1. Nothing in the rules indicates that a model with a clearly marked 180 LoF isn't also clearly showing a 360 arc. You might also note that official partners do not make 360 arcs. A strange omission of CB approved game aids if your interpretation of the rules is to be true. 2. LoF is not simply open information. You're quoting from a paragraph that has several other characteristics that your argument has to totally ignore to stand up. "Existing lines of fire could disrupt a given order" is an example of which you can read hundreds of pages of debate on whether that means any future hypothetical order, or only whether your model is currently in line of fire. Even the people who argue the former would agree that abusing the sporting interpretation of that blue box to discover hidden information is not a correct implementation of a rule which people largely agree is a shortcut for speeding gameplay and making normal actions easier. So again, LoF being open information is not a clear rule of which you can then make absolute statements about other rules with. 3. As others have started, Holo and marker states specifically allow you to preserve hidden information, to the point of intentionally deceiving about what that figure could do (ie. The lasiq with mimetism). Trying to circumvent those rules is a long road to nowhere.
read the rules for LOF arc if you wish to be snide or legit confused. There's no such thing as "90 degree LOF arc", you're merely describing half the markings of a base, not the LOF arc in terms of the rules. Right, so mentally challenged then. My condolences. As much as I appriciate the effort in this post, I'm simply baffled on how many people don't seem to understand basic rules interactions at this point. a) The hidden deployment argument was shot down the instant it was made and instantly conceeded by the poster as the point was entirely false and dead on arrival. I've cited the entire relevant rules for the rebutal and why LOF of a HD unit is not about being private information, it's about the fact that the model doesn't exists, so nothing has LOF, hence no one can ever ask "does anything have LOF to this point?" and reveal a HD in such a manner. So the hidden deployment part is entirely irrelevant to the conversation. b) You're damn right I'm going to mention the 360 visor because you're fundamentally mistaken on how it works as is revealed here: No you do not. Your Holo1 is an imitated model. It imitates a Sekban. The Imitated model has a 180 LOF Arc, as is the standard on every single model and is only increased to 360, when the 360 visor is active. Mahtamori even pointed out and Inane agreed with that LOF would be reduced to 180 if a model with 360 would drop unconscious. How you can then claim to have a 360 LOF arc without benefitting from an active equipment, is beyond me.
right back at ya! the same is true of making a 180° mark for a model that has a 360 arc. So there is nothing wrong or illegal with a sekban that has marks at 180 (which coincidentally could be used as lof for a hafza). edit : sorry i got confused with posts formatting on my browser.
RIght, so the primary outrage against my statements seems to be that you can instantly spot a real Sekban and a Hazfa, either by the obvious LOF arc or "cleverly asking" about LOF. In principle how is what you're describing different? It seems to me that what you're describing is a way to "cleverly" deceive your opponent into believing that you have painted a LOF arc only to say "no, it was actually just my front facing, so I could disguise the Hafza you'd otherwise found out". Of course, I'm not accusing you of this, I'm just saying that I don't see the big difference there.
You still haven't answered my question. Everyone here knows that you're evading having to actually back up your opinion because it'd be shredded as soon as you do. This is the piece of rules that torpedoes your argument. You say you "appreciate the effort" that @ambisinister made, but you're either unable to read this simple rules passage (imbecilic, as I mentioned earlier) or just trolling.
my objection, as a QK player (which has sekban, hafza and odalisque) was that you would require to re-base odalisque every game because of "illegal lof marking". As for all your other points, i have nothing to add to what everyone already said on that subject so far.
It's different because it allows one to preserve the uncertainty of whether or not a Sekban is a Hafza or not. Which, apparently, is unsportsmanlike in your eyes (but doing something similar with a Camo'd Intruder is not).
Kek. So not a refutation then. Weak rebutals based on patos. Low tier, mate. Not really, no. Except this part literally destroys what you claim to be the "torpedo argument" in every conceivable sense: Second time you call someone an imbecille, while looking like an idiot.
For what its worth, as hard as it may be for other people in this thread with spaghetti autism to actually believe, I would actually never expect you to rebase all your models IRL.
Another thing that not being able to mark 180* markings is that technically speaking a sekban unconscious does not have 360* vision. Now it might be fair to say that it doesn't matter, but under the rules as some people are arguing, they must be marked when unconscious and must be removed when reawaken. if this is what the rules are agreed to, then qk players would need 10 models to represent a legal normal 5 man link of sekban. this is dumb and can't be supported.
Forget the physical markings at this point. The LOF arc exist regardless of the fact that you have painted them or not, via the rules. At this point it’s more about claiming to have LOF in a 360 degree arc, when you don’t. - The other are claiming that the original model’s LOF is private information due to holo1. - They say that what is open information is the imitated model’s LOF. - If that’s true, then it would be open information that the imitation Sekban would have have no LOF on his backside, because the 360 visor on his profile is not active. - Ambisinister even seems to be under the impression that you can imitate actual skills, as only deployable equipment are mentioned, so I’m going to assume he think Patroclus can enter TO camouflage state, because his holo doesn’t have NFB and Patroclus isn’t “benefiting” from the skill, he’s merely “mimicking” it.
So are you saying that you can ask to know if a TO hidden deployment model can see a point because LOF is open information and we do know that TO hidden deployment can have LOF because they are allowed to ARO?
Because we're not going to decide what the rules say. The easiest way to resolve this is as follows. Deploy all Sekban with 180 LOF marked. In a meta ok with Holo shenanigans. Player A: I want to move to here, would that Sekban have LOF? Player B: Yes. Vs new players your teaching and in @Zewrath's meta: Player A: I want to move to here, would that Sekban have LOF? Player B: You'd have LOF to it, but it's in the back arc so if it's actually a Sekban, Yes, if it's a Hafza, No. Player A: Yeah, but does it actually have LOF. Player B: You functionally asked me 'is that a Hafza', that's private information. If it's a Sekban, Yes. If it's not, no. ----- This simultaneously meets the requirements to be open and honest about what LOF exists and does not require you to reveal private information. The only issue with it is it is cumbersome. So I find it perfectly OK to do away with it and have my opponent just respond 'Yes'.
You were saying that two circumstances were the same. I showed quite clearly how they were not; if you're having trouble reading this down there try standing on your head. Well then why do you evade answering my questions? Are you just too dense to understand them. That's something you said. It's not the rules. The fact that you think that anything you say is a rule that everyone else has to play by is a separate issue; I presume an overindulgent mother left you with a solipsistic and childlike attitude. That section I quoted says that the Open Information relating to the trooper is replaced by whatever it's pretending to be. This would include LoF, as LoF is open information pertaining to a trooper. That you don't understand this is a failure of your language comprehension. I'll continue to be right and you'll continue to be wrong, regardless of insults you fling.
Sorry for resorting to memes but your statement is so wildly disconnected from my statement that you quoted that I couldn’t help but chuckle and think of the interview from this picture. As for your actual question. HD units do not have LOF to anything. They do as soon as you reveal them in your ARO. If you say “does anything see this point” then “no” is simply correct because the model doesn’t exist.
Aww, you’re cute when you’re trying to be edgy and use big words. :) Also, no. I literally am citing rules my dude, nor have you shown anything.
The rules forum works better if you ignore Hecaton and King in Yellow. It's not worth it. Also you've just reopened the 'intent' debate. There's a contentious split between metas where position on an answer to the question: 'Could a hypothetical S2 figure in that position see a hypothetical S2 figure in this position?' Is to actually answer it or not. You're right however. Technically a HD trooper isn't a figure or Marker so doesn't have LOF. Practically LOF either exists from the space the HD trooper will occupy or it doesn't. How you answer that depends on your meta and is not sufficiently covered by the rules (practically I think there's an obvious reason to play it one way not the other, but I'm not going to get into it here). Edit: it's possible I misinterpreted your post however. I'm only reading half the conversation.
Jesus Christ, I’ll take your word for it then. I’m jumping off this ship then and put them ignore. After the dumpsterfire of 4-5 closed threads, I’m not going to re-enter the territory of ‘intent’
Before you do. Read my previous post and agree that the answers I propose open and honestly provide an answer to 'can that Sekban see here?' But I think I may have misunderstood your HD point anyway.
