In what order did you deploy that?

While I do deploy in the legal order; by the time I'm done deploying I most certainly forgot the order in which I deployed everything, sorry if you weren't paying attention.

 

That's just not how the rules work. The number of mines a trooper has left is open information. Not only is your opponent allowed to ask about it; they shouldn't have to ask because, as a matter of sportsmanship and fair play, you should be bringing to their attention any relevant open information you think they would want to know about.

i.e. "I spend an order on this camo token which declares BS attack. It is revealed to be a Farzan minelayer who is missing one mine."

Personally I go further. When I go over my deployment with my opponent, I don't say "these are three camo(0) markers." I say "these are three obvious Daylamis." I don't say "this is a Regular minelayer. This is a camo token." I say "This is a Regular minelayer, this is his obvious mine." It's just pointless to hide obvious information, and kind of insulting to the opponent to think they'll be tricked if you do.

 

While this approach has some obvious appeal, it doesn't really solve the question of whether the opponent is entitled to know the order in which you deployed.

If they are allowed to know, and they expect you'll have forgotten after you finish deploying, then they'll just have to pester you with constant questions during your deployment so that they can get the information before you forget it. Nobody wants that!

A better outcome is if deployment happens, by and large, simultaneously, so that there is no deployment order for the opponent to ask about or for you to have to conveniently forget. It's just hard to find a consistent approach to achieve that, given that a few units demonstrably do get deployed in sequence rather than simultaneously.

 

You are free to play that way, but I would rather agree with my opponent on whatever variation/interpretation of the rules makes the most sense in any given context and play that way. If you insist on revealing several camo markers from the get-go and trivialising that aspect of the game, then fine. It's just not best approach for me, personally.

You just do exactly that with the exception of those units that are expressly mentioned as being deployed out of sequence.

 

No, the number of mines a trooper has remaining is literally open information. You and your opponent can agree to whatever house rule you want, but it would be a house rule. This isn't news.

 

I never argued anything to the contrary. The situation is clear RAW. The only hint as to why this might be an incomplete rule or an unintended interaction between rules is where the content of Camo Markers is private information, which includes mines.

 

Edit: hmm maybe the forums aren't the ideal place for critposting.

 

If your rule interpretation allows you to figure out hidden information by asking "is that camo marker a mine?" In slightly different wording.

It's probably not a good interpretation.

 

But you can determine if something is a mine, extremely easily and often for a lot of armies.

Situation: there is a Draal minelayer, missing a mine, deployed outside the spiral corps deployment zone. Next to the draal is one camo marker with mimetism -3. There are no other camo markers with mimetism -3 elsewhere on the table.

There's no way for that information - all public - to be presented without the only legal conclusion being that the marker is a mine.

Now, for the sake of proper adherence to the rule I typically don't jump straight to saying to my opponent 'there is the draal, and there is the draal's mine' because shortcutting proper public information can result in people either making mistakes or new players getting the wrong impression down the line, but I also make sure to communicate the information in a way that doesn't fuck around trying to obfuscate something that can't meaningfully be obfuscated.

 

Sure - but in the situation where you have a Minelayer Puppetmaster (with 2 Mines) and 2 Camo Markers within ZOC of the Minelayer you can meaningfully obfuscate which is the Mine and which is the Intruder unless you're obliged to follow a strict order during a deployment step.

It's this situation that the OP is asking about.

Are you obliged to deploy the Mine Marker immediately after the Puppetmaster ML or can you deploy it at anytime during the same step of the Deployment Phase?

My distinct preference is the later (with notes covering how it interact for situations where deployment is rolled for - ie it's placed prior to rolling).

 

So far nobody was able to produce anything that would indicate deployment is required to follow a specific sequence, outside of reserves and units with strategic deployment.

 

Yes but this doesn't really on rule interpretation or interpolation.

It's a natural consequence of a rule - open information, and the game state in front of you.

It also doesn't require you to ask pointed questions at just the right time...

 

And units that you roll for deployment (they an attendant Deployables need to be deployed before rolling).

And Metachem, which needs to be rolled immediately after deploying that trooper (But not Booty, which doesn't have the same "immediately" requirement).

 

I agree, but implicitly we're saying "the order of deployment is irrelevant (outside specific circumstances), everything within the same deployment step is simultaneous".

So we both think I can go Camo Marker, Camo Marker, and then Puppetmaster ML (with two mines) placed within ZOC of both Markers to create ambiguity.

However, I'm fairly sure that @ijw has indicated elsewhere that you need to go Puppetmaster ML (with 2 Mines), Camo Marker (that must be the Mine).

 

Sorry yes I jumped straight to the conclusion that no you did not have to do things in a specific order internal to the initial deployment step because that would be a shit rule.

 

I agree.

However, I'm not sure that it's settled.

 

I mean if nothing else, in practical terms most people sketch out their deployment, make some changes, and then lock everything in as one simultaneous step. Right up until someone says 'I'm finished deploying', or 'this model is deployed' (typically after making a dice roll) nothing is deployed.

This is jumping into RAI rather than RAW, but the whole argument here is about whether people want to render the minelayer and decoy skills both of extremely limited utility, if they think it's necessary to require individual sub-steps per model within a deployment phase by differentiating a public information split second between e.g. the deployment of model with decoy, and another camo marker nearby.

 

Yes, and as a practical matter whether I need to pay attention to the order in which my opponent places models on the table.

I like being able to duck away (mentally if not physically) from the table during deployment and then appear for some clean-up / rolling at the end.

There's a practical distinction common in the wider Australian meta: you can "place" models on the table in whatever order you want but a model is only "deployed" when you either roll a dice, measure coherency* or end the deployment step.

Using that distinction the answer to the OP's questions is - for most models - "they were deployed simultaneously".

* with the allowances for adjusting models.

 

I will die on this hill: the game of infinity is materially diminished I cannot take a slash during my opponent's deployment and they can't duck out for a cig during mine.