1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

In what order did you deploy that?

Discussion in 'Rules' started by Mahtamori, Jan 14, 2021.

  1. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    12,018
    Likes Received:
    15,302
    The premise of this question is not without a tiny bit of controversy as far as the game rules are concerned; but the assumption is that there are things during deployment where the order in which you deploy is important - for example a mine has to be deployed at the same time as a minelayer or that all Holomasked Holoechoes must be deployed without another units interspersing them.

    E.g. you can't deploy MadTrap, then Hacker Kanren (masked), then MadTrap Kanren (masked), to reinforce that the hacker is not a hacker.

    Can a player ask in what order their opponent deployed Markers or units? Or perhaps it's more of an etiquette question; do you think it is okay to ask this or to refuse to answer it?
     
    Qwerinaga likes this.
  2. QueensGambit

    QueensGambit Chickenbot herder

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2019
    Messages:
    2,213
    Likes Received:
    3,456
    I don't see why you couldn't ask. The answer might be unhelpful, though. In theory, when I deploy I'm putting my models in hypothetical positions which I'll later decide to actually deploy there or elsewhere. There are exceptions, e.g. once I've passed or failed a deployment roll, that fixes everything currently on the table in place.

    So if you ask the order in which I deployed my camo tokens, I'll give you an order wherein the minelayer and mine are adjacent, but are also adjacent to other camo tokens so that you still can't tell which is the mine :-)
     
  3. Whyrocknodie

    Whyrocknodie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2017
    Messages:
    104
    Likes Received:
    101
    Looks like minelayer doesn't require you to put them down together, just in the deployment phase. Holoecho state on the other hand is worded that it happens when you deploy the trooper with holoprojector :/

    I think it's okay not to answer questions designed to reveal hidden information.
     
  4. QueensGambit

    QueensGambit Chickenbot herder

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2019
    Messages:
    2,213
    Likes Received:
    3,456
    Hmm, actually it says the user has to deploy the mine within his ZoC, which would imply that the user has to go down before the mine. Otherwise, you'd be deploying the mine before the user even had a ZoC.

    I can't imagine that's correct though, since it's surely not intended that you could always tell which is the trooper and which is the mine based on deployment order. It suggests that in fact you don't have to reveal deployment order.
     
  5. toadchild

    toadchild Premeasure

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    4,262
    Likes Received:
    8,073
    You implicitly have to deploy them together, or the clause that says if you fail your infiltration roll, the minelaid item is also lost doesn’t work.

    However, ordering during deployment is badly underspecified and there are several small problems like this that crop up.
     
  6. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    12,018
    Likes Received:
    15,302
    That's the bit that's the controversial one ;)

    I would note that Open Information is shared when a trooper is deployed, so a trooper like Kaizoku Yuriko Oda you'd have to reveal how many mines she has left when her base hits the table (technically) which would also kind of give away which camouflage marker is a mine (not that there is as much value in JSA to hide this anymore now that all Ryuken-9 have "ODD"). I would also note that when you infiltrate a minelayer, you need to put both the Trooper and mine down before rolling, and explicitly so. And as @QueensGambit notes, you do need to put the deployables down inside the Zone of Control, which is a tad difficult to measure if it doesn't exist.
     
  7. solkan

    solkan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2017
    Messages:
    1,335
    Likes Received:
    1,982
    This assumption appears to be largely incorrect. There is some sequencing of items in the deployment, but not most of the things that are sequential are groups of things.
     
  8. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    12,018
    Likes Received:
    15,302
    Could you elaborate a bit more, please?
     
  9. Knauf

    Knauf Transhumanist

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2018
    Messages:
    1,615
    Likes Received:
    2,290
    The rules text doesn't seem to mention any details regarding deployment, just that you place all your troops but one. It should be well within the rules to delay placement of a mine so as to not make it super obvious, as long as it is deployed within the ZoC of the minelayer during the deployment phase.
     
    Jumara and toadchild like this.
  10. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    12,018
    Likes Received:
    15,302
    We are debating the general assumption of the question rather than the actual question but... I realise that the question relies on there being any form of situation where the assumption is correct.
    Out of interest, when the first unit you place on the table is an Aconticimiento Minelayer; how many mines do you tell your opponent it has?
     
  11. QueensGambit

    QueensGambit Chickenbot herder

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2019
    Messages:
    2,213
    Likes Received:
    3,456
    We know for sure that some degree of deployment order exists. Strategic Deployment explicitly says that the team leader must be deployed before the rest of the team.
     
  12. Knauf

    Knauf Transhumanist

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2018
    Messages:
    1,615
    Likes Received:
    2,290
    At that point in the game I would probably refuse to answer the question, as it would give away private information, i. e. the content of one of my markers.

    If the same question was asked later on in the game, where the only contention is remembering a previous action, i. e. "did this guy already place a mine this game?", I'd probably accommodate it, because you just shouldn't be expected to remember every single order and ARO performed throughout the game.

    It exists within the confines of the Strategic Deployment rule. I'd even take the explicit mention here as an argument against a sequenced deployment outside this rule. Otherwise, you'd expect to have a similar passage in the overall deployment or Minelayer rules, since CB is clearly aware that this is a factor.
     
    #12 Knauf, Jan 14, 2021
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2021
  13. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    12,018
    Likes Received:
    15,302
    While we're on the topic of splitting hairs, because that's all we can do with a portion of the rules historically under-developed by CB, I should probably point out that refusing to answer what open information a unit you just placed have would be breaking the rules

    Consider any piece of information on a player's Army List that is not explicitly Private as Open and knowable to all. You must share Open Information about your Army List while you deploy your Models, Markers and Tokens during the Deployment Phase, and also any time your opponent asks during the game.​
     
  14. QueensGambit

    QueensGambit Chickenbot herder

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2019
    Messages:
    2,213
    Likes Received:
    3,456
    It's well established that you have to reveal the number of disposable weapons a trooper has remaining, as long as the trooper isn't in a marker state. So you do in fact have to answer that the Regular is missing a mine, even though it reveals that the nearby camo token must be a mine.

    However, if there are two camo tokens within 8" of the Regular, your opponent won't be able to tell which one is the mine.

    The only question is: you're in the middle of deployment and you currently have a Regular with one camo marker within 8". Can I interrupt your deployment to ask you how many mines the Regular currently has? Then if the nearby camo marker is a Naga, you'd have to answer "3" and then when you later deploy the mine, I'll know which marker is the mine and which is the Naga.

    It seems to me that the practical solution in that scenario is for you to answer "the Regular and the camo marker aren't deployed yet. I've temporarily placed their models in positions where I'm considering deploying them. I'll answer your question once I've deployed them in their final positions."
     
    Knauf and toadchild like this.
  15. Alphz

    Alphz Kuang Shi Vet. Retired.

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2017
    Messages:
    1,457
    Likes Received:
    2,947
    I don't think there is a sequence to deployment, or a real need for it beyond when infiltration rolls are made - which would be a notable exception. Edit: and now strategic deployment - but again, that makes a notable exception.

    Nothing is 'deployed' until everything is deployed and your deployment phase is over. At which point, open information is provided, and legal deployment would be checked (if your opponent was concerned about your mine deployment shenanigans I'd suggest a photo with an 8" ZoC measured while they're turned around for later verification).

    This also aligns with when fireteams would be defined, and coherency would be checked - when the models are deployed. Immediately before deployment phase ends.
     
  16. toadchild

    toadchild Premeasure

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    4,262
    Likes Received:
    8,073
    The coherency rules give a small amount of guidance over the ordering of model placement, and explicitly allow you to reshuffle models during your main deployment phase. I think it's valid to decline to answer questions about what is what until the deployment is complete.
     
    Dragonstriker and wes-o-matic like this.
  17. Knauf

    Knauf Transhumanist

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2018
    Messages:
    1,615
    Likes Received:
    2,290
    Fair enough, I can see how this can be a problem RAW. It does clash with the fact that markers are private information, however, if the Question is specifically intended to reveal said information (which is fairly obvious at that point):

    These pieces of information are Private in Infinity N4:
    ...
    ◼ The contents of your Markers.


    Technically, you are not asking for the marker, but your goal is to infer that information through a backdoor that serves no other purpose in this specific situation. I'd probably discuss this with my opponent and find a solution that satisfies both parties, but I'd personally categorise that question as an attempt to "game" the system. Fair enough in a competitive environment where a certain consistency and adherence to the RAW must be upheld, but not suitable for beer and pretzels play.

    If we take this example to the extreme, I would be within my rights to ask about the equipment of every single deployed unit that is not a marker and knowing (or looking up) their point values, I could infer what infiltrators are hidden under your markers. Is this fair game RAW? Yes. Is is a sensible thing to do? Probably not. While this is an extreme example, the underlying principle is the same to me.

    @QueensGambit

    Yes, I agree, that would be a sensible thing to do.
     
    #17 Knauf, Jan 14, 2021
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2021
    Papa Bey likes this.
  18. RobertShepherd

    RobertShepherd Antipodean midwit

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2018
    Messages:
    2,048
    Likes Received:
    4,191
    In general, I would not bother asking public information questions relating to my opponent's deployment until they indicate they've finished their DZ and are good to show me what they've got happening. It doesn't feel like good etiquette to demand people lock pieces of information in until their initial deployment step is complete; it sort of smacks of touch-piece rules which don't feel like they have a place in the game or deployment especially.
     
    Jumara, chromedog, inane.imp and 3 others like this.
  19. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    12,018
    Likes Received:
    15,302
    I can see how you think this, but I would argue that revealing information through negative information like this is part of the game (although I'm open to the idea that troopers aren't deployed until the player says "I'm done deploying my troopers" if we can find a conclusive rules passage that would intimate this).

    After all, if you had no Marker state troopers with Mimetism -3 in your army, would revealing the open information about the Regular at any point of the game not reveal information about the Marker next to the Regular and thus "violate" that rule in that case?
     
  20. Knauf

    Knauf Transhumanist

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2018
    Messages:
    1,615
    Likes Received:
    2,290
    And I would agree. Figuring out your opponent's shell game should be considered a skill in its own right, I just don't feel it is earned in this particular case.

    It certainly would, which is why I believe it is important to take the context and intent of the question into consideration. If there is only one camo marker on my side and within 8" of the Regular, it is already fairly safe to assume that it's a mine. If I really wanted to play mind games, however, it could also be an infiltrator. Insisting on an answer to a question that doesn't require any sort of deduction or effort on my opponent's part would take that option away, to the detriment of the game.

    I know I'm deep into RAI territory here, but the content of markers is expressly private information and this does take away that facet from mines deployed via Minelayer. I do agree that this is the correct way to play RAW, but in the interest of a good experience I'd probably have a talk about it.
     
  • About Us

    We are a company founded in 2001 in Cangas (Spain), and devoted to design and manufacture games and figures. Our main product, Infinity the Game, was born with the ambition to satisfy the most demanding audience, offering the best quality.

     

    Why are we here?

     

    Because we are, first and foremost, players.

  • Quick Navigation

    Open the Quick Navigation