1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Holoprojector L1 and 360˚ Visor

Discussion in '[Archived]: N3 Rules' started by Kay Wroshyr, May 11, 2018.

  1. Kay Wroshyr

    Kay Wroshyr Clumsy Sekban

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2017
    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    9
    Hello everyone,

    As the title implies, I have a question concerning the Holoprojector L1 state and the way it interacts with 360 Visor.

    -Holoprojector L1 allows its user to be in the Holoprojector L1 state, placing another model of the same silhouette value (the "imitated model") in its place.

    Concerning equipment, the Holoprojector wiki page only mentions the following:


    A trooper in Holoprojector L1 state cannot replicate those deployable weapons or pieces of Equipment represented by a Marker or model (TinBots, FastPandas, SymbioMates, Mines deployed by the Minelayer Special Skill...) the imitated model or himself could have.

    Mmmh, ok, not that much about Visors here, the Holoprojector L1 state wiki page however indicates:

    This state does not affect Automatic Special Skills or Automatic Equipment.

    Not sure what that means exactly, how does that interact with 360 Visor? Does that mean that the 360 Visor, being Automatic Equipment will not be imitated by the Holoprojector model, meaning that, if I wanted to expand my Hafza shenanigans to have them holo as Sekban (and for example fill in a Sekban fireteam) it would be immediately obvious that a Hafza is holoing as a Sekban, one of them having no 360 Visor?

    If so, LoF being Open Information, it would feel very very unsportsmanlike to not mention the fact that one of the Sekban hanging in the Fireteam does not, curiously, have a 360 Visor.

    I think I can guess the answer, but would love to have your opinions on this.
     
  2. solkan

    solkan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2017
    Messages:
    1,335
    Likes Received:
    1,982
    To be blunt, there are just some profile imitations that are bad ideas. :)
    Holoprojector 1 will not give you any benefits for the equipment that the projected profile has, and that includes not giving you the expanded field of view of a 360 visor.

    And worse than "it would feel unsportsmanlike not to mention", in a lot of tournaments you're expected to mark field of view on the models, so the non-360 Sekban should stick out like a sore thumb.
     
  3. Zewrath

    Zewrath Elitist Jerk

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2017
    Messages:
    2,000
    Likes Received:
    3,484
    Holoprojector is sort of a grey area when it comes to that, as the equipment sort of encourages you to do shenanigans. However, you are fully capable of pretending and showing a profile that says it has 360 visor or ODD, what the rule refers to, is that you aren't allowed to benefit from the rules of the equipment/skills of the trooper you're mimicking. You're fully allowed to say that your Holo1 trooper has a 360 visor, you're just not allowed to gain the benefit from it.

    As for the LoF part. I mean, I heard some arguments based on this passage: Line of Fire (LoF) is the criterion by which players determine whether a troop can see its target (another model, a Marker, etc.). In Infinity, being able to draw LoF is a requisite for performing BS Attacks and many other Common and Special Skills (Discover, Dodge...). So by this logic you don't have to constantly remind people what you can't see on your back arc, cause you do not have LoF to any troopers.
    Personally, I've never seen anyone go out of their way and say "I know place my model here and I will now specify every single point of area that I do and do not have LoF towards!", every single time they activate a unit. Simply say "My Sekban move towards this point, he ends his Movement with this facing". Do the same with the rest of your Sekbans and I don't see how this could be an issue.
     
    xagroth likes this.
  4. Zewrath

    Zewrath Elitist Jerk

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2017
    Messages:
    2,000
    Likes Received:
    3,484
    OMG Yes, totally forgot about the fact that the 360 visor increases your facing arc, which you're required to paint/mark. Disregard the second part of last post then! :(
     
  5. Tom McTrouble

    Tom McTrouble Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2018
    Messages:
    559
    Likes Received:
    552
    Should that be an issue though? I think it would be perfectly acceptable to mark all the Sekban's front arcs and just call it a day. If there's no 360 visor, the facing is clearly marked. If it has a 360 visor, the facing is still clearly marked, it just happens to also include the back arc. I agree that fielding a Skeban where you have marked the facing as encompassing 360 degrees and then revealing it to be something else would be questionable.
     
  6. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    6,040
    Likes Received:
    7,177
    Why? You're required to tell your opponent what appears to be true given what is open information. You could just say "Yes, to the best of your knowledge that "Sekban" can see there." and do the same for all of the Sekbans whether they're Hafzas or not. The marking is just a mechanical way of reflecting open information about LOF.

    Consider Djans and Hafzas. You're suggesting that if I put smoke down in front of a Djans and a Dj/Hafza all I need to do is ask which model can see through the smoke to work out which is the DJ and which is the Hafza?

    It is, however, good sportsmanship to remind your opponent that Hafzas exist and that occasionally you'll be telling them what is true from the state of the table, but not actually true.
     
    daboarder likes this.
  7. Tom McTrouble

    Tom McTrouble Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2018
    Messages:
    559
    Likes Received:
    552
    I was thinking if you paint or mark the models arc as 360 degrees, theres nothing preventing you from making the facing whatever you want when you reveal the model since theres no frame of reference for what was the front arc. At least, that would be my gripe if someone did that against me.
     
    inane.imp and CabalTrainee like this.
  8. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    6,040
    Likes Received:
    7,177
    Seems reasonable. Simply marking the front-centre itself should be sufficient.
     
  9. Spleen

    Spleen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2017
    Messages:
    281
    Likes Received:
    414
    FYI, all models should have the same LOF markings whether they have 360 visors or not:

    LINE OF FIRE (LOF) For the sake of clarity and agility, every figure in play must display its 180º Line of Fire arc by means of distinct painted markings on its base or the appropriate markers (such as Customeeple’s Line of Sight Markers or Antenociti’s Workshop’s Visual Arc Markers)

    The ITS rules specify what arc needs to be marked, it's not your actual LOF arc, it's 180 degrees regardless of the model.

    So holoprojecting as a 360 visor trooper works just fine, you mark 180 degrees regardless, you tell your opponent your equipment includes a 360 visor, and you just don't actually use the visor because you don't actually have it's benefits.
     
  10. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    7,205
    Likes Received:
    6,535
    But a model with a 360 visor doesn't have a 180 fire arc...
     
  11. Spleen

    Spleen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2017
    Messages:
    281
    Likes Received:
    414
    You are marking figures though, not troopers or the esoteric idea of a troop profile.

    According to the ITS document a figure should have a 180 degree arc marked, regardless of whether the trooper has a 180 degree arc or not.
     
    Robock and xagroth like this.
  12. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    7,205
    Likes Received:
    6,535
    Troopers have different LoF arcs based off of whether or not they have 360 visors though. So when it says "mark their 180 arc" that just flat out can't be applied to a 360 visor trooper. I dispute that that section applies to such troopers.
     
  13. Spleen

    Spleen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2017
    Messages:
    281
    Likes Received:
    414
    I'll agree to disagree because I don't think it's particularly relevant; Either way there's no imperative to mark a 360 degree field of view on 360 visor troopers, no rule ever tells you to do so.

    And my key point is, you aren't obliged to mark 360 visor troopers in any way that would disallow a Holoprojector user from imitating one.
     
  14. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    7,205
    Likes Received:
    6,535
    When you have a holo trooper, they "pretend" to have a 360 LoF, the same way they "pretend" they can see through smoke clouds if they look like they have MSV 2+.
     
  15. daboarder

    daboarder Force One Commander
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2017
    Messages:
    3,686
    Likes Received:
    5,510
    LOF is open info, and holo1 isnt going to hide that nor change it.,

    That means its up to you to divulge what your mini can see, no ifs buts or hiding
     
    Zewrath likes this.
  16. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    6,040
    Likes Received:
    7,177
    That just confuses the issue.

    You're obliged to say what the open information makes it appear that your trooper can see.

    @Spleens point is that it's required to mark troopers with 360 visors the same way as troopers without 360 visors. So how you mark a mini with 360 visor doesn't in any way relate to whether the trooper has Holo 1 or an actual 360 visor.

    @Tom makes the point that the facing of a Holo 1 mini should be obvious so that when it's replaced it's clear what the replacement's facing should be.

    Basically what we've learned is that marking only 360 degrees on a model is incorrect, and the 180 degree vision arc should always be apparent.

    If you do this then there's no issue deploying a trooper with Holo 1 as a model with a 360 visor.
     
    Tom McTrouble and xagroth like this.
  17. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    12,018
    Likes Received:
    15,302
    There's plenty of ifs and buts in this situation. The Hafza has 360 degrees LOF Arc when disquised as a Sekban, this is the open information that you are forced to share. Line of Fire is open information, but a model's actual Line of Fire isn't explicitly so. For a Hafza disguised as a Djanbazan, it is not open information that the Hafza can't see through the smoke, nor is it open information that the Hafza actually gets the -6 from ODD, even if this is open information once the Hafza is revealed. I do not see how this is different with 360 visor.

    Just like how we've concluded that a mine in camo state must be assumed to be a trooper with regards to LOF.
     
  18. Zewrath

    Zewrath Elitist Jerk

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2017
    Messages:
    2,000
    Likes Received:
    3,484
    Not true.

    It is.

    Question: If I ask "can you see my Intruder through the smoke, as he can see you now?"
    If your answer is yes, then you're cheating. If you're saying "I don't have to answer", then you're also cheating.

    This has nothing to do with anything. The ODD is a MOD on the BS Attack, LoF is a merely a requirement to declare BS Attack, MOD's or no MOD's.

    Categorically incorrect. Here's what the current ITS rules says:

    LINE OF FIRE (LOF) For the sake of clarity and agility, every figure in play must display its 180º Line of Fire arc by means of distinct painted markings on its base or the appropriate markers (such as Customeeple’s Line of Sight Markers or Antenociti’s Workshop’s Visual Arc Markers).

    Here's what the 360 Visor rules says:

    360˚ VISOR AUTOMATIC EQUIPMENT
    Obligatory.
    REQUIREMENTS
    EFFECTS

    • This Visor gives the user a 360˚ LoF arc, instead of the usual 180˚.
    You're not forced to paint a random 180˚ arc on your front arc. The ITS rules explicitly states that you're required to paint your LoF arc, which is assumed to be 180˚ as is the norm, which the 360 visor rules also explicitly tells you is increased to 360˚ "instead of the usual 180˚"
    You're not allowed to bring a Hafza as a Sekban, with a base that says it has a 360˚ LoF Arc.

    I don't see how anyone would come to any other conclussion when the mine clearly states:

    "Concealed. This weapon or piece of Equipment benefits from some or all the effects of the Special Skill CH: Camouflage (Camouflage Marker, -3 BS, etc.). Refer to the description of the weapon or Equipment for more details.
    • Camouflage Markers concealing a weapon or a piece of Equipment have a Silhouette (S) value of 2."
    And also:

    "MINES SHORT SKILL / ARO
    Attack
    REQUIREMENTS
    In the Reactive Turn, LoF to the Active trooper is required.
    • Mines have a 360˚ LoF arc."
     
  19. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    12,018
    Likes Received:
    15,302
    Sigh.... I hate picked apart quotes. They always fail in parts.
    Citation needed.
    The Hafza's lack of 360 Visor is private information when disguised as a model with 360 visor.
    Citation needed.

    Citation needed.

    Tell that to Muttawiah's Jammer, where the MOD of ODD is explicitly a function of LOF.

    And here's where your cut up quoting fails spectacularly. I am not commenting on marking miniatures at all.

    Categorically false. Please read the Holoprojector 1 rules. You replace the Hafza's model with a Sekban model.

    Mines are equipment and don't have LOF with regards to such things as an enemy trooper re-camoing. Think further.
     
    Balewolf likes this.
  20. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    6,040
    Likes Received:
    7,177
    "Based on the information open to you: it appears so." For convenience this is usually shortened to a reminder at the begining of the game that Hafzas are a thing, and then 'Yes' in the game.

    The Intruder then Moves/Discovers/Idles and if I go 'I don't have an ARO at this time' you know the answer (I'm not a Djans). If instead I said 'I delay my ARO' when it was actually a Hafza then I'd be cheating.

    Smoke doesn't reveal Holo troopers disguised as something with MSV2 for free.
     
    Balewolf, toadchild, Hecaton and 5 others like this.
  • About Us

    We are a company founded in 2001 in Cangas (Spain), and devoted to design and manufacture games and figures. Our main product, Infinity the Game, was born with the ambition to satisfy the most demanding audience, offering the best quality.

     

    Why are we here?

     

    Because we are, first and foremost, players.

  • Quick Navigation

    Open the Quick Navigation