Public LT WIP is making them too obvious

But I'm not, I'm looking up a troop profile, Private Information is what's in your list, Lei Gong's troop profile is just part of the rules.

The fact that Lei Gong can't disguise the fact he has CoC is a downside of Lei Gong.

 

That's kind of what caused my own allergic reaction, yes, but let's say that instead of bending his argument out of shape ;)

 

His argument is already misshapen, I don't have to do any bending.

Seizing a game material your opponent brought to the table (like their army list) is coercing them to reveal it, which would run afoul of that game provision.

Here's the argument -

IF the information in Army is Private Information, THEN it's illegal to know it via memorization, and that is absurd, so the information in Army IS NOT Private Information.

Your argument is that it is illegal to reference Army, so if the implication of that results in absurd things (like memorization being illegal), then there must be an unwritten exception for those absurd things, as otherwise it wouldn't be illegal to reference Army. That's circular logic, it's definitely not RAW, and in my estimation not RAI either.

 

Claiming that I can't check which Tankhunter profile is the Regular / LT / CoC one is insane. Good luck enforcing this at the table.

We should stop entertaining Triumph's lunacy and get back on topic.

 

This here often makes me wonder if some of you guys actually talk to each other during the game.

I will downright volunteer information about my hidden deployment troops and possible lieutenant information if I'm playing with someone who is still learning the game (or if it's a casual game and we're just trying out new stuff). And I've had variants of this conversation:

*checks list*
"Hah, where's the Hac Tao?"
"You'll see later."
"And those two tokens on your deployment zone? Daoying minelayer? Do Dayoing even have a minelayer profile?"
"Yeah, they do. And on your side, who can be a LT?"
"One of these two girls here.The hacker nun or the nun with the big gun"
"Neat."

Game on. People die. People win. People lose.

I get it that being able to remember profile costs and skills is something that not everyone does, and as someone who (mostly) can remember this stuff, I would prefer if my opponent has the same knowledge as I do (not the same information, everyone has the same information. Knowledge is applied info).

It's the same thing with the whole 'opening army during a game' argument. I find it to be rude, but at the same time I will gladly stop and wait for an opponent to check rules, or even ask for a break and check them myself if I am confused. Now, if the person is using this to disrupt the game in a competitive environment? That's a whole new issue.

 

How would this "disrupt the game" in a "competitive environment"?

 

I think he means if your opponent takes 10 minutes to meticulously recreate your list while you're waiting for him to start spending orders, though I think this would fall under Sportsmanship/delay of game to most.

 

this here. We usually run games in a very tight timeline, with one hour and half to two hours for each game. If my opponent stops for 10 minutes to check rules and profiles, that's playtime I'm losing and it's thus disruptive to the game I am playing right now.

If it is a casual game, then I will gladly let them take their time. I don't schedule casual games if I'm in a hurry, and if by any reason I don't want to play with the person anymore I can just excuse myself (thankfully this has never happened).

 

Ah, the way I see it is slowing down the game is a no-no whether you're looking at Army or reading a stock ticker. But there's ways you can look at Army without slowing down the game - like during your opponent's deployment making a mental note as to what their possible lieutenants can be based on the WIP they announced at their Lt roll.

 

300 pts games under 90 minutes? What is this speed chess Infinity you're talking about? O_o

 

I've finished 2 hour time slot N3 games with >30 minutes to spare before, playing 2 full combat groups of Ariadna no less!

Edit: Though I wasn't quite able to do it every round of the tournament.

 

I heard the last Interplanetario had extremely short rounds, with a lot of games only going 2 turns.

 

I have no idea how you guys do it, honestly.

 

Practice, and a firm belief that action is better than inaction, especially with large lists I trust my initial instincts to avoid analysis paralysis. It usually goes alright.

Edit: Not that large lists like I used to play are a thing any more, but that's a change I like.

 

It's definitely doable. You need to know your own list really well, have a simple gameplan formulated and ready as your opponent plays out their turn, and have a general grip on all the hidden stuff that most factions can do // have that information available or given to you. Big points hole in NCA? Could be a Swissile. Big points hole in Aconticimento? No chance of a Swissile. X faction can have a hidden deployment HD skirmisher, Y faction cannot, so my TAG is safer in the midfield. Etc etc. Bam, huge chunk of analysis paralysis gone.

This is one of the main reasons I'm pro-public information and would rather people have access to ARMY than not if a player isn't going to volunteer it.

Edit: Color coordinated order pools was also a big help, especially pre-15 model cap.

 

When we had regular tournaments in the Seattle area we would do 2 hour rounds and there were only a small number of players that regularly went to the time limit. If one or both players are prepared and focused, the game doesn't take too long.

On the other hand, I've had casual game nights where it takes 45 minutes to get from "hey, do you want to get a game in" to the point where we're actually deploying our armies.

 

Taking their courtesy list without their consent is loosely that. Technically, there's nothing in the rules about courtesy lists; that comes down to TO convention. I think any sane TO would consider that fairly egregious.

You're the one that's arguing that "Private Information" includes things in a public-facing app. That's a fairly boneheaded take, and as I pointed out, doesn't make sense with the rules as written as, if so, it would disallow memorizing units' stats from Army.

Please tell me where in the designers' commentary they said you were right. Oh wait, they didn't.

When you say "RAI" you mean "the house rules you're trying to force on people." And that's not me warping your argument - that's the long and short of it. What you're saying has nothing to do with what's in the rules, or with what any of the designers have said. Your viewpoint is both wrong and absurd.

The intent is not clear at all that the game is trying to consider, say, which of Lei Gong's profiles has Chain of Command. In fact, given that making that information concealed would mean that it would be illegal to know from any source, including one's own memory or referencing the army lists, and the IA vs. IA mirror match where both players were running that profile would result in both players cheating, your position is again, boneheaded and absurd. Nowhere in the rules does it carve out an exception for memorization; ergo, there is none, ergo, the kind of information you could memorize from Army is not illegal to know.

Again, this is entirely speculation on your part, and your use of the term "outside sources" has no basis in rules. If it did, you'd be able to point to where it says that. Since it doesn't, all you're left with is bluster and outright lying.