Full disclosure, I didn’t answer that post because I wasn’t sure what you actually meant. Not in a way that would warrant a proper response.
I meant an open and honest answer to the question 'Does the Sekban have LOF to a figure here?' Is: "If its a Sekban, yes. If it's a Hafza, no." This does not force your opponent to reveal private information, and complies with your understanding of the rules. Yes?
Your assumption is incorrect, I do not believe that and I think my examples clearly showed as much. I know full well that a Hafza does not have TO and therefore cannot use hidden deployment or deploy as a TO camo marker. What it can do is deploy as a Taureg and I can claim you are at -6 to shoot it because of TO camo. Just like I can deploy it as a Lasiq and claim you are at a -3 to shoot it because of mimetism. Just like I can deploy it as a Sekban and claim it has a 360 LoF. However when we resolve the face to face roll, neither my ‘Taureg’ nor my ‘Lasiq’ can apply visual modifiers because they don’t have them and my ‘Sekban’ cannot ARO to a model activating in its rear arc because it does not have a 360 visor. All of these are automatic. All of them appear to be active on a holo 1 model. The Lasiq example is in the rules as an example of how Holo 1 interacts with equipment.
As much as I agree with you @ambisinister that line of argument has been tried and does not convince @Zewrath.
@inane.imp I get that. I felt the need to clear up their assumption and make my position as unambiguous as possible.
This is the last call to reason, the behaviour shown is unacceptable. The model imitated does have the skill and the skill does grant 360 vision until the resolution step. Correct correct Not correct, the imitated model is for all terms and purposes the model present at the battlefield, the imitated model has LoF, the actual model does not, but until the model is interacted by the player gives the open information the model on the table has. Correct the model has the actual skills that are open information until the resolution step
Sigh, how many times are we going to bring up mods now? For the last time, mods doesn’t have anything to do with LOF. Also, I don’t see how you can claim to justify having an active 360 visor that permits you to answer “yes” to having LOF on your backside, despite the fact that the 360 visor isn’t active, with the justification that Holoprojector only mentions deployable equipment and then go on to say that you “clearly” demonstrated that you aren’t allowed to enter TO camo marker, if you had access to holo3. I now see what you mean with the intent territory. Anyways, I’m afraid I don’t agree and this isn’t on the basis of being merely stubborn. Let’s back up a bit here. You say your true LOF is private information but the imitation model’s LOF is open information. Correct? The 180 degree LOF Arc is innate, every model has it on their profile. The 360 degree LOF Arc is only something a model has when their 360 visor is active. The 360 visor is active as soon as the model is deployed and deactivated as soon as you fall unconscious. So I ask you, does your imitation Sekban (who’s LOF is open information) have LOF on his backside, when his 360 visor is not active? Why do you object to share the open information of the imitation Sekban?
Also I have to point out many of the parts used here tap in the "intent" discussion that has been ordered to stop until an official resolution is dictated by CB
Are you being serious, mate? Did you read what you quoted? You literally said “correct” to me ironically saying that Patroclus could deploy as a TO camouflage marker.
Incorrect the TO camouflaged state is triggered by having the skill when you deploy, on the other hand a Hac Tao with HMG and a Kanren that can deploy as 3 revealed Hac Tao HMG will result in 4 HMG Hac Tao and all have TO camouflage in their profile you will discover who is an imitator at the resolution step not before.
Because I don't believe it's required by the rules. However - ignoring that so we can reach a mutual accommodation - in that answer I have provided the imitated models LOF, to rephrase it: "If that figure is actually a Sekban, yes. If that model is imitating a Sekban, no." I've honestly answered your question and I've helpfully provided some additional information. However, provided I answer this way both for real Sekban's and imitated Sekban's it's impossible for my opponent to tell which is which. This enables me to preserve my Private Information. My opponent has sufficient information with which to undertake his Order and we can continue playing. I have to point out that we're deliberately trying to avoid skirting into that territory.
As a point of agreement, the rules on LOF markings are in the ITS PDF: For the sake of clarity and agility, every figure in play must display its 180 Line of Fire arc by means of distinct painted markings on its base or the appropriate markers (such as cusomeeple's Lif of Sight Markers or Antenociti's Workshop's Visual Arc Markers) There is not mention of requiring a 360 arc to be painted. For clarity and agility it is easy enough to say it has a 360 degree Line of Fire rather than the 180 painted on its base.
It is too much information, you will have to answer in that way every time you play an army that can conceivably have a holoprojector trooper, even if they do not include one, it is cluttered and convoluted. It is simpler What is this unit? It is a Sekban what is a Sekban? "Shows troop profile" Oh Sekban have 360 visor? Yes Ok I move to the corner I declare no ARO ? I declare no ARO ok I shoot him (if he hits) It was not a Sekban, it was a Hafza disguised as one. Already noted and much appreciated
I’m not bringing up Mods because they have anything to do with LoF, I am bringing up Mods both because they are automatic and obligatory just like a 360 visor and because they are used as the example in the rules. If what you are asserting is true, then I could not claim a ‘Lasiq’ has active mimetism if my opponent asks. Holo1 allows me to lie about my model’s open information, it does not allow it to do things it couldn’t otherwise. So no, it can’t deploy in HD or as a marker (it does not have TO camo). Nor can it enter a camo state, both because it doesn’t have the skill and because activating the model to do so is a cancellation term for Holo1. I realize I’m getting off track, but I have not once suggested holo1 allows a model to take actions it normally could not.
I guess. In all honesty, it’s hard to answer because your statement sounds weird to me because I wouldn’t play like that at all. Do understand that the only point that I go out and completely challenge a subject to its fullest form, is in the forums. I wouldn’t actually require anyone to rebase anything IRL, however I ask these kind of questions on the forums, like “does your Sekban have LOF on your back” mostly because If the issue is resolved, then I’ll know the answer in case someone does something fishy or claims something false.
Then you don’t understand what I’m asserting. I am fully aware that you can claim to have ODD/Mimitism on your profile. You and I are also fully aware that you cannot benefit from the equipment/skills we claim to have. I can claim to have ODD but I wont benefit from it during the BS roll. However claiming to have LOF on your back arc requires an active 360 visor, one that you do not have. Your LOF on your imitation trooper is open information, as is now established, your LOF arc with an imitation trooper is 180 degree since his 360 visor equipment is not active, regardless of what you claim to have.
@Zewrath I don’t think you and I are going to come to terms here. Thank you for taking the time to clarify your position.
I completely agree. Which is why I prefer the other interpretation of the rules. I find @Zewrath's interpretation to make no practical knowledge difference for a cany player at the cost of significant gameplay impost (which was the point I was trying to make last night when I got frustrated). It only really matters for MSV2 or 360 visor troops though. So it could be worse.
I cited a rules passage, you couldn't argue against it. You have nothing against the bit I quoted directly from the wiki except your own solipsistic belief that you're right, even when you've failed to do the mental work of understanding the rules.
Curious debate. How would you react to this exchange? "Does that Sekban have LoF to its back arc?" (Note that this is a probing question designed to try and get inherently private information out of the other player... like, seriously. If you've already said it's a sekban, they either know it has a 360 visor or you told them it did because it was clear they didn't know) "It has a 360 visor." "So does it have LoF to its back arc?" "It has a 360 visor..." What I am getting from @Zewrath's argument is that you can't claim to have LoF to something you don't actually have LoF to because LoF is funamentally different from other skills (I do not agree, but that's what I'm getting). But can you simply avoid answering the question they want you to answer with the answer to another (similar) question? If the answer is "Yes, that's fine" then what - really, functionally - is the difference between "It has a 360 visor." and "It can see in its back arc." besides semantics? If you object to the proposed answer, why? The player has said nothing about its LoF, and everything about that answer is fine with all the rules you've quoted so far.
