Is it legal to create an army list that includes intentionally empty combat groups? For example, if I have a relatively standard list with two combat groups, can I include a third combat group with no models? For context: there is no purpose to this other than to fake out an opponent with the prospect of hidden deployment. I am not especially comfortable with the idea, but wanted to understand the potential legality of it.
http://wiki.infinitythegame.com/en/Army_List#Combat_Groups There's no requirement to have a troop in each Combat Group, but troops must belong to a Combat Group. So you can create 4 empty groups on Army as long as there is still a legitimate list being built, and it will come up as "ITS Approved." However when you try to print your list, it collapses down and eliminates empty groups. So... You can't have a legitimate courtesy list with an empty combat group. This would fall into what I consider grey enough to be approaching black.
A problem arises in that if you have a combat group that only has hidden deployment models, army infinity's courtesy list function also eliminates that. But you are obliged to inform your opponent about that second (hidden) combat group.
Please just don't. A combat group is a collection of troopers; if there are no units there is no combat group. The definitions of things are not precisely worded enough that the rules can be cited to explicitly read one way or another, but there's just no sporting reason to allow this.
As a competitive bunch, I'm sure CB understand that if you have a tournament, you can lay down the law; and that authority is not a light burden. If your authority is applied appropriately, players will attend for the chance to prove themselves in a fair match; if you abuse your your authority, players will stay away and hopefully run something better themselves, right? So maybe it's just me who was transformed into a caricature of draconian authority by trying to run 'fair' tabletop and trading card events for teenage boys but since tournament lists are supposed to be submitted before ITS events, surely any conscientious Warcor, Tournament Organizer or store manager can weed this sort of stuff out?
This is similar to a question a very experienced player once asked me in a tournament I was TOing - "Can I do my infiltration roll in front of the TO or another player instead of my opponent?" Any slight advantage that this might provide pales in comparison to the social contract breach, in the way that nearly everyone else plays this game. I would put this under "do it if you enjoy playing Infinity the Game by yourself."
Just as a side response since it bugs me to let stuff like this go unaddressed: the infiltration roll is public information and public information imposes an explicit obligation to disclose to your opponent. Rolling in front of someone else to try to conceal the presence of your infiltrators isn't just a breach of the social contract, it breaks the game rules.
@TriggerPuller9000 There was a time when the internet was young, and when the artisans of a novelty called the World Wide Web with our PERL and our Apache Mods prided ourselves on the quality of our sigs. Shallow graves the world over are filled with people who believed that they could pie slice to see just one enemy... This my friend, would've been legend even then, and is so good now I make a point of plagiarizing it whenever I can. Kudos.
Very nicely said, but we shouldn't be shy to just lay down the law for fair play when we can, and to develop and unilaterally apply suitable etiquettes when we can't. On the day, this requires both an unswerving belief that in the value of what you're enforcing and an equal measure of honest reflection after the event. I have to say that my experience of requiring courtesy in sports and games is that it appears to be a genuinely non-trivial problem... :-/ Spoiler: Way Off-Topic Discussion of Unilateral Etiquette Magic: the Gathering Judges have been increasingly vocal about the way the Japanese players use etiquettes that've emerged naturally in the community that make judging much easier. I'm keen to codify such courtesies for Infinity. For example, I got cheated at a recent ITS when my opponent deployed ahead of the Deployment Zone, and put a Tohaa Triad using Foxhole in cover he actually couldn't actually have reached until the following turn. This was so problematic that I'd lost the game by the end of the second turn! So I've now developed the practice of unilaterally inviting my opponent to my side of the table to check my deployment which both allows me to check my opponent's deployment so that I don't get caught out again, but also keeps me scrupulously honest in my own deployment. It's very clear that people massively misunderstand the notorious entry on p34 about Line of Fire, (which I apologize, is related to The Interpretation That Cannot Be Named™ - I don't intend to get drawn into that, but) which is to point out that etiquette is common and properly understood in sport (simply, you all expect one another to use etiquette, but no-one loses a game because they don't). I'm sure we could come up with any number of things like this to more actively maintain the social contract rather than, as you say, allowing people to turn their community against them.
Maybe it's my background as competitive amateur sportsman, but I find gamers as a type unusually aversive, and seem to find the necessarily abrupt attitude to manage competition hard to come by. Taking a tough line is commonplace and necessary in sports, because once people are physically exerting themselves they're also naturally aggressive and confrontational too, so you can either be tough, or be overrun. The arguing-with-the-referee penalty advance rule in rugby for example is probably the very best example of something that's been worked out pragmatically. (For those who don't know it, you can argue with the ref about a penalty in rugby, but if it annoys him, he can and will advance the penalty kick towards your goal posts. So you can repeat your argument as often as you like until either the other team can't miss, or your own team physically pull you out of the argument.) In games however, people seem to be naturally aversive of confrontation, think people being angry is itself a sin, avoiding confrontation at all costs until the game is ruined by cheats and abusers. ... sorry, was I ranting again. I do feel strongly about this!
@Wolf I don't want to hear more about how you willfully misinterpret the section sportsmanship in the rulebook or jump on every opportunity to criticize people like @ijw while sycophantically scraping to CB. Keep it out of the thread thats not about that. Also, you talk about players being averse to confrontation... in my experience, if someone's dicking around with the rules, they get called out on it. They just don't get physically attacked for it.
For a combat group to exist there must be models in it so, no you cannot, I am surprised it needed so many years for somebody to ask it though. Now can it be less confrontation on the thread?
Not an issue, everyone knows you can't get into CC with a TO marker :P Also WTF, how did we jump from rule clarifications to implication of violence? o_O
So again we have an Army bug with this courtesy list or again mess in rules ? Military Orders ────────────────────────────────────────────────── GROUP 1 2 FUSILIER Lieutenant Combi Rifle / Pistol, Knife. (0 | 10) FUSILIER Missile Launcher / Pistol, Knife. (1.5 | 15) GROUP 2 2 SPEC. SERGEANT (CH: TO Camouflage, Infiltration, Forward Observer) Combi Rifle, Antipersonnel Mines / Pistol, Knife. (0 | 27) SPEC. SERGEANT (CH: TO Camouflage, Infiltration) MULTI Sniper Rifle / Pistol, Knife. (1.5 | 33) 3 SWC | 85 Points Open in Infinity Army
