Data Sphere

I'm playing Quadrant Control and I have a "Palbot" (3pts) in one quadrant that is actually a Sepulchre Knight (59pts). My opponent moves a 50pt Ninja there to contest, and then we proceed to scoring zones. Can I reveal the identity of the pretend Palbot at this point in order to score that quadrant this turn, or do I need to have revealed him earlier during my active or reactive turn if I want him to count for scoring?

This aspect of Quadrant Control is pretty problematic. The same thing can come up if you have multiple Camo or TO Camo markers; you may be giving away information about how many points they are. I think you only have to reveal a points total for the quadrant, not the cost of each individual figure/marker. But you should definitely be using the actual value of the model, not the value of its Holoprojected disguise.

For your specific scenario, however, I would think your opponent would have to know that the Palbot isn't a Palbot; there's no way to deploy a Palbot in a scenario Quadrant, and there's no way to move up the Sepulcher knight that won't give away that that is not a Palbot.

ITS rules for that scenario, as well as frontline, simply require a marker or model to be in place to count. It never says you need to reveal what is actually present. Holoechoes refer to Holoprojector L2, meaning only the true model counts, not the fake images.

Of course if you claim 59 points in a quadrant with a single Palbot, your opponent will probably know something is wrong there.

The other slight snag is that not only can the Sepulchre not pretend to be a Palbot (it's the right shape but too small, and explicitly called out in the FAQ), it will be very obviously not a Palbot when you spend an Order on it instead of on its controller...

IJW Wartrader wrote:The other slight snag is that not only can the Sepulchre not pretend to be a Palbot (it's the right shape but too small, and explicitly called out in the FAQ), it will be very obviously not a Palbot when you spend an Order on it instead of on its controller...

Isn't a Palbot and Sepulchre both on the same base size? Until the silhouettes are put into place, what's the basis for saying they aren't close enough in size? The FAQ calls out "normal REM" which would be 40mm at the time it was written, would it not? (meaning different base sizes)

Base size is irrelevant, it's the physical size of the model.

'- As noted in the rules, a Holoprojector L1 user may only disguise himself as another unit of 'the same size'. So what exactly determines this 'size'?

The question of size refers precisely to the volume it occupies in space.

Like a human sized figure can not imitate a normal Remote (which is lower and wider) a Remote can not mimic a Remote Server (Which is obviously smaller than the conventional Remote). Nor a mounted Aragoto (Which is larger and quite different dimensions) or a Aragoto without his bike (That has a human scale) .

While a human can imitate a Aragoto without bike but not with it, a human can imitate a Remote if the model has human dimensions (Patroclus / Dakini). '

So the Sepulchre could pretend to be a humanoid human-sized Remote but a servant is too small.

IJW Wartrader wrote:Base size is irrelevant, it's the physical size of the model.

'- As noted in the rules, a Holoprojector L1 user may only disguise himself as another unit of 'the same size'. So what exactly determines this 'size'?

The question of size refers precisely to the volume it occupies in space.

Like a human sized figure can not imitate a normal Remote (which is lower and wider) a Remote can not mimic a Remote Server (Which is obviously smaller than the conventional Remote). Nor a mounted Aragoto (Which is larger and quite different dimensions) or a Aragoto without his bike (That has a human scale) .

While a human can imitate a Aragoto without bike but not with it, a human can imitate a Remote if the model has human dimensions (Patroclus / Dakini). '

So the Sepulchre could pretend to be a humanoid human-sized Remote but a servant is too small.

Where is the size of a servant Remote defined?

This FAQ simply states that servants are smaller than other Remotes. Non-Servant Remotes are stated to be a different size from humanoids.

I guess we could argue the intent is there with the soon to be included Silhouette 2 for models, implying S1 for servants, but prior to 3rd edition rules is that stated somewhere?

Is a Palbot of human dimensions?



Nope.

But even ignoring all that!

You can't activate a Sepulcher in the same way you do a Palbot. If you move it on its own with its own order, you know it's not a Palbot.

I was wrong in remembering that servants were specifically called out as being different to humans, that was in the thread the FAQ was a response to...

IJW Wartrader wrote:Is a Palbot of human dimensions?



Nope.

... So we're basing rules discussions on pictures now?

Is a Sogarat of humanoid dimensions?

ToadChild wrote:But even ignoring all that!

You can't activate a Sepulcher in the same way you do a Palbot. If you move it on its own with its own order, you know it's not a Palbot.

That would certainly be an important clue to the opponent, assuming the Holo is allowed to look like a G:Servant.

..we're basing the size discussion on the actual models, as pictured.
G:Servants are smaller than human models, the picture shows that rather clearly.
Sogorats are bigger than regular human-size. You can tell by looking at them and seeing that they're bigger.

This is a strange set of sentences right here. I mean, seriously?

macfergusson wrote:... So we're basing rules discussions on pictures now?

Is a Sogarat of humanoid dimensions?

Humanoid is a shape, not a size.

More seriously, compare the model with Holoprojector to the model it's pretending to be. If they're similar in size then you're OK. So there would be a good argument for a Hafza not being able to pretend to be a Sogarat, assuming they were in the same faction.

I'm aware that 'similar' is very loose, but the example we're given is that Patroclus could pretend to be a (near-identically-sized) Dakini, not that he can pretend to be a Yudbot. I'd point you towards the original read but the official forum is down again.

So I include the photo because the Ghulams and the Servants are visibly substantially different in size.

IJW Wartrader wrote:

macfergusson wrote:... So we're basing rules discussions on pictures now?

Is a Sogarat of humanoid dimensions?

Humanoid is a shape, not a size.

More seriously, compare the model with Holoprojector to the model it's pretending to be. If they're similar in size then you're OK. So there would be a good argument for a Hafza not being able to pretend to be a Sogarat, assuming they were in the same faction.

I'm aware that 'similar' is very loose, but the example we're given is that Patroclus could pretend to be a (near-identically-sized) Dakini, not that he can pretend to be a Yudbot. I'd point you towards the original read but the official forum is down again.

So I include the photo because the Ghulams and the Servants are visibly substantially different in size.

I guess I should just drop it at this point. It is going to be better defined soon anyways.

I don't have any personal problem with the idea that a Holo1 troop can't look like a servant remote, but I'm very much a Rules-As-Written technical kind of person.

As far as in-game size goes, all we have to compare by that is properly defined in 2nd Edition is base size. The rest of it is entirely up to scaling differences, crouching, "dynamic poses", and all that. We've seen multiple threads that male vs. female models of the same profile are seen to have different sizes of the same weapons. Not to mention the fact that artwork is even less conforming to a specific scale than actual models in your hand...

"Similar size" is a useless term without the tolerances for "similar" defined. :/

Mistake Not wrote:..we're basing the size discussion on the actual models, as pictured.
G:Servants are smaller than human models, the picture shows that rather clearly.
Sogorats are bigger than regular human-size. You can tell by looking at them and seeing that they're bigger.

This is a strange set of sentences right here. I mean, seriously?

Wait, really, you're saying that this

isn't even CLOSE to the same size as this?


That is exactly my entire gripe with an ill-defined "similar size" term.

macfergusson wrote:"Similar size" is a useless term without the tolerances for "similar" defined. :/

Please note that I'm not actually disagreeing with you on that, I mostly tend towards a technical approach to rules questions too.

I think we can all agree that this will be a little easier to navigate once everything has the Silhouette stat.

I think everyone is looking forward to N3 quite a bit.