had to check in army for starco (oh!, the irony). There is no way to get a holoed riot using a spec ops (only with soldiers of fortune, as the example I put before with Sforza). But even with that, you could not link them. Anyway, What I wanted to say is that giving that information is optional, not mandatory. You are not forced to give it if you don't want or you can't, but at the same time, is not illegal for your oponent to check it in army.In the haqq lieutenant example you can say: "I only remember the option I put, so I cannot say which options, but you can check on army if you want, with your time" At the moment, I've jet to see a TO doing it other way, but of course, I've never been in the states
Just an FYI: The courtesy list will in some cases, particularly with Holo2, reveal private information. It not perfect system, but your strive to keep stuff hidden from your opponents might mean you reveal more than you manage to hide.
for example, the courtesy list might show that a holoed trooper disguised as a basic, non-hackable lineman, is hackable, but that info should only be avaiable once that trooper gets into the enemy hacking area.
I have no idea why people would want to restrict non-private information in any setting other than a tournament. Unless my opponent wants a specific challenge, I don't see the point of forcing them to play in the dark. Why would anyone want to play a deep tactical game without the correct information to guide one's decisions? And then why would I want to let them? I could come up with a list my opponent is entirely unaccustomed with, play 30 minutes to an hour seing them flay in the dark, and then what? Be proud of myself when I win? Assuage their frustration by telling them they'll know better next time? What kind of process is that? There's no glory beating an uninformed opponent, same for beating a beginner when you're an expert. I want them to have all the information they should have, so they can make the best decisions they can. I'm not going to play the game for them, that's their job, but if there's a gap in their knowledge, I'd rather be part of the solution than the alternative.
some people just want to win, with everithing they have, if the enemy does mistakes, if they forgot things, if the line of sight was blocked but some passed by and bumped on the table and now is not blocked....anything goes, even trying to put non-private info as private
The Information is just not needed. To play the game I don't need to know exactly how many points some unit costs or how many SWC something costs. This Information is only needed if I want to calculate, how much is missing. (And this is where the comparison with rangebands and so on is failing. I need the rangeband to play the game, but I don't need to know the SWC-cost of a unit to play the game. Not even for victory conditions) This has nothing to do with "beating an uninformed opponent". My main Opponent in my meta plays mostly LI, so, when I have 9 units on his courtesy list I could calculate very quickly, which unit is most likely missing, based on the points cost. Same if there are 8 units on the courtesy list. On the other side, he would not be able to do this, when I am playing 6 camo-tokens with Nomads. So what is fairer? When I can reverse engineer his complete list while he can not or when we both have a somewhat same level of uncertainty on what is missing on the lists? Just a few thoughts. I know it's unrealistic to prevent someone from using Army, with Smartphones and Tablets everywhere. This reason alone makes the official Point of view plausible. But especially in a friendly game I would not reverse engineer my opponents list.
That missing the point. Infinity has a significant amount of bluffing and hidden information included, that's not a problem and not something I'd want to see taken out. Some lists hiding more information than others is not unfair. Take another example instead: you both have LI lists with 9 units on the courtesy list. Because you are most experienced, you rapidly deduce the likely missing unit. Your less experienced opponent cannot, and wants to open the Army builder to achieve the same result. Do you really want to sit down watching them do so? Do you think it is conducive to the best possible game to forbid them from doing that? As an alternative, should you be able to do so, wouldn't it be better to quickly mention the few possibilities for the missing unit, letting them figure out what the correct one is? A game is a social setting, and I'd much rather communicate positively with my opponent rather than see them spend time on a phone/tablet. I'm equally happy to be part of the solution and hand over the easily deduced information when I have it.
Except you don't have the same level of uncertainety. If my opponent doesn't play camo/HD/AD heavy, I don't need army to reverse-engineer most of his list. I think most player with at least 2/3 year of regular tournament experience can do the same for most armies Yet I don't feel the need to prevent my opponent to reach the same level of knowledge of my list by asking question or using army if he needs As I said before, I loose realy nothing by letting my opponent have these information and I gain time and goodwill by providing them myself when asked
Like I said: a somewhat same level of uncertainty Do you think the game wins anything from the knowledge what a unit costs? I don't. What's the use of it, except for the possibility to calculate missing units? I already brought the comparison to BlackJack and Skat. Some are able to count cards, some are not. But noone argues, that I should be able to write down which card was already drawn so everyone has the same knowledge. If someone wants to learn all the points costs or lieutenant options, so be it. Yes, he is at an advantage because he is better at memorizing stuff. That's life. Some are better in school than others because they are better at memorizing stuff. Is this unfair? I don't see the necessity to know the points and SWC costs. I know it can not be avoided if someone really wants to know, but it is not necessary for the game and it doesn't make the game any better or fairer.
So, it seems to me that one side is saying "I don't have to, so I'm not going to because I think this is more exciting" while the other is saying "I don't have to, but I'm still going to because I think it is more fair". Isn't this debate all a bit pointless now that all we can really do is nitpick potential mistakes made in examples or justifications, but all we're doing is arguing for or against an opinion?
When both side are willing to die for their opinion ? Yes This being said, this discussion is mostly pointless for another reason : it's impossible to prevent player to access this information unless you put a referee behind every smartphone So the question is : should it be done openly and in a friendly manner or should we act like it's bad manner and have people do it anyway
First two paragraphs: yes Last Paragraph: not acting like its bad manner, more like ... trying that player relinquish voluntarily and don't check every points costs in Army.
When both parties agree, but only disagree on why, then it's often pointless to debate it. I mean, I can't even see anyone trying to get someone else to change their opinion, only people reacting as if the counter-part is. It's like a border war where both nations are attempting to re-establish the pre-war border.
Well...basically it's more about what "oneself is obliged to do" (and voluntarily choses not to do) and what "the other is allowed to do" (which must be controlled). Those two opinions collide, when someone is checking the opponents list in Army Builder ingame.
