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

Total immunity query

Discussion in 'Access Guide to the Human Sphere' started by theradrussian, May 6, 2019.

  1. MikeTheScrivener

    MikeTheScrivener O-12 Peace Kepper

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2018
    Messages:
    1,858
    Likes Received:
    2,344
    so what you're saying that in your infinite wisdom you've never incorrectly guessed that a mine was a trooper or vice versa, or that what you thought was the real decoy ended up being the fake or and same for holo2?
    Once again, you seem to have this outward and infallible belief that in this made up situation on this made up table, your scenario is somehow more valid or correct than my, equally made up situation. You talk of a high school education but you need to re evaluate your post if you think 2 trooper vertically stacked, regardless of building interiors, can not cover the same corner. I would be happy to provide you with diagrams if you'd like
     
    A Mão Esquerda likes this.
  2. meikyoushisui

    meikyoushisui Competitor for Most Ignored User

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2017
    Messages:
    1,298
    Likes Received:
    1,686
    This still has the one corner limitation due to Silhouette size differences for the S3 and S2, or due to angles for one guy prone in front of another.

    What does this have anything to do with pie-slicing? Remember your original point was that "

    "its not about hoping to win that flash pulse roll – it's about stacking that flash pulse on top of another, stronger ARO. You force your opponent to split his or her burst because it's something you just simply can't ignore."

    Camo and holo2 don't do anything to help stack AROs, they can be pied off like anything else in the game.

    No, I have an infallible belief that based on basic geometry that two things that aren't aligned vertically will only draw LoF to exactly the same place at one location, based on the fact they form two points that specify a single line (of fire.) Two things with the same silhouette and perfect vertical alignment can draw identical LoF to anywhere on the table discounting vertical LoF blockers (signs sticking off the sides of buildings, for example, or approaching from a higher point than the higher of the two models) because there positions do not specify a single line (projected down onto the plane of the table.)

    Please do draw diagrams. This will show the only time it can happen is if the troopers are aligned perfectly vertically because otherwise there will be only one line that connects them where the both have LoF and any deviation from it will create a horizontal differential that can be pie sliced.

    I guess there is one other case where this could happen, and its when the two units and two+ building corners form a perfect line of four points, which technically could happen in a PBI environment but would take a very unusual table setup.
     
    #82 meikyoushisui, May 13, 2019
    Last edited: May 13, 2019
  3. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    4,410
    Likes Received:
    4,284
    Sure.
     
  4. MikeTheScrivener

    MikeTheScrivener O-12 Peace Kepper

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2018
    Messages:
    1,858
    Likes Received:
    2,344
    I wasnt aware that camo and Holo2 cannot hide stronger ARO's than a flash pulse that I could possibly stack with!

    so what you're saying is that if I draw you a diagram that depicts two troopers covering the same corner you're just going to post back "Well why don't I attack from a different corner"?
     
  5. meikyoushisui

    meikyoushisui Competitor for Most Ignored User

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2017
    Messages:
    1,298
    Likes Received:
    1,686
    I don't understand what you're arguing. Camo and Holo2 still follow the same silhouette rules as the rest of the game and don't stack with flash pulse in a way any different than a normal model does.

    Yes, because that's how geometry works. Either things 1) can be pied or 2) they can't be pied on a single straight line. Geometry indicates there is no other possible outcome.
     
    Hecaton likes this.
  6. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    4,410
    Likes Received:
    4,284
    If you have a viewpoint that's incorrect, it's not out of the bounds of argumentation to point it out. You aren't entitled to have your opinions regarded regardless of their merit.
     
  7. MikeTheScrivener

    MikeTheScrivener O-12 Peace Kepper

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2018
    Messages:
    1,858
    Likes Received:
    2,344
    to be quite honest with you i'm unsure of where you got the impression that I would cover all angles with two troopers every time.

    If it was from this post:

    I don't know why you inferred that. Especially since every subsequent post had me citing a single corner. but it doesn't matter – you're saying that I'l never be able to stack my ARO simply because geometry provides a situation in which you can catch one guy without the other. This argument neglects real-world circumstantial events or scenarios. You're relying on the fact that your key shooter can be anywhere at any given time – I'm sure we both know this isn't always the case.
     
  8. solkan

    solkan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2017
    Messages:
    677
    Likes Received:
    1,139
    This is either false or misleading.

    The arrangement which pie slicing cannot "slice" is when two models are arranged in line with the same line of sight blocking edge. Take a corner, position the first trooper and then position the second trooper along that line. It's geometry which requires no more accuracy than that required by pie slicing.

    The arrangement distresses some individuals upon first encounter because it requires the models to be positioned relative to non-local geometric features, and doesn't result in two troopers side-by-side aligned to local geometry (side by side by a doorway or something).

    It also makes it pretty obvious that the pair of troopers is going to get pie sliced around the obstacle they're not aligned against.
     
  9. meikyoushisui

    meikyoushisui Competitor for Most Ignored User

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2017
    Messages:
    1,298
    Likes Received:
    1,686
    The core of the argument is that you made a point about stacking AROs, I responded with the fact that stacking AROs has a very limited number of circumstances where it is viable or useful.

    That's what I'm trying to say, my phrasing was not as good as it should have been clearly. The crux of it is that there is only a single line (actually, two parallel lines) that two troopers that aren't vertically aligned can watch at once, specified by a line that is tangent to the circles that form the bases of their silhouettes. This means the application of stacking AROs in a PBI game is very limited.
     
  10. Section9

    Section9 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    5,541
    Likes Received:
    8,761
    Ah, Intent raises it's ugly head again.

    I'm pretty sure that the only time 'intent' or 'intends' appears in the rules is in the section on movement, where you pick a point you intend to move to and might not make it there due to insufficient movement.
     
    Berjiz and FatherKnowsBest like this.
  11. meikyoushisui

    meikyoushisui Competitor for Most Ignored User

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2017
    Messages:
    1,298
    Likes Received:
    1,686
    Which is a conversation for another thread, fortunately (or unfortunately). To what extent intent is or isn't codified in the rules isn't really a conversation for here. Also here's the phrasing in the rulebook for posterity:
    "The sequence of events would be: Move declaration, clarifying the direction and the intention of the trooper's final location, measuring, and declaration of the real movement's ending point."

    The thing that is up for debate in that rule is to what extent you can specify the intent of the final location, but it certainly doesn't contain the caveat you've given.
     
    Abrilete likes this.
  12. MikeTheScrivener

    MikeTheScrivener O-12 Peace Kepper

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2018
    Messages:
    1,858
    Likes Received:
    2,344
    "fact....." haha

    No. It's not limited in any sense of the word. Even If I deter you from turning a certain corner or force you to go a different way to "slice the pie" that in itself has an effect on our game however big or small. once again – you are assuming that slicing the pie vs taking two AROs is taking the same amount of orders using the same piece with similar outcome.
     
    ChoTimberwolf likes this.
  13. meikyoushisui

    meikyoushisui Competitor for Most Ignored User

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2017
    Messages:
    1,298
    Likes Received:
    1,686
    It's generally almost always more efficient and lower risk to slice the pie (that's just a fact of math). Otherwise people wouldn't dislike pie-slicing as much as they do.

    Being forced to pick a single corner is pretty much the definition of "limited." This is also a huge walkback from your original claim.
     
    Hecaton likes this.
  14. MikeTheScrivener

    MikeTheScrivener O-12 Peace Kepper

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2018
    Messages:
    1,858
    Likes Received:
    2,344
    wow really? It's almost always more efficient? you can say this with absolute certainty for every board against every set-up against every opponent? is it really a stretch to say that often a good player can force the opponent into a more dangerous or less useful part of the board because of the avoidance of stacked AROs or the anticipation of pie-slicing?

    I'm sorry man but if you really believe this you have an extremely narrow view of the game and how it's played. You're not thinking of deployment and defense in a dynamic way other than "I stand up trooper, he drain 1 order"
     
    A Mão Esquerda likes this.
  15. meikyoushisui

    meikyoushisui Competitor for Most Ignored User

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2017
    Messages:
    1,298
    Likes Received:
    1,686
    It's not about board setup, it's about math. Pie-slicing greatly reduces the risk and increases the efficiency in almost any given setup, because your odds of winning 2 FTF rolls in a row while the odds are in your favor are better than winning 1 f2f roll twice while the odds aren't. We can talk about table setup, the theory of deployment, and whatever else all day long, but the underlying math of f2f rolls and geometry of placement will never change.

    No, I'm thinking of it in terms of "I stand up two troops to look at one corner, one of which has a range of only 24 inches, and my opponent will laugh as he picks another angle, gets me out of range, ignores me, smoke+msv2s me, etc."

    If you want to pick the "stack AROs" hill as the hill to die on, you're certainly welcome to though.
     
  16. MikeTheScrivener

    MikeTheScrivener O-12 Peace Kepper

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2018
    Messages:
    1,858
    Likes Received:
    2,344
    I know you're trying to be a snarky jerk about it but whether you want to believe it or not – you're literally touching on my point here. You're forcing your opponent to use alternative options – everything you've listed is more order intensive than traditional mov-shoot. Why don't you try to imagine why these alternatives may actually benefit you, the reactive player.

    Think what you'd like friend, there's obviously no getting you to think outside of the box you've built around yourself. I'll just let ITS records and games played speak for themselves and leave it at that. There's obviously no changing your mind. I suggest to you at the very least go out and try other methods or strategies of play before you totally pass judgement merely because of what you perceive to be "tried and true mathematics" theory-finity.
     
  17. meikyoushisui

    meikyoushisui Competitor for Most Ignored User

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2017
    Messages:
    1,298
    Likes Received:
    1,686
    You're assuming bad faith where there isn't any. I consistently have tone issues on the internet, I work on it, but the general coarseness of my writing style is just a result of my educational/work background. I apologize if I have offended, that definitely is not my intention.

    I'm fully aware of this, but I think you are overselling it a lot. These pieces are still weak to the same combinations that any non-stacked ARO will suffer from (Smoke + MSV2, for example) and the buff given by the flash bot hanging around is pretty minimal.

    I take three issues with this:

    1) I'm a rational person and can be convinced by a good argument. I just have not seen one of those yet.
    2) What ITS records do you have that show that stacking an ARO with a flashpulse bot is as good as you are claiming? I don't think ITS data really contains that normally...
    3) Not perception, it's just objectivity. People can argue all day about "ha-hah! what if my ARO is this?" and "ha-hah! Now I do this instead!" but ultimately these are unconvincing and frankly, asspull-y. What you're doing is also a flavor of theory-finity, but it's even worse because it doesn't even have the data to support it.
     
  18. ObviousGray

    ObviousGray Frenzied Mushroom
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    1,255
    Likes Received:
    1,983
    Wheres the popcorn stand. I want some now.
     
  19. MikeTheScrivener

    MikeTheScrivener O-12 Peace Kepper

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2018
    Messages:
    1,858
    Likes Received:
    2,344
    It's fine, no worries. I'm sure I haven't been any less harsh – I apologize

    just because something has weakness doesn't mean it isn't worth doing. I really don't know how I can articulate it any better – engaging a stacked ARO is really unattractive option, you realize this and have said it yourself. Generally people don't do it and try and avoid it best they can. If you're savvy you can force your opponent into a part of the board that isn't as beneficial to them or contains something like strategically placed mines, infiltrators, hidden deployment troopers. Alternatively if you have an opponent's key piece pinned down with a stacked ARO they're forced to engage with a Beta piece, leaving them exposed and out of orders for the turn flip, or you set yourself up for a counter attack that leaves opponent's main pieces too far away to do anything.

    There is, quite literally, an infinite amount situations where this is useful.

    On the other side of the coin there are an equal amount of situations where this isn't that effective – really the difference boils down to player savvy and creativity, planning and ability of game foresight.

    I've always been a big opponent against arguing theory-finity, I don't like doing it myself. The only reason I bring up ITS results are because I've found pretty great success with my play style and strategy in my local meta and otherwise – I commonly use this strategy to manipulate my opponents into doing what I want them to do on their own turn. is this not "evidence" or "data"? What "evidence" or "data" do you have? you said you have "math and geometry" on your side but what does that even really mean? that the pie can always be sliced in some manner? sure – but that has absolutely nothing to do with order investment or risk-reward associated with either action.
     
    #99 MikeTheScrivener, May 14, 2019
    Last edited: May 14, 2019
    A Mão Esquerda likes this.
  20. MikeTheScrivener

    MikeTheScrivener O-12 Peace Kepper

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2018
    Messages:
    1,858
    Likes Received:
    2,344
    well im glad someone is entertained by this