1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hemos actualizado nuestra Política de Privacidad acorde con la nueva RGPD. +Info // We've updated our Privacy Policy to comply with the GDPR. +Info
    Dismiss Notice

Lieutenant and FairPlay

Discussion in 'Rules' started by Arkaon1125, Oct 24, 2019.

  1. Brother Smoke

    Brother Smoke Bureau Trimurti Representative

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2017
    Messages:
    908
    Likes Received:
    1,399
    If it's the bottom of the third turn and I went first then they can take all the time they want, otherwise nah. It is one thing to spend a few minutes weighing your options, it's an entirely different thing to pull up an app and try to game the system while slowing down the game. That is unsportsmanlike
     
  2. A Mão Esquerda

    A Mão Esquerda Deputy Hexahedron Officer

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    1,931
    Likes Received:
    1,941
    Exactly, and especially in the “competitive” setting so many seem to take as the end all and be all. Now, in a friendly learning match? Maybe, but you best have been explicit in stating that was your goal with the game.
     
    Dragonstriker and Brother Smoke like this.
  3. Brother Smoke

    Brother Smoke Bureau Trimurti Representative

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2017
    Messages:
    908
    Likes Received:
    1,399
    Yeah this is under the assumption of a tournament setting, in friendly games who cares
     
    Tourniquet and A Mão Esquerda like this.
  4. RobertShepherd

    RobertShepherd Brisk antipodean

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2018
    Messages:
    1,142
    Likes Received:
    1,865
    This is pretty much exactly how I do it. It produces good games.
     
    Arkhos94 likes this.
  5. Sabin76

    Sabin76 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    1,649
    Counterpoint: This minelayer has 2 mines left, oh and there's this camo marker here clearly within 8" of him while there are no other camo markers on the table. But hey, what's under the camo marker is private, so I'm not going to tell you whether or not it's a mine... (clearly anyone asking isn't very experienced)

    Not to make a dig at you personally, but just with that logic. If I wanted to play a camo shell game, I should have brought enough camo that my opponent can't sus out the mines from the troops. Similarly, if I wanted my Lt. to actually be hidden, I probably should have brought more than one option, and considering how small some communities are, I can't really fault people for not knowing my Nexus is the only option I brought if they don't have any Onyx players to regularly play against.

    But really this argument is pointless... either people are going to be like me and freely give the information so that the battle is based primarily on tactical choice with an even playing field in knowledge, or they are not and now the fate of the battle depends (by some non-zero amount) on how well the opponent actually knows the army they're fighting.
     
    Xeurian, Sedral and RobertShepherd like this.
  6. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    4,867
    Likes Received:
    4,695
    Well fundamentally if they don't make it so you don't get to play your turns out its fine.

    It's also contingent on tournament organizers to provide enough time for rounds; an hour and fifteen or whatever it was at the IP is ridiculous.
     
  7. RobertShepherd

    RobertShepherd Brisk antipodean

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2018
    Messages:
    1,142
    Likes Received:
    1,865
    I was with you right up until the end. Why wouldn't I answer a question someone asked me about my army? It costs me nothing to give information like 'these are the legal lieutenant profiles that you can see, but be aware that I have holoprojector lieutenants in Haqq so it really could be anyone', or 'yep, I have TO camo models in Onyx - malignos are infiltrators with a killer hacker profile being the most popular, or noctifiers or sphinx in my deployment zone - and noctifers can have missile launchers'. Providing that info (without actually specifying what I actually have in terms of private information) keeps a game flowing and collegiate. I'd even call it courteous.
     
  8. daboarder

    daboarder Force One Commander
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2017
    Messages:
    3,478
    Likes Received:
    5,061
    of course im not telling them more than "this model is a minelayer with 2 mines left."

    it not my job to play the game for them, to reason and deduce information for them. should i tell them the odds of winning Face to face rolls? i know those as well, at what point am i playing my own knowledge, skill and intelligence vs myself as opposed to letting my opponent play the game and make their own damn mistakes
     
  9. Marduck

    Marduck Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    507
    Likes Received:
    1,089
    Yeah exactly that ... I'm surprised by some reactions here. Makes me think that the first bullet point of private info should be removed.

    Also reminds me of 40k player not willing to let the other player take a look at their Codex rule or stratagem or even willing to explain it ...

    Btw a little side topic, remember this :
    http://infinitythewiki.com/en/Open_and_Private_Information

    "Information about a trooper becomes Open Information when that trooper falls Dead and is removed from play as a casualty."

    So when the opponent ask how much points he has killed, you should give a fair and accurate answer. That doesn't include in unconscious models but that should make the total easier to calculate.
     
    Xeurian, Hecaton, Lesh' and 3 others like this.
  10. RobertShepherd

    RobertShepherd Brisk antipodean

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2018
    Messages:
    1,142
    Likes Received:
    1,865
    Huh, that's interesting. Exactly that disclosure is standard practice down my neck of the woods. In fact I'd strongly argue that disclosing the number of mines left on a minelayer profile is a positive obligation either on deployment or when the model reveals because it's open information and you can't rely on a courtesy list to inform your opponent of that.
     
  11. daboarder

    daboarder Force One Commander
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2017
    Messages:
    3,478
    Likes Received:
    5,061
    Thats not what i said mate ;)
    You absolutely have to disclose the mines. Ie this regular minelayer has to mines left.

    What you dont have to do i then explain that this camo token within 8 is clearly a mine. Which is what sabin was arguing people should do
     
  12. RobertShepherd

    RobertShepherd Brisk antipodean

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2018
    Messages:
    1,142
    Likes Received:
    1,865
    Oop, yes - I did misread you. However to note it's also local habit for folks in Canberra to disclose at the same time as public information about the minelayer is revealed what markers are/were approximately within 8", especially if it's especially obvious like at deployment. This is strictly speaking voluntary, but saves time.

    For example, here's something you might see me say during deployment:
    "Ok, here's a draal minelayer, with two remaining mines. Here's a camo marker within 8" of it. My other two camo markers are here and here, each about within 8" of each other."

    There's an entirely separate conversation about running shell games against experienced players and the advantage you can actually accrue through open disclosure, but that's a separate topic.
     
  13. Arkhos94

    Arkhos94 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    1,443
    Likes Received:
    1,380
    If your opponent take 1 minute to cool down, check down what you have left and checking profile in army, then he is not "gaming the system" he is preparing his strategy and planning his turn.

    Infinity is a game of strategy, not a game of "who can memorize the most army profile"

    First bullet point has no impact for most troops but have an impact for some. A few examples :
    - Van Zant cost 39 points and not 38 ? Ok he has executive order and is your lieutenant
    - this auxilia cost 1 SWC ? Well, your lieutenant is found
    - Your veteran kazak HMG only costf 1 SWC. Guess I know who is the lieutenant now

    SWC and cost should stay private but I think it's good gaming etiquette to provide it when asked if there is no impact.
     
    Hecaton, Brokenwolf, Alfy and 2 others like this.
  14. Marduck

    Marduck Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    507
    Likes Received:
    1,089
    Ok you have got a good point. Agreed.
     
  15. RobertShepherd

    RobertShepherd Brisk antipodean

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2018
    Messages:
    1,142
    Likes Received:
    1,865
    Hold up hold up hold up. This is the internet. Here, we die on our hills. You can't just concede to a good point well made!
     
    Section9 and Arkhos94 like this.
  16. Armihaul

    Armihaul Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    709
    Likes Received:
    514
    seems this discussion is very polarized, so I will only say my last coment: private info is what is said to be private info, everything else is public, so trying to hide aviable options in the faction using the "its private info" seems to me gaming the sistem more than using army to check things.

    private info is there so the enemy doesn't know wich one of the 3 combi-rifle alguaciles, or an MK12 kriza borak is or not lieutenant. If anyone plays against emily and see she is using her LGL, that person should be able to know that she is CoC, be it because that player uses her in games, or remembers from a previous one, or because checked it in army. There is info the enemy might be able to know, like if emily is CoC or not, but he is not able to know if that alguacile is or not L, because, even if he know the costs and SWC of all posible alguaciles (in the army), the enemy doesn't know the exact cost and SWC of those in the table because that exact info is private
     
    DaRedOne likes this.
  17. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    6,707
    Likes Received:
    8,291
    Here's a similar hypothetical situation;

    If you find out your opponent is basing part of their strategy on faulty knowledge of the rules, say... it starts getting obvious to you they think Sixth Sense allows them to see through smoke without getting attacked... do you:
    a) inform them as soon as you find out
    b) inform them as soon as you find out and try to work out a quick and low-impact way to roll the situation back an order or two
    c) inform them only when the situation comes up
     
  18. Arkhos94

    Arkhos94 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    1,443
    Likes Received:
    1,380
    Option a)

    I acted one time based on the idea my opponent Vassily had a T2 marksman rifle (I clearly said it a few tome) when he had in fact a sniper. My opponent didn't even corrected me when we roll dice and used marksman rifle rangeband. He only corrected me when the marksman rifle rangeband were not in his favor anymore. It was shitty of him to do (and I was very happy to crush him into oblivion).

    When your opponent clearly act like he is not understanding a rule correctly or is clearly making a mistake regarding one of your trooper public info (weapon owned...), you should correct him

    When my opponent make a mistake on not public info (this camo marker is out of your DZ and cannot be an intruder, you have no camo trooper that can have template weapon...) then I will not correct him (I'm not that nice)
     
  19. Armihaul

    Armihaul Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    709
    Likes Received:
    514
    that depends on if I know the opponent or not. If I know of him, I might know if he is new (and therefore, can have misconceptions), or if I have explained before those misconceptions, or so

    If I know him is new, I will inform him as soon as I find out. Clearing misconceptions is important. Rolling back will deppend mostly in which ones were his previous orders and the result. On a side note, usually people has rejected the rollback, and I usually reject it when I am at fault.
    If I know him and I have explained it before in the same game (or some previous times), or if is someone I dont know, I will inform him when the situation comes up. If I have explained before I think he should remember a bit, and if I don't know him, he might be doing something else (happened me before, he thought it was rude of me to remind him "basic knowledge")

    in my meta, there is one guy that "twerks" rules (actually he is know for cheating, but uses the "I am not sure the rule works like you way" excuse). To people like him, if I see him coming with the "twerk", I try to clear it as soon as I find he is trying it, but never offer or allow the rollback.
     
  20. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    6,707
    Likes Received:
    8,291
    Ye Godes, that's shitty - and literally breaking the rule with every BS Attack declaration by not specifying they declare it using the sniper.
     
    Dragonstriker and xagroth like this.