Checking Army in game?

Noctifear, Agemaphobia, Hunwhen, and Nadwhere joins the old classics of F-k Tao and Swissile. Lots to be worried about.

(Really like how close Agemaphobia is to Agoraphobia - and how closely related the two are!)

 

CB's official position is "we can't stop people from using the app, nor would we want to."

There are some tournament organizers who vehemently disagree and think that knowing, say, the points costs of your opponent's units is forbidden information. Their viewpoint is nonsensical, but they are out there. Check to see if your TO is sane before attending an event.

 

I also do this sometimes and I've noticed that my gameplay gets better when I do it. However, I don't think everyone should do this or needs to do it to win.

 

Agreed that we should lower barriers to entry for the game.

But we should probably not add stepstools to something as important as spotting the Lt. though, given how much a dead Lt. ruins an opponent's game (I think the LoL mechanic is too harsh in Infinity).

It would make sense to help an opposing player with that in a training-wheels game, but not once they know how to play the game in general, IMO.

 

When I only have one Lt option in my list, I play on the assumption that my opponent knows that's my Lt. Hoping my opponent won't figure it out is a tactic that will only work against beginners. If I rely on tactics that only work against beginners, I'll only win against beginners.

 

This. Similarly, winning versus someone who thinks you could have a Hidden Deployed Template ARO, or a drop troop, when they doesn't exist in your faction.

I'll volountarily give away any information about my faction that could be checked from opening Army. (It's trivial to find out, and it's a lot faster for me to tell them).

That being said, I think it's much better if player can check than ask. Because that doesn't put any cognitive load on their opponent from recalling information (which could be a tell on if they have included it or not).

"This is a Liberto, because it's the only MIM-0 my faction has access to.", "This is my LT, because it's the only possible trooper in my list that could be it.", "My faction does not have any drop trooper, but I can take Hidden Deployed troopers", etc, etc.

If I want to hide my LT to play safer, I'll make sure to generate some uncertainty in my list, via the list building. Take multiple troopers with possible LT profiles and the same WIP, take camo troopers, etc.

 

This is the way. Although I am less forthcoming if I play someone I perceive as better (but still volunteer info like Disphoration mentioned).

 

I guess by extension it's also a good idea to get used to playing against opponents who have figured out who your Lt. is, so that you'll get better at preventing or mitigating Lt-assassinations.

I'm stoked to see the no-Loss-of-Lieutentant extra in the ITS14 packet. Did I miss that one existing in previous seasons? When did it get added? (Didn't play much in ITS13).

Definitely going to appeal to TOs to put that one into effect in most local tourneys. Infinity is already imbalanced to favor alpha strikes right now, adding LoL in there makes a really nasty alphastrike unrecoverable.

 

I've always been fine with both this and dice calculator provided you aren't taking an excessive amount of time, which I'll admit in a tournament setting can get rough. If there's chess clocks though I have no problem no matter how long you take, do whatever you want.

 

I've honestly just started telling people who my lieutenant is if there's only one possibility. Hey, I've got 2 lieutenant orders in JSA, that means the Domaru with Spitfire is my Lieutenant, now put the app down so we can play.

 

It's also a convenient way to remember disclosure that is obligatory. If I have 5 command tokens, the rules require me to draw my opponent's attention to that fact, but it's easy to forget to. But I remember when I'm going over my deployment for my opponent and get to "and this next model is a Ghulam with a rifle+lsg, oh yeah and also I have 5 command tokens so this is the only Lt option you currently see."

 

In some ways, this is an issue about maturity. For some people, especially less experience wargamers, there's a legitimate advantage to be had by allowing your opponent to overlook information that they could have obtained before or during the game. This then becomes like a mechanic itself, you're standing there acting and hoping that your opponent gets something wrong--I even hear people try to disguise the information in the way that they talk to their opponent... "okay, we have a regular fusilier over here, just a combi rifle"

I feel like once you've had a lot of experience with the social side of the game, the competitive experience, understanding where the real meaningful strategic interactions actually lie, the charades become a bit tiresome.

When I deploy, I actually tell my opponent explicitly who my Lt is, what's under each of my camouflage markers, whether I'm using all 15 slots after deployment, stuff like that--unless there is any genuine ambiguity about it. In missions where you have to get points into a zone, I usually even tell my opponent how many points my guy is even though technically I don't have to.

That being said, CB could easily tighten up a lot of the rules around closed information to make it fairer and more effective to keep more of your 'cards off the table' so to speak.

 

Totally, if I deploy a mine from a non-camo minelayer, I usually mention that the minelayer model only has 2 mines remaining, therefore, the only camo marker around is a mine. That does go out the window once I have actual camo units around, unless it's the only camo marker in 8". I don't want them to spend the time deducing something obvious if they ask the right question.

 

General rule is it’s fine, just don’t be wasting your opponents time by trying to rebuild their list in army

basically, don’t be a dick about it and it’s fine

 

Hardest rule, right there.

 

I'd go as far as saying, if your opponent makes you rebuild their list to find out information that is public knowledge (like which units can possibly be lieutenant in an army, or what units can be camouflaged, etc.), then your opponent is a dick.

Don't make people memorize every unit in every army, the point is to beat them on the table using superior tactics, not to brow beat them with your encyclopedic knowledge of possible lieutenants.

 

This. This. This.

You can't blame your opponent for wasting time, when you're the one forcing them to waste time.

That being said, I really prefer looking up Army or having my opponent look up Army for simple things like "Does your faction have access to Hidden Deployment?", "Does your faction have acess to Airborne Deployment?". Because this way the player can't make a mistake when they inform their opponent, and they don't have to recall everything.

I'd probably say "I don't have access to a airborne deployment trooper" if I only had access to a Cube Jager, just because it's not in my list and I wouldn't consider it. But then my opponent isn't playing around that trooper, (when they could).

If they just check Army for Parachutist and Combat Jump, then they know that question, they can make up their mind about if they want to play around it or not, I don't need to remember everything that I don't play in my faction, and it takes literally 10 seconds. (They can even do it while I deploy!)

Not only that, but I think it's mandatory to tell them that they have 2 mines left, it's Open Information that doesn't match the one on the Courtesy List. Not telling them is purposefully making the game state unclear.

Now, if you want to have uncertainty, put another camo within 8" and which is a Mine, which isn't is now REAL uncertainty that they have to play around. Not uncertainty based on ambiguity and muddy game states.

 

Well said.

 

Yup. "I'm not going to tell you and I'm going to try to call a judge on you if you try to find out" is toxic to the extreme.