I'd say your reasoning is not as valid as you might think. What is hidden in a marker might be private information, but Combat Groups are public information (remeber: you DO have to indicate to your opponent if you have a second combat group, even if it looks empty because AD/camo troops). Also, declaring that to reveal to which combat group belongs the markers on the table makes then 100% useless is not only a overstatement, but a very shortsighted one. After all, I can use a camo'ed Minelayer to place 2 camos on the table, and have an AD troop or a Hidden Deployment troop, which my enemy won't expect since he thinks I have 10 units on that combat group. Or deploy four camo markers, and reveal to my enemy that yes, there are 8 figures and 4 markers in a combat group, and that will make him reveal at least two of them (more likely three) to identify the mines IF I deploy them wisely (essentially, two of them inside the ZoC of a central one). Also, I find amusing how everybody is "omg revealing to which group a camo marker belongs makes minelayer useless", while the most distinctive feature of a mine is that, as an equipment piece, it cannot be deployed prone... so if I see prone camo markers, I know those are *not* mines.
How the GENERAL "Combat Groups are Open Info" rule overrides the SPECIFIC "Identity of a Camo Marker is Private Info" rule? I really cannot understand. We have a basic and general rule and it's ok. Then we have exceptions to those basic rules. And you are claiming that you have to apply nonetheless the general one? Don't you see any problem there?
Which combat group does an ambush camo, camo marker belong too? Hint, only troops can be part of combat groups ;)
Maybe because the Camo marker itself is not private information, only "what is under it"? So you are not revealing a single thing about the identity of what is hidden under the marker. Yeah, 'cause AI Beacons are troops :p I'd say a camo placed by a troop belongs to that troop's combat group, the same way a sepsitorized/Overlord'ed troop does.
ai beacons have their own special rule that states they are assigned to groups mate...ambush doesnt, unless you are making up rules. but it seems funny to have to make up rules to get a rule to work when you could just accept that the initial "interpretation" you had is incorrect and wouldnt have to make up any rules
also its not "what is under it" It is "the contents" a word that is not defined, hence your ability to argue about it at all
Yes, and because AI Beacons aren't troopers, they had to have a rule specifically saying that they belong to a Combat Group and use up a space in it. That undermines your position instead of supporting it...
My "initial interpretation" that is in line with the Interplanetario's Ruling, where CB's Warcors were acting as arbiters and handed an expanded FAQ? Just trying to explain things, by reaching a wavelength that gets received. Anyway, in the wiki you can see the following (among other) bullet point, regarding Private Information (emphasized by me): Please do note that it says "Army list". Nor public, nor private, just Army List. And in nowhere else there is a mention that camo markers and/or its contents are public or private information. So, my point is that "Combat Group" is above marker, which is above "its contents". Thus, you have to reveal to which combat group does a marker belongs, but not what is under it.
Nope, they needed a specification in the rule beacause AI Beacons are equipment pieces you can deploy totally unrelated to any other model, marker, or whatever in your army.
To the best of my knowledge, there was no expanded FAQ at the Interplanetary. I helped write that rule. Please don't try to tell me why the specification was needed.
Yet there was, handed to the arbiters, some of whom told me about it. As for the AI beacons, I fail to see why you seem to discard (angrily, or so it sounds to me) my explanation as to why they are a poor reference point in the current conversation. As the only pieces of equipment you can place without depending on other model, they need their own rule/specifications, it comes with being in a unique position, and I was not trying to explain the exact why, just the general observation.
At the same time you're creating a rule that everything placed by a model belongs to a group. AFAIK there is nothing written to support that.
I was there, nobody at any point mentioned or showed an expanded FAQ. Then why bring AI Beacons up at all? If I sound angry, it's because you appeared to be telling me that a section of text that I insisted was included was for there for a completely different reason.
First, to be clear: an AI beacon needs to blong to a group, because it provides orders, which is yet another reason for not taking the AI beacons as reference. Now, on the "you are creating a rule": not really. I am saying that a camo marker, regardless of what it contains, belongs to a combat group, because the options are, taking "belong to" as "your opponent has a right to know": Camo markes do NOT belong to any group. So there are no way of knowing from which combat group they will draw Regular Orders, thus impairing the Strategic Use of Command Tokens. Camo markers DO belong to a group, but only if they contain something that generates orders, thus making obvious the other markers are not troops. Please do note that any camo marker with a Prone marker DOES contain a troop. ALL camo markers DO belong to a combat group, thus allowing groups with a number of possible troops greater than 10, thus making it obvious that there are traps of some kind around (without expressely pointing where), while at the same time allow to "hide" the existence of AD/Hidden Deployment troops during the Deployment Phase. Mind you, I think #3 not only is the correct option because I believe goes in line with the RAW (as I referenced in previous posts), nor because is something I've seen since I starter playing (I seldom use minelayers, but is a rare month the one I don't face a Nomad Player with 2+ camo markers on the table, which means I do not ask them, yet they tell me to which combat group each camo belongs to), but because it also allows more mind games, and other rules ("this model depends/has been acquired by this other model") go in line. For an example of a mindgame, please enjoy the attached 131pts/1.5SWC lists: the Ayyar is disguised as 3 Saladin, the Hafza HRL as a Warcor, one of the Bashi Bazouks as 3 Medic+Ghulam, the Hafza Lt as the Odalisque, and Yasbir as the three Hunzakuts (you can add 2 more freely, which gives Yasbir away as present in the middle of the table, but not which one is true and which one is false, until a hacker asks if the troop is "hackable or not" (so to speak: the deployable repeaters make the model vulnerable to a coms attack, something Yasbir is not vulnerable to). My point being until the Haqquislamite's first tactical phase, his opponent does not know what is there exactly, but can suspect things thanks to the three saladins, a warcor and 2 irregular orders. Were you there as an arbiter? For what I remember of the conversation, the expanded FAQ were handed before the start of the event, and consisted largely on contents from the Warcor forum. I did not try to use the AI Beacons as an argument, just inserted the mention as a joke, thus the ":p", which was something like :tongueout: in the old forums. Please do note I have not mentioned Minesweeper as an example of a piece of equipment being placed inside a combat group depending on the model that "has control of it".
1. This has very little impact on the Strategic Use of Cammond Tokens because the contents (edit - as in the number of Regular Orders) of the Order Pools is open information so the opponent will know if they're taking Orders from a large or small Pool. The only thing they won't know is which Combat Group a specific Camo marker belongs to, until an Order is spent on that marker. 3. This is definitely not RAW: 'Combat Groups A Combat Group is a closed group of troops with a maximum number of members no greater than 10. When the total number of troops making up an Army List is over 10, the player must organize the troops in different Combat Groups. When creating the Army List, the player must assign each troop to a Combat Group; he will be allowed to create as many Combat Groups as desired, as long as the total amount of troops in each one is no greater than 10.' My emphasis. Without specific overriding text like that in AI Beacons, only troopers belong to Combat Groups. There is no mention anywhere in the rules of things other than troopers (or AI Beacons via their exception) being part of a Combat Group. No, but I'm one of the main people on the Warcor forum collating stuff for FAQs. Please read your own link. Minesweeper in general use changes the ownership of the target. Placing the target inside the user's Combat Group is specific to AI Beacons, it doesn't apply to Mines, Repeaters, Sniffers etc. EDIT - Minesweeper is actually supporting that deployables (other than AI Beacons) don't belong to Combat Groups.
I fail to understand how minesweeper support your argument in any way: it allow you to take control of an equipment. If said equipment has a combat group due to a specific rules (ai beacon only), it join your combat group. It even weaken your argument : if minesweeper is used on a mine nothing is said about the mine combat group. Therefore, mines have no combat group. So, if your mine is still camoed and opponent ask you what combat group it belong to, with your interpretation the answer will be "none", revealing you have a mine under the marker. Edit : IJW was faster than me about mineseeper PS : if camo marker group were a public info, shouldn't a "camo marker bloc" appear somewhere on the courtesy list for each marker (as the courtesy list contain all public info available after deployment) ?
I`ll throw my log into a fire. It is unclear is camo marker a Trooper or not because only way to clarify this is to check it`s contents. And that is private info. There was a tread at old rules forum about CrazyKoalas deployment. It can`t be deployed if there are a trooper in Coala`s ZOC, how to treat camo marker? It could be either Mine (not a trooper) or some gut (Trooper). Because placing, checking content after placement and then replacing brakes rules and messes with it, it was ruled to treat all camo markers as a troopers because it could be troopers. http://infinitytheforums.com/forum/topic/48099-crazykoala-deployment-around-markers/ So we should either open Pandora Box on that issue too or apply similar ruling, assuming that all camo markers look like troopers until they are undiscovered camo markers.
Maybe I was not clear enough about the minesweeper part... My intent there being "if I wanted to use the AI Beacon as part of my argument, then I would have mentioned how Minesweeper takes the AI Beacon inside its group". ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ok, now, about the other points you make: 1. I disagree it has "little" impact. Remeber, there are TAGs with Camo option (PanO). Regardless of that, the orders are public information, but my point is simple: Army List is not the same thing as Courtesy List, yet the wiki specifies what is Open and what is Private Information. And I'm, yes, taking into account how the Sepsitor and Overlord/Total Control hacking programs add non-generating order troops to combat groups already filled. Now, let's look at it from another angle. Am I restricted, in any way, by the rules, on my ability to reveal information? Is it legal to ask my opponent to turn around to take a photo, if I do NOT have a Hidden Deployment in my list? Is it legal to make notes in a piece of paper during my deployment? Am I making up a rule? I don't believe it, since I am not saying "thou has to sayeth", but "you can play this way". What I find amusing, however, is how people disregards the Interplanetario as "irrelevant since it's not CB-organized", while Hellois tends to be... around.
For Minesweeper, check my post just above this one. As for the camos and courtesy list: please do note that it would be a waste of ink. And including their order would give away what is under the token in some instances (irregular order, one camo, all models regular, Nomads, no extras: the camo is a Bandit). I asked V about removing the Order count in the Courtesy List, since it has confused me sometimes when taking count of my orders and looking at the wrong list, and it also gives away my Holo madness play, but... Funny enough, there IJW goes onto "you have to treat all camo markers as if there is a troop under it". Sadly, if there were no official response there, I doubt there will be here unless the thread reaches bigger lengths.
