@Wolf The central irony here is that you don't recognize that the posts of yours I was referring to in that post of mine were the passive aggression and condescension. I was pretty explicit with what I said.
All I'm saying that there's neither clear point in the rules and Army VI is beahaving in contrary to our/CB interpretation. It amuses me that a "empty" combat group (AD/TO only) was never a intention as it was discussen several times (before "change/clarficiation" on forums) and noone pointed out that's wrong.
It seemed like an aversive [sic] request, he's just implementing @Wolf's earlier advice. TBH it seems only polite.
I'm struggling to see how you could actually benefit from a deliberately empty combat group in your list, as I can't figure out a situation where it's beneficial to have a small number of models in a separate CG.
But then you could achieve that by having smaller combat groups and smiling deviously during deployment
Yes, but that has an actual in-game cost. Whereas a completely empty combat group has none. If you go first, you point out to your opponent that it's a mistake and is actually empty and claim LI based on one actual combat group. If you go second you say nothing and let your opponent wonder about what's in your second combat group.
It's not per se "your" fault. It's that it seems common understanding (probably backed by Army) was that's completly legit and "rules-ok" strategy.
Because now you can negate your opponent's Strategic Use of Command Tokens by using a single combat group, while before you could suffer it regardless of the number of groups you were using. Mislead your opponent into thinking he can't use a command token to take 2 regular orders from you, or negate coordinated orders on the first turn, etc... Also, as was pointed, to hide AD/TO troops, if your enemy sees a 10 miniature strong detachment... granted, you can play with Minelayers and Holoprojectors N2 to hide 1-2 Hidden Deployment models even in LI, but those are "tricks" within the rules, not "exploiting an external mechanic" like submitting an empty combat group. Which are Public Information, so you have to say you have 2 groups with models, or 1, for example.
But it was still incorrect that you could "lie" (involuenterly) that you don't have troopers past 1st combat group. And please mind that "official rules people" say that it was not a rule change (number of combat groups being open information) but a reminder to people and everyone who played differently played wrong.
I can say definitively, in my personal experience over years of playing Infinity, no one has actually tried to play an empty combat group. Maybe in other places it has happened.
For what it's worth it was not that difficult to do that while playing MO (TOFOOS and TO MSR in 2nd combat group).
Yeah you can legitimately have a completely blank courtesy list, various factions can pull this off, but those aren't actually empty combat groups. There's troopers occupying space in it, they just aren't visible at deployment.
with regards to the empty combat groups and command tokens, doesn't taking an empty combat group actually pose a disadvantage in ITS? Like if I take 1 x 10 order combat group, then I am protected from losing two orders, if however I take 1 x 10 order combat group, and 1 x 0 order combat group, then I'm now open to losing 2 orders due to strategic use of command tokens.
The list I wrote that prompted me to consider the question in the first place had three combat groups. The third included only a hidden deployment model with the intention of moving it into one of the primary two groups when a slot opened. The chief problem was that Army Infinity didn't disclose the combat group on my courtesy list, leaving me with a positive obligation to tell my opponent that I had a third 'nothing' group. This lead to the chain of thought 'what if any list could have a third 'nothing' group? And thus this train wreck of a thread was born. :P
FWIW, I didn’t ever presume you were asking if you could take advantage of the situation Robert, but rather asking questions around the potential loophole (gullible Old Wolf that I am) I thought the thread worthwhile, thanks.
