After read the whole post I think I would never to propose that particulary interaction "using Yasbir to block LoT" in the "tactical thread". To me having Holomask + Holoprojector or just "holoprojector" will not change the fact in both cases "the holos" still are "markers", "holomask allow you to use figures as markers for holoechos", but this shouldn't change the nature of any of them, so "markers". The "line" in holoproyector, when explaining the "holoechos" saying to take in consideration to LoF pourpouses works in both ways: for the enemy and for the troup in "holoecho state". I can remember how many times I place wrong one holo so the "real troup" could do "nothing" because hadn't LoF. If was intented that holoechos don't block LoF the explanation is unnecessary, it will be enough to say that holoechos have 180º angle as a real model. Being the rule explicit that "holoechos" behaviour matches the one for models when ARO, this is why all deployables "jump" or why a model can "shoot" instead only a small list of "options" as against others markers. Taking in consideration how many exceptions has the holoecho state compared to the others "marker state" it looks like to block LoF will be the "intiutive one". While to me the rule is clear, I believe in this case the spanish version sounds a little better than the english one, being less confusing in this particular point, I can understand others players have doubts about how to apply this particular rule. Maybe "holoprojector" will be one of that rules Corbus could take some time to rewrite for the good of the game. In every edition has points of conflict.
I've been playing it as #2. What's the point of echoes if they are not "real"? Shooting through it, by anyone other than the user, would give away that it's a holo. The user can because the holos go away when they shoot. They even count as being hack-able if disguised as a hacker.
The point of contention is "check LOF" which I can only see as being important if <banned debate topic> were to actually be relevant - and I hope that topic stays irrelevant. The thing with "real" in front of Trooper is that it doesn't really make sense. The rules do not need to specify "real" here, it can just say "considered to be a Trooper" and it's fine, so there's trace of intent by the writer. Or possibly some rules distinction that was different at time of writing but wasn't corrected for final shipment or slipped through editorial oversight. Activate was a Short Movement Skill previous edition and interacting with scenery can mean any number of things depending on inventions by map designers and terrain builders, so it's important to still keep that mentioned here so people don't go activating death pits or touch-activared elevators with their Echos.
up until recently, you had to have LoF to declare Shoot. So with the holo blocking LoF, you don't meet the requirement to declare Shoot (even if after you declare it, then you'd gain LoF). But now, i agree, you can pre-emptively declare Shoot without LoF, then when you check requirement you'll see that you have gained LoF. PS - for active turn it doesn't matter as models/holos don't block LoF while moving.
Maybe saying "considered real Trooper" made sense in the context of "in regard to blowing up mines" and that it also appear in front of "in regard to checking LoF" was just unnecessary. Because the same sentence had both "checking LoF" and "activating enemy deployed weapon"; the option is to either write "considered real Trooper" or not write it. As it is important for the latter, it had to be put inside the sentence. And now everyone is only focusing on what "considered real Trooper for checking LoF" means when in the grand scheme of thing, "considered real Trooper" is, maybe, not applicable to checking LoF (as you can always check LoF between anything on the table) but is applicable to the other parts.
Even your own guys don't know who the real guy is. Would you take a chance shooting when it could be shooting your buddy in the back? It also sounds like just trying to take advantage of something for your benefit.
at first i was "well of course the bearer know which one he is" but meaning my other own guys. yes, that actually does make a lot of sense fluff-wise. And equally makes sense that the bearer can't see thru his decoys as there exist no visor that allow to see thru it so he's blinding himself when he deploy a decoy echo in front of himself; that still make 100% fluff sense. I really like this. I guess i'll go back to playing it as #2 like I did before this thread. (with the added gimmick that the bearer can pre-emptively declare BS Attack ARO without LoF and then gain LoF at resolution once the echo disappeared mid-order)
"Logic" does not exactly apply to Marker States. Reminder that it's perfectly alright to shoot through the only, easily identifyable, S7 Camo Marker in the game - a TAG named Cutter.
Holoecho literally says they are considered real troopers in regard to checking LoF; this would count as an exception to the normal rule that Markers do not block LoF.
Being a Trooper is not a factor in blocking LOF. Being a Model is. It doesn't say they count as models, it say take three Holoechoes which are Markers and therefore do not block LoF. Troopers present as Camo Markers are real Troopers in regard for checking LoF too and do not block LoF either. Holoecho needs that statement because the two Holoechoes NOT representing the real trooper do not trigger AROs without that line.
No, there's no need for "real trooper" anywhere. Just writing "considered a trooper" would suffice, just like it does everywhere else in the rules. Edit: Most deployed weapons (including basically all ITS scenario weapons) react to Markers just fine as well, though I see that for Perimeter Weapons specifying that the echo is treated as a Trooper is necessary. As an aside, most hacking programs require Troopers as targets, meaning they will fail requirements validation if they target an echo. I'm not entirely certain if the activation clause for Targeted strictly mentioning Trooper would also prevent an Echo from being Targeted through Spotlight (Spotlight doesn't require a Trooper as target, so the hacking program itself will not fail) - however, from ITS discussions in previous years it was indicated that Targeted could still be activated but not used on non-Troopers.
The rules do not seem to written in line with how they seem to be intended - it seems like by accident non-Holomasked Holoecho state troopers do not block LOF.
I'll give it a shot. The question comes down to whether "holoechoes are considered real Troopers in regard to checking LoF" refers only to checking LoF to the holoecho, or whether it also refers to checking LoF through the holoecho. The problem is that being a "real Trooper" doesn't actually affect whether one can check LoF either to, or through, a silhouette: - You can check LoF to a deployable weapon or piece of equipment even though they're not Troopers; - You can check LoF through a camo Marker even though it is a real Trooper. So it's not clear what the rule means when it tells us to consider the holoecho to be a real Trooper in regard to checking LoF, given that considering it to be a real Trooper shouldn't change anything either way. Given that conundrum, there are two competing interpretations: 1. Treat the holoecho as a real Trooper even if it's actually a fake Trooper (i.e. one of the decoys). Thus you can draw LoF to it even though it doesn't really exist. It is, nonetheless, a Marker and, like a camo Marker (which is also a real Trooper), you can draw LoF through it. 2. Treat the holoecho as a real Trooper even though it's a Marker. Thus, you cannot draw LoF through it because it works differently than other Markers. In short, the question I think is whether "real Trooper" is being contrasted with "fake Trooper" or with "Marker." The thread hasn't reached a consensus on which is correct. There's also a suggestion that (2) makes more narrative sense. However, there's a counter-argument that we know you can draw LoF through a camo or impersonation marker even though that also doesn't make narrative sense, and that in any case the rules are an abstraction and these questions can't be decided on the basis of narrative.
That's a good point, but what does it mean for Holoecho markers to be counted as real troopers for LoF? Just that people can't camo when in LoF of it and so on?
See @QueensGambit above. Veto and counterargument to this statement. The rules are actively aware that Marker rules have exceptions. There is an exception to 360° vision for THE SAME STATE, Holoecho, and account for the possibility of an exception in the Marker rules. A single line above, the rules do not consider that there could be an exception allowing the existence of a Marker State that does obstruct LoF. There is actually no RAW backing within the rules that Holoechoes are ever supposed to block LoF. That seems to be a local meta consensus for some of us that no one even questioned.