Greetings! Here is a fun situation. ----- Player A has a Knight of the Holy Sepulchre in Holoprojector L1 state imitating a basic fusiliers. Player B has a Kanren (non-hacker profile) imitating a Zhanshi (Hacking Device profile). Player A declares a Short Movement Skill Move to move within 8 inches of Player B's model. From Player A point of view, the player needs to declare that his unit has the Hackable Characteristic due to entering Player B's Hacking Area. However, Player B doesn't have a Hacking Area, and shouldn't have access to that information. ----- Which player should inform should inform the other about this action first? Which player has to give away their Holoecho existence first. Should Player A volunteer the Open Information, or should he wait for Player B to ask. And then Player B. If he should wait for Player B to ask, should the games then be played such as whenever you play a faction that has access to Holoprojector you always ask if they are hackable whenever any model enters your Hacking Area?
It's a trick question. No one knows that it's eight inches because you're not allowed to measure ZoC until the resolution phase.
That's a whole other can of worms! Assume for this question that we are clearly within 8 so that there is no confusion!
I would like to point out that the Holoecho gameplay example, for all of its other faults, has the player with the Hacker model ask the other player for the information. And, look, let's be honest about this. There's a whole lot of "fairness" assumptions that are simply flat out wrong once you start dealing with hidden deployment, camo markers, combat jump, and holo echoes: 1. If what you're using for a "courtesy list" is static and can't be updated, it's going to be useless. Hidden deployment, combat jump, camo markers, etc. all result in static courtesy lists that don't serve their purpose. 2. The game contains numerous situations where a model was revealed (or a skill was declared) but then gets replaced by a marker. Both players and everyone watching know that the camo marker you placed when declaring "Anti-personnel Mine" is an Anti-Personnel Mine, but the fact remains that the identity of the camo marker is considered private information. Likewise, that S6 Camo marker that a Shasvastii player deploys has to be Sphinx, but no one is required to admit it or volunteer that fact. Private information that you can deduce doesn't stop being private information. 3. Holoprojector means that the other player's models may be fake. What standard of proof are you going to use for "Is the active model really a hacker?" There are a lot of different profiles in the game, can you name every model in the game with any level of holoprojector, and can you be sure CB didn't introduce a model you forgot about? Factions without Holoprojector (just checking vanilla, not bothering to check NA2, and ignoring the Spec Ops rules completely): Ariadna (boring but has cute space puppies) Nomads (space hippies) Combined Army (waiting for Shasvastii to get holoprojectors) Morale of the story: You can trust the Combined Army. Volunteer your army information to Combined Army players. :) ---- Obviously, this isn't a comedy about Infinity players where the script goes like this: - The fake hacker move up into the expected ZoC of the other disguised model. - Both players spontaneously volunteer that their models are holoprojector impostors, and that they're just too [stereotypically friendly and honest socioeconomic group] to bluff.
Yes, I think this is a worthwhile question that, if we conceptualize it generally, does crop up in other situations too. I’m guessing the answer will be to devise a suitable etiquette - not the rules themselves, but a formalised way of managing polite and pragmatic play around the rules themselves. What do the rules themselves require in terms of this sort of disclosure; do we know?
Since we started summing things up on Discord - this is how far we got. Technically you are required to actively share Open Information with your opponent as soon as it becomes Open Information. Being inside your opponent's Hacking Area makes the Hacking Programs that Trooper can be targeted with Open Information. This works through Holoecho State and Holoprojector L1 State. So far so good. Example Time: Our Trooper is a KotHS disguised as a Fusilier. We are obviously entering a Kanren AHD's ZOC and therefore probably his Hacking Area. Aware of the fact that we have to disclose being Hackable like a HI we consider the possibility that Kanren might be a FO and not a Hacker. So we politely ask our opponent if we are in his Hacking Area after Moving inside ZOC with our first Short Skill. As we stepped into ZOC of a model not hidden by a Camo Marker that should be Open Information and we can ask for it. He reveals that there is no Hacking Area and we keep our KotHS being just that a secret. He then declares his ARO, we proceed with our second Short Skill and the Order is concluded as normal. If instead the Kanren was indeed a trooper with Hacking Device we would instead have to reveal that we are targetable by Programs that can target HI. This seems to be the closest we could stick with actual rules. The process is a bit too complicated to work on the table though. As you technically have to repeat that for every opposing model that could be a Hacker disguised by Holo himself.
While this works if you are obviously inside the ZoC (say, you had shot before with something right next to it, being within 10" after measuring, then on the next skill doing a full short skill move towards it with the Holo troop), the problem of ZoC not being allowed to be measured until resolution complicates this mess to astronomical proportions.
Rest assured none of this actually works in reality. Both players need to be aware of a ton of rule interactions. Both players need to actively remind themselves to share crucial information for free with their opponent. And then as you mentioned there is the "am I inside 8" or not" problem for both of them.
This... sort of works. However, your KotHS is not entitled to know if the Kanren is a A/KHD or not, it's the Kanren who is entitled to know if your KotHS is Hackable. Also, if the Kanren is not a hacker you've gained information on the Kanren without volunteering information of your own. I think in this situation it's important to take and give.
Only kinda I mean it's ugly but you can make it work if both players are forthright and willing to accommodate the other (you need to be forthright if your running Holo'd hackers / hackables and accept that you can't get perfectly hidden information), you can go: 1: "Hey my Fusi has probably moved within ZOC of your Zanshi (Hacker), so you probably get a ZOC ARO." 2: "Nah, I think it's outside." 1: "Ok. But let's measure it at resolution to be sure. (Doesn't reveal the information about the KorHS)" 2: "Sure. Anyway, my Zanshi doesn't ARO at this time." 1: "My Fusilier Idles." 2: "Cool, obviously still no AROs. Let's measure." <Measures Fusiliers ZOC> "Oh it's in." 1: "Ah, umm... if my Fusi was a Holo'd KotHS would I need to tell you that it can be targeted by programs that affect HI now?"# 2: "Umm... nah, you're all good." # Note, it's acceptable to do this even if the Fusi is actually a Fusi. Or alternatively, 1: "Hey my Fusi Moves to here." 2: "I think it's inside ZOC of my Zanshi (Hacker)" 1: "Nah, I dont. Let's measure it at resolution to be sure. (Doesn't reveal the information about the KotHS)" 2: "Sure. Anyway, my Zanshi doesn't ARO at this time." 1: "My Fusilier Idles." 2: "Cool, obviously still no AROs. Let's measure." <Measures Fusiliers ZOC> "Oh it's in." 1: "Ah, umm... if my Fusi was a Holo'd KotHS would I need to tell you that it can be targeted by programs that affect HI now?" 2: "Umm... nah, you're all good." Since you can only know that a trooper is inside Hacking area or not at resolution, you can only be obliged to describe this information at resolution. This btw is why I think that the ZOC of active troopers can be measured during any resolution: otherwise madness ensues. Let's do a slightly different example: Kanren AHD disguised as a Zanshi. 1: "My Fusi Moves to here." 2: "Umm, I think that's within ZOC of my Zanshi. It's actually a hacker, what programs affect your Fusi." 1. "Umm... I think it's outside ZOC. Let's measure at resolution and I'll tell you if it's inside." 2. "Ok. My Zanshi doesn't ARO." 1. "My Knight of the Holy Sepulchre reveals and shoots your Hsien." 2. "Oh... If I'd known that, my Zanshi would have revealed as a Kanren AHD and Oblivioned. Can I do that now?" 1: "Sure, I think you're out of ZOC anyway so it's no skin off my nose." 2: "Awesome, thanks, I do that." This relies on both players being forthright about whether they think something is inside or outside ZOC and not changing that opinion based on whether it becomes better or worse for them. It would be disengious to go: 1: "My Fusi Moves to here." 2: "Umm, I think that's within ZOC of my Zanshi. It's actually got an AHD, what programs affect your Fusi." 1. "Umm... I think it's outside ZOC. Let's measure at resolution and I'll tell you if it's inside." 2. "Ok. My Zanshi doesn't ARO." 1. "My Knight of the Holy Sepulchre reveals and shoots your Hsien." 2. "Oh... If I'd known that, my Zanshi would have revealed as a Kanren AHD and Oblivioned. Can I do that now?" 1: "Nah, you can't do that because your Zanshi/Kanren has already had it's chance to ARO." So yes it's ugly, but it's not unplayable. It becomes unplayable if people stand on not having any private information revealed. Say a Fusi Moves within 8" of one of my Morans and I have an AHD Zero as a Camo marker on the table. I can choose to go to my opponent "hey, one of my Camo markers is an AHD, is that Fusi Hackable?" (revealing some hidden information) but if I don't then I can't complain if my opponent later reveals it as a KotHS. Basic principle is that Holo 1 doesn't stop hacking from targeting the trooper, so you can't exploit your opponent's lack of open information to prevent them declaring a hacking ARO they would otherwise be entitled to.
That or just accept that in a game with a holo projector HI vs a camo hacker, neither player offers any open but hiding information because they have no knowledge that they should volunteer that information nor been asked to be prompted to give it. So the end result being that both pieces effectively become private.
Different Situation as the contents of a Camo Marker explicitly are Private Information. A Holoprojector or Holoecho's vulnerability against Hacking Program is not Private. On the contrary it's explicitly mentioned (in the Wiki) to become Open Information as soon as you enter a Hacking Area.
Betting this will be a "coffee talk" rather than something that our lords up high will deign to answer.... I for one do not look forward to my games dragging out an extra half hour as every model being moved ends with "aha! But allow me to inform you that this alguacile is in fact NOT hackable..."
Even then, he's not entirely wrong. There will be situations where mistakes are made purely from a practical POV. The only way to prevent that is to cede some Private information to your opponent ("One of my Camo markers is an AHD can you tell me if that's hackable?") or impractical (discusing theoretical hackability after every order). This was actually my point: the neatest way to resolve this often is to allow the action that would have clearly been taken if the information your opponent should have known was known by them.
See how much smoother the game plays when you just bring Ariadna and nothing is hackable or has hacking?
I've pondered this scenario for a while now since the question was originally posted and find I'm leaning in an unexpected way. Isn't it possible that what CB intend here is just what we have with the rules as they are - that neither player has to reveal anything until after Orders and ARO.s are properly declared and resolved. If either player declares something that doesn't work (eg. a Hacking attack against an inappropriate unit) then that just becomes an Idle. This is how the rest of the game works, after all We don't know what range band we'll be in for a weapon until Resolution We don't know if we're close enough to Engage until Resolution We don't know how many ARO.s we'll take until Resolution We don't know if we're in Hacking range until Resolution etc. etc. etc. So doesn't it make the most sense for players to be ignorant of the target's exact nature until Resolution too? Holoecho is an ability you have to pay for, after all; isn't it reasonable that it makes life difficult for the opponent?
I'm inclined to agree, but I think what CB wanted to avoid was Basilisk declaration targeting an "Asawira" that's actually an unhackable Hafza. The Holo vs Holo scenario was probably not adequately planned for or simply written off as a "damned if you do, damned if you don't, the players will have to sort this out among themselves"
It's simple: The Kanren player can't ask, because his Trooper does not actually have a Hacking Device. The Knight player is not required to volunteer the information. Technically, this places an onus on the player of a hacker to always ask if a model is hackable when it enters your hacking area. That's an annoying burden, but it is what it is, RAW. That said, here's the more friendly etiquette: The Knight player thinks the Kanren is a hacker, and so he/she is making a choice to move a hackable HI into an enemy's hacking area. He/she is making a choice to deliberately put the model at risk, and so it would be sportsmanlike to volunteer the information, because it SHOULD be something the opposing player knows. And here's the kicker, the only way the opposing player WOULDN'T know it is if that hacker isn't really a hacker. So if you volunteer the info because you THINK it is a hacker, your Holoprojector ass just got got by a Holoprojector. You were playing gotcha games with a Holoprojector, and so it's perfectly fair for you to get got by another Holoprojector. And at the end of the day, if you DON'T volunteer the information on the absurd off chance that the opposing player also has a Holoprojector and happens to be disguising a non-hacker as a hacker, then you're being a massive dick in the 99.8% of cases where its actually just a hacker. So just volunteer it, even if you're not 'required' to.
