I can ask for pertinent information at any point, withholding the CL is pointless, making the withheld model Private information is pointless. Unless the player is asleep this is a pointless "gotcha." And as for the supporting arguments, they've all been snippets of a full quote that has an entirely different context when read in their entirety or appeals to authority. Both of which are fallacious. I've been told it's easy to prove this, yet no one has. If it was that easy then someone would have linked a full quote text that either explicitly said that models held back were special private info or implied that it was. This is the standard of evidence and so far everyone has failed at this despite it being so easy to prove. There's a clear difference between "held back" and "undeployed." What you take a snippet from to support your argument is from an entirely different context. The full quote is: REMEMBER Orders of Troopers that have yet to deploy on the table as Models or Markers (for example, due to the Combat Jump Special Skill) do not contribute to their Order Pool. Undeployed Troopers' Orders are Private Information, so their player can keep their Orders secret and out of sight of the opponent. And that refers to the Order Pool which at the time of Deployment is a conceptual idea. And if there's a Spanish ruling it should be in something you can quote and something this significant would be in explicit text form. Hearsay from the Interplanetario means nothing and is a fallacious appeal to authority. The people who plan the Interplanetario have no direct connection to the people that write the rules other than bumping into them now and again, and if they do hang around in private unless they're having a game or holding something game-related they would never talk about it. Most humans have worker lifeforms (and that is the wrong name in English as I only know the name of the psychological theory in Danish) and prefer to keep work and private life separate. And it might have happened in a game that they tried to keep held back models as Private Information and then the writer told them that the information was misread and then it ended there and never became an FAQ as it was seen as too obvious to mistake. CB never really got into the tournament scene until after N3 and then always from a distance, Interplanetario excepted which is still held by a different group of people than the rules writers. If the people that have reported to them have seen it as "just the way it is" then they would have no reason to bring it on. Only unhappy people complain and ask questions. It's a literal effect of the dopamine, released into our brains when we engage in something that we think is right, to hold those two urges down. And the brain grows addicted to this. This is the reason that when it comes to people there are only people who're people. Good or bad is a value-judgment made by others and ourselves that has no influence on our actual actions, as we can take actions we see as good and are bad and actions we see as bad that are good. No one is the villain of their own narrative. That includes how they interpret the world. Their interpretation is always good, just, and correct, it's everyone else who's out to somehow harm them. They see it this way since they're the literal main character of their own narrative. And if someone seen as an authority says that something is correct they'll adopt it without thinking and perpetuate it. That's how systemic beliefs can maintain their existence. That's probably true, names have a tendency to transfer. Calling them "undeployed" is wrong though as the game, at least the translated one refers to them as "the model kept back." Which is a rather stark difference from calling them "undeployed" that I take notice of. And undeployed also specifically mention HD and AD. Since it's so specific it would mention models held back as well. Words might be synonyms of each other and they all carry their own distinct meaning. "Powerful" is a synonym for "strong" and using either in a sentence can change the meaning of it. This is the reason @ijw needs to look at this because this needs an FAQ due to the language barrier.
You're either deployed or you're not deployed. You also keep bringing the Interplanetario argument, which nobody ever mentionned in the thread, nobody cares what they ruled at N3 Interplanetario. The sentence can be read both way in english. Claiming that it can only be read the way you read it is purely bad faith. RAW can go either way. RAI seems abundantly clear to me, based on the multiple arguments from previous page. (Spanish readings, how other rules treat undeployed models, etc.)
If I absurdum ad reductio that argument then everything in your list, including the structure of your Combat Groups, which you can be asked about at any point, is also private information until the models are deployed. This is an argument against your interpretation and shows that reading it in both ways is the bad faith argument. As I said, you can prove good faith at any point by quoting a citation in a context that shows for what you're stating. And I brought up the Interplapanetario because I think that's the only official backup people use in their appeal to authority.
I wrote undeployed without capital letters because it is the linguistic sense of being the opposite of Deployed. While the game doesn't specify "Undeployed" it does have a bunch of specifics when it comes to being Deployed. Interplanetario has never been an official event. They've also made a few rules calls that were pretty wild. You're also kind of pulling strawman arguments here and you're doing the basic mistake of assuming that A is correct and therefor proving that A.
So, technically, that information is not Private Information. It's Open Information. But I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding about what Open Information MEANS. https://infinitythewiki.com/Open_and_Private_Information Note the bit about "You must share Open information while you deploy your models ... and also any time your opponent asks during the Game." https://infinitythewiki.com/Initiative_and_Deployment#Deployment_Phase Now note the verbiage about "...before the Game begins ..." The deployment phase is before the game begins, not "during the game". Ergo, you don't have to share jack shit until it's on the game board during Deployment, even if its Open Information. You get a copy of my Courtesy List after I finish deploying my reserve model(s), and I'll be happy to note which Camo tokens are in which combat group if you ask, but you don't get to ask me what models I brought before I start deploying them. This is one of the major disadvantages of deploying first. This is how it's been played for years.
this is some wild s__t but if you are ever that paranoid at a tournament just ask opponent to put his list next to him face down before rolling initiative
I believe he is saying to which combat group a model belongs and yes, it is not open information until said model is deployed. "You must share Open information while you deploy your models ..." So until you do not place a model on the table you need not tell which Group it belongs to. When an argument for an interpretation of a certain rule is so convoluted that it is actually easier to go by the simple interpretation, I would honestly let it drop. At this point we are chasing moving goalposts, no amount of quoting or sense will be enough.
Do these games really exist? I must be very stupid then, even in games for points I typically even trust the guy about HD troops and the like. If I am going to stress that much I would rather not play. I only get serious about bad faith or outright wrong rules interpretations that favour my opponent clearly and when he refuses to even check the wiki.
I've never had someone cheat on me, and it'd be impossible in a tournament since you have to register your lists with the TO ahead of time anyways. Along with writing down locations of Hidden Deployment, etc which, in a tournament, is done in full view of the other player (though they do not know what you wrote down, only that you wrote something). Whenever something pops out of HD the opponent has to show it to you, and after the game you can just ask to see everything they wrote down if you're suspicious. If they refuse or the info doesn't match (like they wrote down 5 locations but only had 1 HD guy) it's a quick DQ once you call a TO over.
I have never seen anyone caught abusing uhhh "sideboard" - one of players from neighbour meta set the example of being overly honest by slamming his chosen list facedown (he is also the type of guy to denote his units with magnet combat group markers... commitment). Probably so no one could accuse him of replacing list after seeing enemy deployment... I took note but I never ask opponents to do that.
Well, this is certainly reinforcing my justifications for not being overly fussed about tournament play. :D
I know how it works, I have played infinity for many many years. But I could count with the fingers of one hand when I needed to check HD info from the other guy, or validation on what a Camo marker was, etc. Talking about distrusting the other guy enough to do that, typically you/offer, wanna see the evidence? Nah we are cool, go ahead.
Yeah I may have done a poor job of stating it, but I've NEVER had someone try to cheat with HD/AD/etc troops like that. It's too hard to do without raising a lot of suspicion, too easy to catch someone doing it, and even trying it would get you kicked out of the FLGS real quick. Let alone in a tournament setting. Fudged dice rolls? Sketchy measurements? Yeah, sure. But blatantly swapping models in your list? Never. Technically Appeal to Authority is still a Fallacy, but it specifically deals with when you present an Authority's opinion as Fact. Which, of course, doesn't apply if the "Authority" in question is the ULTIMATE Authority on the subject, such as the author of a rulebook. In this case, their opinion IS fact, as they're the ones who wrote it. It also doesn't apply if you quote an expert's argument to support your own, like citing a research paper, though you must make sure that whatever argument you are quoting is adequately supported. It does, however, apply when quoting, say, some random TO from Interplanetario.
I dont think we are able to say anything that would change the opinion of @quaade The title of this post is not accurate, its expressed as a question when in reality is a wish to change standard game mechanic.
That's fair, and then right after it provides a list of what is Private Information. You need to reference those as well else your quote is selective and selective quoting is unreliable. These pieces of information are Private in Infinity: Your Troopers’ Cost and SWC. The presence of Troopers possessing the Combat Jump or Parachutist Special Skill. The presence of Hidden Deployment troopers. The presence of troopers disguised by HoloMask. The contents of your Markers. The identity of Troops with Chain of Command or Counterintelligence. The identity of your Lieutenant. None of those includes the model withheld from deployment, the phrase "undeployed" is never mentioned. The only time that word comes up is in a section of how you count your orders. REMEMBER Orders of Troopers that have yet to deploy on the table as Models or Markers (for example, due to the Combat Jump Special Skill) do not contribute to their Order Pool. Undeployed Troopers' Orders are Private Information, so their player can keep their Orders secret and out of sight of the opponent. Neither does it ever say that Troopers are Private info until it's deployed yet earlier it also implies that they are since you've no need to share the info before that. So, I call translation issue on that contrasting information since both one thing and the direct opposite is true at the same time, and that's impossible unless someone has a case of cognitive dissonance. The simple interpretation is that it is Open Information as the interpretation of it being Private Information needs to have a word that's mentioned nowhere else to apply to a function outside of its relation and to have cognitive dissonance since it requires that the information that says one thing also says the direct opposite when seen in the context of the entire section it's in. Minor derailing, however, you really need to brush up on your fallacy knowledge before you say that a definition is wrong (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies) The appeal to authority is defined as thus: Appeal to authority (argument from authority, argumentum ad verecundiam) – an assertion is deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it. The people hosting Interplanetario are seen as an authority and what they said was used as an argument to back it up. An appeal to false authority is more of a false attribution fallacy: False attribution – appealing to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or fabricated source in support of an argument.
From the article you posted: An argument from authority (argumentum ab auctoritate), also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam, is a form of argument in which the opinion of an authority on a topic is used as evidence to support an argument.[1] Some consider that it is used in a cogent form if all sides of a discussion agree on the reliability of the authority in the given contex I guess I assumed we all considered the rule book as an authority?
So, by your argument, the presence of a trooper that isn’t on the table is Private Information, but it’s stats aren’t? So while I can’t tell you if I have a Combat Jump trooper, if you ask me what stats my Combat Jump troops have I am required to answer? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum Your argument is absurd, and the fact that you continue to hold its position is equally absurd. Does anyone know if there is a way to call for a WarCor’s status to be revoked? The positions taken by quaade in both this thread and the White Noise debacle have, in my opinion, demonstrated a fundamental lack of both knowledge of the rules and experience laying the game, which runs counter to the assertion that WarCors be “experienced players.” Furthermore, his abject refusal to allow himself to be corrected or accept criticisms for his logical arguments, again in my opinion, sets a poor example for any newer players that he may run events for, and may encourage similarly stubborn and illogical users to follow his example. I don’t mind players who act this way, but I hold WarCors to a much higher standard. For a person with official sanction from CB to act in such a manner is honestly disgraceful and undermines the reputation of the rest of the WarCors.
