You're not actually going to win by removing the enemy team unless you can do it with sufficient orders left to complete the mission, you know.
He will only win, when you haven't fulfill your missions. That's not a bad design, that's an exelent design. I don't know your wargaming history, but I think you didn't take the spirit of Infinity. What you complain about (retreat, Tohaa) show me, that you are not willing to adapt to the given game mechanics. Perhaps Infinity isn't your game, it's hard to say for me, cause I don't know you, but what I've read from you till know suggests the assumption.
ECM should work against spec fire U-Turn should work against spec fire Spotlight should be straight WIP
I'm 100% in this^ camp. It seems like bad design from a game play AND thematic perspective. Someone please explain to me how dominating an obstacle in your way has any negative impact on completing a Mission objective? The only possible impact I envision is if game turns represent a limited time frame permitted to complete a Mission. Which makes sense thematically but is easily solved within the game play. If I table my opponent I should have my remaining turns and orders to rack up whatever VPs I can. And if CB want players to focus more on mission objectives and less on killing... an adjustment in how VPs are earned can reflect this. What spirit is that? Is Infinity trying to tell me that it's smarter to rush objectives rather than assessing my time available and implementing a plan to maximize my chances for a successful mission?
The very notion that by using my time available to first shoot the sniper covering an objective, so I don't get killed pushing the button, could result in me losing is ridiculous. Am I losing because I ran out of turns/time to complete my mission? No. I've lost because I was too efficient in my approach to complete the Mission.
I didn't say anything about rushing for objectives. But killing the opponents army like Rambo isn't for sure the spirit of Infinity. You can kill your opponent, but you mustn't loos your objectives out of sight. PS: A 225 points sniper is really expensive
I agree you didn't say that. That's just the implication. If spending the last order of my turn to kill a sniper covering an objective puts my enemy into retreat and I'm down VPs... I have to actually stop myself from removing that obstacle. Even though i have an extra turn to complete the mission. What does this represent thematically? The Retreat rule feels exactly like I have a gun in my hand, a package i need in front of me, and someone who wants to kill me between me and the package with their gun on the floor. Instead of shooting them and continuing on, I must let them pickup their gun first. I find that ridiculous. Killing my opponents like Rambo seems perfectly in the spirit of Infinity. If covert operations and stealth were more important I'd expect to see the rules, missions, and factions represent that. But we have access to missiles, TAGs, and VPs from killing the enemy.
I just realized for the first time that Retreat ending games is because of how Scenarios are written and not how retreat works mechanically. They could vastly improve the game just by removing "If one of the players starts his Active Turn in a Retreat! situation, the game will end at the end of that Turn" from every mission. It's awful design to say that you beat someone too hard at shooting so you lose. Being forced to leave the enemy alive (especially when point costs aren't public information!) is awful design, it's a much larger stumbling block for armies that play shootier/stompier (PanO, CHA) than armies that have plenty of high quality specialists (Nomads, Haaq.)
No, it's en excellent design, cause it forces you to take specialist in your list to fulfill the missions and not to take only the best fighter to kill your enemies. That's what you get in all other wargames I know so far, like X-Wing or WH/40k. If you can beat your enemy with brutal force, why you should take specialist? Unbox your steamroller and win the game.
Rules to change? Man, I would love to see camo modifiers undergo a bit of a shift. A -3 or -6 flat penalty feels far more like a bulletproof shield than it does camouflage, especially when a model is shooting you from 2" away. They also really push the balance towards an uninteresting game of paper scissors rock largely between the MSV trooper in your army and it's 'prey'. My suggestions; Remove mimetism, reduce TO to -3 flat penalties. Camo becomes a game of information, being able to make movements in the camo state safely, and surprise shot, instead of all of those plus a bullet proof shield Camouflage modifiers are affected by cover/terrain? For example, you only recieve your -3 for mimetism if you have cover from the attacker or are within a terrain area such as a forest. Camouflage modifiers are affected by distance? Being within 8" would reduce them, being beyond a certain distance would increase them.
In extreme cases, it just means that Specialists turn into another kind of aggressive piece, with the added caveat that trying to disrupt them too hard means you lose the mission. There's nothing more boring than watching your opponent smoke up to an objective, push buttons, and place mines without interacting with you. If you like that, to be honest, you don't like interactive fun. Go play a Euro board game or whatever. It's doubly bad when points costs are private information. Do you think that Leirbag's infamous "victory" where he claimed he was in retreat when he wasn't and his opponent had no way to verify that is good design? Because of the FtF mechanic, attacking enemy models almost always involves a high degree of interactivity, which is good for interesting games.
I think you missed the point - the post you responded to was complaining about the Retreat mechanic. The issue with Retreat is that a player dies so fast that they deny their opponent turn/s to complete the objective. That is not to say that you haven't brought specialists to complete the mission. Depending on army composition, it can be really easy to put your opponent into retreat by killing those key elements that you need to free up space for your Specialists to press buttons. Killing a TAG, a TR Rem, and a Link that were the biggest threats on your opposition can - depending on army - easily add up to 200-something points - and killing those things can potentially be quite easy if you brought the right tools for the job. For example, I bring an Avatar/Speculo list. I get first turn. Speculo breaks Impersonation and cuts the enemy's TAG in half with monofil blade. Avatar plinks off the TR REM with superior BS and ODD. Avatar runs down the table and blasts/templates a medium infantry link. Opponent starts in retreat. Game ends at end of Turn 1. CA player would have had 2 turns of unopposed button pushing due to lack of enemies... But doesn't because of Retreat rules. This isn't an example of a flawed list with no specialists... It's an example of a pretty standard Avatar build that has a Dr Worm and 1-2 infiltrating specialists to do the buttons once the big enemy things are dead. So instead of playing thematically and logically for the setting - you have to tiptoe around killing just enough, but not too much, so you can still flick some buttons. EDIT - and not saying I endorse removing Retreat per-se. But I've been in that spot with an Avatar list. And I've been in a similar spot where my opponent was clearly afflicted with some kind of ancient gypsy curse and couldn't make a dice roll to save their lives... And it's a pretty sucky feeling to win so hard you lose.
What the special case Retreat! rule (that exists in like 6 out of 10 missions with only 1 out of 10 having normal Retreat!) does is that it forces you to use your Specialists actively and aggressively while giving your opponent some breathing room because you need to push buttons. In theory. In practice it incentivise players to play with lists that have the specialist along for the ride in a fireteam or incentivise vanilla players to use forward deploying marker state specialists. It punishes lists that do not have these elements and rewards players who can make lists to combat these elements while factions that have a low number of them are punished because they can't curb-stomp the opponent in the way they need to get that Machinist the free path they need to go push the button. Special Retreat! rules also reduces the value of Religious and Courage. The fact that we have missions where Retreat! is normal or where Retreat! isn't even used is probably the biggest tell that the special Retreat! rules aren't actually needed.
I don't know if it is so much the retreat rules as it is the nature of the game (or ITS) that forces linked or infiltrating specialists.
Please don't attack other user personally, we should diskuss on an professional level. Because else, i could say, you should play 40k, because this playstyle seems to suits you better. Infinity isn't these kind of wargame you think it should be. But that's the reason, I defected from X-Wing to Infinity. You missed my point too. You have the steamroller list, that you want to overrun your opponent. Thats how most other wargames work, and I understand, why some people like theese kind of playing. But the different approach CB does with Infinity is for me the main reason to play it. It's all about tactic, not only brute force. And thats exactly, why retreat is a good game mechanic. You want to win through killing your opponent. That will perhaps be fun for you, but not for your opponent. You can allways play ANNIHILATION if you prefer this playstyle. If you have to accomplish objectives, perhaps this is the wrong list for the mission. I would recommend to anyone, who dislike retreat, to read Objective Play from lonely artichoke.
I think you're missing an important point here; we're not saying that killing your opponent's team should net you a win, we're saying that removing your opponent's team should not punish you for out-playing your opponent. It's not possible to make the kind of skew lists hell-bent on killing your opponent that you're hinting at in Infinity. Your opponent will also be able to hit back, unlike in most games which combine long-range and killing as the objective*. The fact of the matter is that your opponent has to play very poorly for this to even happen. It is exasperated with the fact that it's possible to abuse this rule by playing nominally to the objectives and then intentionally playing really poorly. I have had more than one game at tournaments where I've been in a losing situation and have forced my opponent to completely stop shooting me when they realized how close to Retreat! mark I was. It shouldn't be possible for me to be able to win or reduce my opponent's victory by playing suicidally with my troops, yet it is. Also, Annihilation has No Quarter rule, this makes it very different from what we're suggesting should be the standard. * Which is... uh... Warhammer 40k? Nearly all modern wargames have mechanics which makes it impossible to just rush your opponent without them being able to react to it. Warmachine solves it by having 14" be the "longest reaching infantry gun" for example, meaning you'll have an entire turn of posturing and setting up.
No, that particular situation with Leirbag is really important. It's a consequence of the retreat rules that you like so much. If you're arguing for them, you're arguing for that. No, that's not what WH40k is. I think if you don't like games with interactivity and attacking each others' pieces you shouldn't play wargames, period. There are always tactics. And honestly depending, taking your opponent's list apart in an intelligent way can take more brainpower than Smoke => push button. It's not a matter of focusing entirely on killing the opponent; it's a matter of "Oh shit, if I try to stop my opponent from scoring more I'm going to lose." Which is bullshit; you should never be punished for shooting an enemy off of an objective. No. I want to win through completing the scenario objectives like everyone else. The issue is that the faction I play the most (Onyx) lacks smoke and cheap infiltrating specialists, so it has to stop the enemy's same from doing work. To that I have to start blowing people up. Some factions like, say, Onyx and Neoterra, are geared towards a more combative playstyle. How would you feel if in Comms Center if you activated 7 of the 9 antennas the game ended at the end of your opponent's next turn, and if they pushed 4 buttons they won? Again, some armies *can't* do the "ignore opponent, go push buttons" strategy very well. And given that some ITS scenarios don't have those retreat rules any more, it's clear that they're not super necessary for the game, just a relic of when scrubby play and/or chicanery was encouraged.
You don't play him out. You are overrunning him. And this will be prevented with the retreat rule. I can understand, why you want to change retreat, but this would destroy the whole game, becaus you haven't any longer to play the mission. You must only destroy your opponent and then you win. That would be great for some faction, like the mentioned Avatar list, but other list would loose. The Hammer would beat the scalpel.
