOS Blocking.

 

Option «2)» is the correct one.

 

i agree with this. since when is a camo state Zero not a "real Trooper" ? they are still "troopers" (while a decoy or a mine would count as not being a trooper). So when the rule say holoechoes count as "real Troopers" for ARO/LoF/etc they mean they are just as real as a camo-state Zero for ARO/LoF/etc which is important to state as the fake echoes would not provoke ARO or have LoF if they were not considered "real Troopers".

 

Definitely number 2.

Both 1 and 3 risks running into really dumb interactions and further questions where both figuring out which is real by asking to draw LOF through markers makes the state almost (even more) pointless and conundrums what happens when you reveal the real marker and the LOF the marker now blocks.

The risk with dumbing this down even further is we'll end up with the kind of idiocy that we had in N3 where there was a period when you couldn't benefit from Surprise Attack if you used the real model as the representation of the trooper, etc.
Let's not go back to the dumb times when we left them behind, okay?

I disagree this is a counter-argument against interpretation number 2, it is more an argument against interpretation number 1.

I can only think of a single interaction where "checking LOF" matters for a Marker, and that's blocking LOF;

Nothing prevents you from drawing LOF to a Marker and re-camouflaging already forces you to consider the LOF of enemy Markers so doesn't care if there's a real trooper underneath or not.

There is additionally nothing in the Holoecho rules that would allow an Echo to use an LOF that they check that an empty Marker couldn't already use it for.

 

for #3, sure.

But #1 is different. If you place 2 acrylic echo token and consider all 3 objects to never block LoF (#3 only considers the acrylic token as non-blocking) then you gain no info by asking to draw LOF to a point behind the model. If i ask to draw LoF thru your acrylic Camo marker, you'll always say i do have LoF, and i never gain any knowledge.

I think not going with #1, but using #2 might actually make real dumb interaction. You go in Supp Fire, you pop two new echo. You pick the middle one to be the real one. The echo now block LoF to your real model. Knowing that dumb artefact, the enemy now know either the real one is the one on the edge, or your real one can't shoot at all because LoF is blocked by his "allied Trooper" (the echo) in the way.

(And as OP said, if you combine with holomask, then in that case, the answer is always #2 because you are replacing the markers with models)

PS: thumb-up for the idea that the RAI answer must be something that will not make the skill less useful.

 

personally i always played it #2, including the artifact that the echoes were preventing my real trooper from having LoF, and thus AROs, until the first echo be shot.

this thread is the first time i stop to think about the other possibilities.

 

"conundrums what happens when you reveal the real marker and the LOF the marker now blocks." the same as when a camo reveal to shoot and suddenly block LoF to other models ? i don't understand what problem is particular/exclusive to treating holoecho marker state as a marker state.

"couldn't benefit from Surprise Attack if you used the real model as the representation of the trooper" that would describe #3. In #1 it is argued that the "model representation" is equally in a marker state as if it was under an acrylic echo marker, and thus can benefit from Surprise Attack while also not blocking LoF.

 

I'm not playing a whole lot of Holoechoes and I do not have any skin in the game.

This is merely me parsing the rules.
Here are some relevant rules for Markers from the LoF Rules:


First hint. Markers do not obstruct LoF is an absolute statement, while Markers having 360° LoF is stated to have exceptions.

Now where is this exception?

Correct, Holoechoes.

Now. What's a Marker anyway? Definition is a bit blurry.
Best we have is the Skill having the Marker Label

Check.

Then there's the problem that one of the Holoechoes is using the Trooper's Model, how does that work out?


Okay, so all three are Holoechoes. And we use the real Trooper's actual model to represent a Holoecho, whoch still means, it's a Holoecho.

Now the tricky part

"Checking LoF"
But then again, Markers generally still check LoF, for AROs or to declare their own Skills which then breaks Marker State.
Checking LoF does not automatically include blocking LoF. Troopers present as i.e. Camo Markers also check for LoF to grant AROs and determine their own Skills, while definitely being real troopers and not blocking LoF.
Being a real Trooper has no interaction with blocking LoF, that depends on being a Model (which btw includes scenery Items that aren't Markers, to make an example for a non-Trooper blocking LoF).

So far so good for #1


Now here comes the really annoying part.
Combining Holoechoes with Holomask lets you do the following:


We're now explicitly replacing all Holoecho Markers with Models.
Which means, being a Model, we now block LoF. Which lets a Trooper with both Holoprojector and Holomask chose between blocking LoF (disregarding other effects of disguising as a different Trooper).

 

So basically, the argument is that a Marker that is considered a real miniature for checking LOF will not block LOF, if a miniature checks its LOF? However, if the Marker is also a Miniature it will block LOF when another unit checks LOF? Hell, where does that leave a 360 user Masked as a non-360 user or vice versa?

 

The wording is all over the place, but line one makes it clear that what you are putting on the board is three Holoechoes..
Holoecho-1, Holoecho-2 and real Model are used to "represent three Holoechoes".

The most problematic bit is the first clause under combining Holoecho with Holomask, which calls out the bearer's Model and the two Holoecho Markers. Which can be interpreted that indead the Model is a model. But only when taken out of context (especially line 1's "three Holoechoes").

Except for #1, #3, the mixed approach, is the only one that can be reasonably argued for in RAW, but doesn't compile logically. For instance why would the "fake" model block LOF when the real trooper is using i.e. Holoecho 1 to hide? That's clunky and not intuitive when the alternative #1 "interpretation" compiles for the same wording in context.

 

A magnificent argument, until you get to this point.

Because you assume that it doesn't include blocking LoF, but the opposite is what is correct; if the rule doesn't explicitly exclude it, it is included.

If it is pointed out that this marker type is an exception to the general rule and that it acts like a real troop (=miniature; yes sometimes CB explains things in a convoluted way), it does so for everything that has to do with LoF ...and that includes obstructing the LoF of other troops/miniatures.

 

My post was primarily a response for Robock's post, but you are at least partially arguing the same strange position that "check LOF" should be selectively interpreted when the rules do not make this selective interpretation clear.

As I've already gone through, there is absolutely no point where a Marker needs to be treated as a miniature for purposes of checking LOF - the only thing that stops you from being able to draw LOF to a Marker is if it is in Total Cover or if the Marker is not a game element (e.g. a wound Marker - and even then I'm not sure you can't draw LOF to such a Marker even if you can't actually do anything with that LOF).

In either case, in English the rules uses the "check LOF" (mostly to determine if there is an ARO) and "draw LOF" (mostly to determine if there is a LOF) both, and it is argued here the prior is not the same as the latter, but the Spanish rules uses "trazar LDT" for Holoechoes, MSV, Partial Cover, etc - basically everywhere.
English: "Holoechoes are considered real Troopers in regard to providing AROs, checking LoF, [...]"
Spanish: "Los Holoecos cuentan como Tropas reales, para proporcionar ORA, trazar LDT, [...]"
Which is roughly "The Holoechoes count as real Troopers, for providing AROs, drawing LOF, [...]"

 

Ah yes, correct. Token being, of course, "Game element that represents a piece of Deployable Equipment or a Deployable Weapon." e.g. a Mine or Repeater.

Miniature and Model are interchangeable and the rules do use them interchangeably. The Model definition is that it is a Game Element represented by a miniature. Not sure where you read me as quoting the rules saying "real Miniature" as I wrote quite clearly "real Trooper". Again, the one making a distinction between the Holoecho Miniature and the Holoecho Markers is Robock and not me, and I'm railing against that interpretation.

That is a good point and it is curious that the term "real Trooper" is only used here.
I remain very unconvinced that drawing LOF through Holoechos (without Mask) is intended. Of course, I also think that Holoechos besides being good at clearing mines is a very weak state and I also think it does not need to be made weaker which strengthens that resolve.

 

I haven't landed on #3, but some post was saying "Both 1 and 3 risks running into really dumb interactions" and then listing examples that seemed to pertain only to #3 but never to #1. I was only expending on the difference between #1 and #3. They are not the same thing!

by "#3 for sure" i meant #3 is really dumb for sure (and not that in my opinion #3 was for sure the correct way to play it), but that it also did not extend to #1 being equally dumb because the arguments for #1 are not the same as the argument for #3. In the end i land at #1 (even if prior to this thread, i always played it as #2). But I though Mahtamori was landing #2 on the reasoning that #3 is wrong and that #1 was the same thing as #3.

 

What even is the argument for #1 being dumb?
To me #1 is the most logical and causes the least amount issues (actually none).
Holoecho is a Marker State and Holoechoes not blocking LoF is in line with other Marker States like Camo.

Is the wording confusing and annoying to parse? Yes.
Is the result annoying and confusing? No, just the way to get there.

Gonna go ahead and claim that #3 being dumb is consens.

 

I think the use of real Trooper was intended to mean just that, and not to meant real Miniature/Models. Also, I think that being considered real trooper is not necessarily crucial for each listed thing but that as long as it was important to mention it for one of them then its inclusion in the sentence is legit.
(the listed thing beings: "in regard to providing AROs, checking LoF, and activating Enemy weapons or pieces of Equipment.")

And thus I'm convinced with this Teslarod quote (especially this) :

I think it is possible that if you don't mentioned they are considered real Trooper, then only the bearer but not the decoys might be able to do one of those option (I didn't investigate to find which one exactly).

Interestingly, in N3, the bearer was allowed to Open Door, but the decoys were not allowed to do so. And that rule (which was doing a distinction between bearer and decoys) was 2 bullet point prior to where they say all 3 holoechoes are considered real troopers in regards to those following actions. Possibly that the writer thought that if they did not specify it, the reader could think only the bearer (being the real trooper) were able to perform those actions but not the holographic decoys.