Now, that's just a rather loose thought. I've observed that when a list with a low Order count faces against a list with a high Order count, it basically always fights an uphill battle. Sure, it has models that are more competent (well, at least a part of them), but at the same time, it has less of them. And this means less ground covered (both defensively and offensively), less AROs available, and, most crucially, less Orders. Plus, a Rifle is a Rife, it has the same Burst value and Damage (unless your expensive model has extra skills on top of it), regardless on who's wielding it. I've long been perceiving Orders as a lifeblood of Infinity tactics. If you have loads of them, you can generally pump them into a single model and pull a rather elaborate, activation-intensive stratagem. If not, you have to go straight for it and can't maximize your chances. All is fine and dandy, until you start taking casaulties - and losing Oders due to it. A list with a large model count can take a few hits, then perhaps get some models back up from Unconscious (if they have skills & Orders - and dice luck - to invest) or spend Order Tokens to swap in a few mdoels from the other Combat Group. An army with low model count can't afford to bring models form the other Group. They don't have them - or almost don't have them, having spent their popints on expensive main group's heavy hitters. Plus maybe some cheerleaders to power them. Now, sure, they usually have some extra durability - better armors, extra Wounds (or pseudo-Wounds, like NWI). But once a model like that goes down, it still takes an Order out of the pool. It was especially visible back in late N2: in my meta, having 2 full Combat Groups was the way to go. In some cases, it could go into 3 CGs (although it tended to involve a lot of cheap cheerleaders, or as one of our players called them, "chaff", that couldn't actually do much). Going with a single Combat Group against these simply didn't work: you didn't had the Orders to take down enough of them to really make a difference (especially if there were other mission objectives to fulfill, too!). At the same time, every time they took one of your models, it hurt way worse. It is less prevealent now in N4, when Tactical Window is the default play mode, but it still is there. An army with a high Order count meets an army with a low Order count, and it still is kinda lopsided. Sure, there are armies that can pull a high Order count despite having low model count. I've heard some YJ sectorials can upll it real well (no YJ players in my meta nowadays, can't comment on that). So, I've been thinking: how about giving some more models an extra Order? We now have a few ways it is done in N4 / ITS 14: Models can use Lt's Order via NCO. Lt's Order can be made into a Regular Order via Strategos. Lt's can have more than 1 Lt. Order. Models can generate more than 1 Regular Order (scenario rule, applied in some ITS 14 scenarios to EVO Hacking Device. Curently limited to 1 extra Order regardless of the number of EVO HD present). Models can be given their own "irregular" Order via Tactical Awareness. Then there's also the case of having groups bigger, by addition of a free 11th model in some scenarios - SECDET or Corsair in ITS 14. Though those are both Irregular models (and that's good, if they were regular, it would be IMO to much). Now, as to my opinon: NCO is a good option, but it is just one extra Order (from your Lt). I guess it could be made more popular, especially among more expensive models. Strategos. This definitely should be limited to very select commander options. Extra Lt. Orders. This needs pairing with NCO or Strategos to be really effective (or you need to use the Lt. aggresively. With the whole list of caveats it brings). I find it very interesting and fluff-positive rule. I'd love to see it incorporated into the standard ruleset. However, slapping just an extra Regular Order should be limited to very select array of models (say, permanently slapping it on EVO Hackers would be just right IMO). This leaves us with Tactical Awareness. Perhaps even multiple Tactical Aweareness Orders in some cases (eg. TAGs could have that. Not all of them, not all to the same level, but in general, yes). But I think it really should be made widely available to the more expensive models. What I perceive as good about Tactical Awareness is the fact it gives the single model an incentive to act. It can't feed this extra Order into the general pool (though there's a sorta-kinda exception: TA in a Fireteam can be spent to activate the entire Fireteam, with TA Order provider becoming Fireteam Leader). By a wider application of TA, Limited Insertion lists can be, possibly, made more on-par with Tactical Window ones in terms of Order count. Just a thought. What is your opinion?
I would go the other way... Lt (and Lt+1) and NCO interaction should stay, maybe with some new addition like more NCO models and new special abilities for Lts like Lieutenant (Initiative +3), Lieutenant (Reserve +1) and similar. Then, but this is something more related to a new edition, get rid of almost every TacAw (except maybe for TAGs and S-HI) and change the feature for Command Tokens. You could get the full amount of CT every turn and use them with the actual special use or use them as "irregular" orders spend on any model. This could also include the "EVO Bonus" of this season or similar future ones, simply stating that you get a bonus CT.
I like that idea :) In fact, we could un-nest the Strategos skill and break it into, say: Lt. Order: Regular Lt: Reserve +X (the number of models allowed to be kept in reserve) ...apart form Lieutenant Initiative +X. Fluff-wise, I see NCO as a fitting skill for many highly-trained, highly-experienced troops. Not so much for cheerleaders / basic troops (as much as I love my Ghulam NCO Smoke GL). Not to say it can't be there, but NCO access for cheap models, I feel, should be limited. While not so much for the expensive ones. Still, effectiveness of this interaction is very much based on two factors: having NCO on the models you need to act, and having Lt with Lt Orders to spare. I don't think relying on it heavily (as in, as a core feature of the game. Haven't played Warmachine myself, but from what I know, it went that way: losing your commander basically ended your ability to act. I take the current LoL in Infintiy to be a better solution) should be the way to go. I don't like this idea. Command Tokens are, IMO, in a good place being a very limited resource (with some specific Lt. options generating more than the basic four), and having several per turn would, IMO, make them less interesting. We could of course introuce different resource tokens to take their place of a limited asset,but I feel it would be multiplying entities beyond an actual need. Also, how would be the CT tokens you envion be any different from just bonus Regular Orders, if you could spend them on any model? And how would they be helping low model count armies without helping the high count armies? I mean, OK, you have an army of 10 Regular models (plus, say, four Command Token Orders per turn), I have fiveteen models (maybe one or two are Irregular, deinitely there are two Combat Groups), and I, too, get four Command Token Orders per turn. Under N4 rules, it would've been 10 vs 15 Orders, under NX it turns to 14 vs 19: a better ratio, but is it better enough to fix the issue? Especially given I can choose on which of my groups I spend these extra, free Command Tokens. Therefore, I'm still convinced that extra Orders tied to specific, high-value models (the way Tactical Awareness works nowadays, so non-transferrable to ther models), and not accassible by other models, are a better solution. Note: that's just my musing. Not a hill I'm intending to die on ;) and hardly a serious rules debate. Just theorizing here, y'know :)
Orders are the most important resource of this game. Without orders there is nothing you can do. The more orders you have, the more options are open for you. More units to move, more buttons to press (again), more wounded to heal, more bullets to shoot. Orders are the bread and butter of the game. A high amount of orders increases everything you can do: interacting with opponents, playing mission, support your army. Thats, in my world, also one of the most significant advantages of a Fire-Team: the buffs are nice and all, but the most impactful is the option to move your Attack piece TOGETHER with Specs and additional support and/or other attackers/melees. Changing the amount of orders a unit brings to the table is (imho) a pretty big deal. In my understanding, tacAwerness should be priced higher than 3 or 4 points (zuyong and shang ji as reference), especially with a easy-to-get-rid-of Netrod beeing more pricy (which is fine). I played a lot of (and i mean: A LOT OF) Games with a single combat group against 25 - 30 orders. When your opponent isn´t significantly less experienced or luck is on your side, its very unlikely that the game feels balanced, especially in order heavy missions. With Tactical Window beeing the most played mod novadays i am quite fine with the game state. For me 12 to 17 orders feel like "how i want to play the game" and does not tend to much from a ARO play to an Active play. Only thing i realy dont like is, that the Limited Insertion is cancelt (not beeing able to steal orders from an army with a single combat group), which cripples the first strike of an elite force by stealing nearly 20% value. TA is a great option to make units more valuable, like TAGs or HI´s. Expensive units which tend to be so pricy, that you have to limit the amount of orders you can get from additional units. Also keep in mind: 3 Units generating 3 orders are often worth more then 1 expensive unit generating 3 Orders. First: 3 Times the ARO, second: u need to kill 3 seperate units in different positions. Ofcourse, a single expensive units can mostly tank more than 3 cheap ones, but you get the point. Tl,dr; I am no fan of flooding the game with more orders. Less orders mean a more calculated and thought through active turns as well as not burning Units just to generate one more ARO. Expensive units which are already "hard to play", like most TAGs need TA to be valuable and can compete with their cheaper alternatives. But inflating a lot of units with Orders of any kind just to generate more Orders will lead to a game where 24 orders and more are the gold standard again. mmmmh tricky.... increasing 4 CT for a whole game to 12 CT is ....huge. IF there is a turn-based amount of CT, then just with a reduced amount, like 2 per turn. Otherwise i think it´s way too much. Tooting the same horn here. Orders bound to special units makes the more stand-out and valuable, you are "forced" to use them. The TA-buff for the Drones in the running ITS season is a good example. I never saw so much F/O-Bots in my life.
Because when you lose those 4 models in the first turn, your remainig 6 models still have 10 orders to spend...
Fully agreed. Please keep in mind - I'm not even trying to touch the point of pricing. Especially in relation to individual units. I'm concerned with the imbalance of Orders between single combat group and Tactical Window two-group lists. As a side note, not really related - I don't find Netrods to be easy to get rid of. Sure, they are fragile targets once oyu get to them, but the change of Dispersion rules between N3 (or even more, N2) and N4 makes my opponent always drop them into some nook or cranny (or at least place them on a table edge) where it is difficult and Order-expensive to put a bead on them. Sure, once one of my models gets there, I'll consider taking the Netrod out - but only as a target of oportunity. Deliberately going after it, well, not cost-effective in my eyes. There's no risk of losing your Netrod to Dispersion like in N2/N3 nowadays, nor having it accidentally land in an exposed spot. There's also absolutely no reason to drop it anywhere on the table where it won't be safe - because there's only one thing an Netrod does, and it is providing an Order. Which it does regardless of its table location. I'd love to see Netrods doing something more, so the Aleph players would have a reason to risk deploying them further on the table. On the other hand, it would probably drive their price up, limiting their appeal... True, this is a serious problem with current iteration of Limited Insertion. I'd love to see this "Order Cutdown" limited to multiple combat group lists again. Which is, generally, the direction my thinking is heading: TAGs, Heavy Infantry, perhaps other expensive models - these would need Tactical Awareness Orders, maybe more than one each in some cases. Cheap or perhaps mid-priced ones - no. One of the reasons why I think it is not a good idea. You are right, it absolutely incentivizes fielding FO REMs. And it is a curious experiment by CB to see how that would work. But at the same time, a FO REM is not a model that - in my eyes - would need such a buff. At 14-15pts in most cases, they are "cheap" models, not "expensive" models. The way I see it is - if you field a 300pts list with a single combat group, at least some of these are bound to be expensive models. After all, you have - on average - 30pts per each of your 10 models to spend, and I'll bet at least some of them are going to be cheap, utilitarian choices or just cheerleaders. No extra Orders for them. And some will be heavyweights - a TAG, or a Heavy Infantry "pain train". Which, in my eyes, would be the "elites" warranting TacAwareness*. If you go for a 15 Order list in 2 groups, your average drops to 20pts per model. Sure, it can still accomodate a heavyweight or three - but the rest is bound to be pretty cheap. Perhaps even Irregular, which will cut on your Regular Order Pool. * Thinking loud, I have noticed a problem at this point - the TAG would likely eat up points for two or three rather expensive models. Perhaps it should bring a few more TacAware Orders, then. Just thinkin' loud here :) But then your opponent - who (let's be symmetrical) has lost 4 models from his total of 15 still has his 15 Orders. The problem I see in your take on it is that it hives the exactly same, symmetrical advantage to both players - despite the root of the problem being their lists are assymetrical. Therefore sorry, but I don't see how it balances it out. Interesting take on it. It would require an absolutely out-of-the-box thinking. How would you suggest it should be done? Because the "every model generates an Order, and if you start losing the models, you lose their Orders too" is, as far as I can see, embedded in the very DNA of Infinity. I can't see how that could work. But then again, there are many things I can't see, yet they are done :)
I think changes to TacAware would mostly just be an attempted bandaid solution over the real problem; orders are too cheap. Or middling unit quality is too expensive, but I lean into the former. The game mechanics of orders (not just the rambo concept but how inefficient it is to move mediocre, deployment zone units at all) and SWC heavily rewards minmaxing into a few strong units and a lot of cheerleaders. I think changes that reduce the cost disparity between cheerleaders and decently effective models would lead to better results. A cool sounding solution I've seen to some of the casualties removing orders situation is for both players to generate orders at the start of the game round. Goes a long way towards mitigating alpha strikes and would not require significant (or any?) changes to points values etc that more substantial changes to the game system would entail.
As I see it, this entire discussion revolves around the question is if 15 orders is too much better than 10 orders. The inference is that the value of a troop does not scale appropriately with the cost of the profile. We'll never get any agreement on where that line should be at. So the above suggestion was somewhat tongue in cheek in that we simply remove that by giving a fixed (possibly static) number of orders. Except. Players are so conditioned for the need of more orders, we have Lieutenant +1, NCO, Tactical Awareness, Impetuous, etc, etc to inflate those totals in the search of ever escalating numbers. We are our own damn fault.
Right now I see little need for change in the regard of orders. Yu Jing has access to a lot of Tactical Aware, NCO, etc but they are certainly not the top dog of Infinity. I like how temporarily the FO remotes have for everyone but I think that should be the extent of it. Some factions have more TA than others because they need it. IA would not be able to compete without some. As it is those that have it are very high on the target priority list.
With Elite Troops instead of cheap - hidden - order monkeys you loose sometimes two orders - if your TA HMG gets flattend. This is why you can now strip orders from single combat groups. IA as the king of TA can easily sport 15 orders on 10 man. But with the danger of loosing two orders per casualty... Models can use Lt's Order via NCO. I see this from a more fluffy perspective. Why is a grenade launcher guy a NCO? Not because of the command structure of Haqqislam, but to give them a nice tool for order efficency. I would limit this to more elite / veteran troops but over all I think we don´t have too much NCO. And please, if it has NCO in the name, give em the skill too! Lt's Order can be made into a Regular Order via Strategos. Is limited and should stay so. Lt's can have more than 1 Lt. Order. Very nice opiton here. Even if its needs NCO or a tough and hard hitting lt. for full effect. MAF (and SP?) can combine it with Strategos wich is very comfortable. Models can generate more than 1 Regular Order (scenario rule, applied in some ITS 14 scenarios to EVO Hacking Device. Curently limited to 1 extra Order regardless of the number of EVO HD present). I only enjoyed this in one game, were it comes in very handy because I played 10 + 1 model. I think this is a candidate for staying in army. Maybe as a general EVO buff. It works good on passive models with poor self-defense. Models can be given their own "irregular" Order via Tactical Awareness. All TAGs have it and couple of HI and some rare others. Shang Ji should remove this skill from the individual profiles and move it to the general skill line :-D Looks at Karhu which has NCO in the top row. Two more options: Lt. with Command Token +1 are also abel to support extra orders via the chaning of irregular into regular orders (Warcore, free ITS models) or order efficence via combined orders. Cheap CoC profiles allow for aggressive use of lt orders.
Once I have given it a moment to sink in - you are right on point here. Ah. I see. True. Because this allows us for a greater flexibility and effectiveness in game. Well, it wasn't us who wrote the game the way it has been written. Therefore I fail to recognize our own fault there. One of the things a person writing a set of rules needs to do is foresee how people are going to exploit the rules to get an advantage. Even playing casually, we all prefer to win than to lose, and if the rules of the game allow us to gain an advantage, we'll go for it - and still consider the game to be fair. ...unless I misunderstood what you intended to communicate here (I have to confess, you're one of the people I seem to misinterpret quite often ).
I remember arguing back in N3 that Orders are underpriced. I still think that's the issue. If high-Order lists actually felt undergunned and had to use their extra mobility and tricks to overcome an elite list, because it was simply costly enough to prevent them from taking as many good active troops, it would be less of a no-brainer to just stack up Orders.
Which should be amplifying the problem in that big expensive and/or more versatile models need sources of extra orders to validate themselves? I see it as allowing more stuff in a given turn. So does that mean if is was only 10 or 15 orders the game would be significantly less interesting or involving? You've been at this a long time. Your Haqqislam thread is how I picked my force in the weeks before N3. Tactical Awareness wasn't a thing back then, nor NCO, nor the others. The "fault" thing is far too complex for here. :D "More orders" as the near mantra feels like a band-aid. If one doesn't like it, just give it more orders. That is our fault, instead of forcing an examination of why medium infantry is hated because it "costs too much" and the howling about a "mere" 15 model cap being standard. If the problem is indeed that the more expensive models are not or do feel like they are, enough that people would rather 2 scrubs for the same price. Now I'm meandering and will revisit later. :/
OK, let's assume (a thought excercise here) we have a fixed number of X Orders per turn, regardless of which and how many models, and there's no cap on how many models can be put in a list. Hmm. That would somewhat still give an advantage to the more numerous force, allowing them to cover more space with AROs. Of course, this then gets more complicated, depending on the exact table layout (if it is dense, it favors short-range AROs, if it is open, basic Rifles aren't going to do much good). It gives the more numerous force the advantage of covering more vectors of approach, too. On the other hand, more expensive models are likely to bring useful skills to the table, skills that will allow them to get to where they can make a difference. AD, Camouflage, Infiltration - stuff. Caveat: we do have cheap-ish, Irregular AD or Camo Infiltrator models as of now. See Caveat #2 Going for a MI would therefore remain disputable: does the MI in question bring enough extra skills and equipment to make them viable. Caveat #2: I'm assuming everything else remains as it is nowadays - because it is the only point of reference I have. Going for "X activations per turn, regardless of the number of models" would mean changing Infinity's core mechanics, and therefore re-valuing everything. And I mean everything. I have a feeling that applying your solution, @Papa Bey would require essentially rewriting the game from the ground. And totally rebalancing it. ...definitely not a task I'd take onto myself! One of the ideas for fixing the MI I have heard is giving them NWI en bloc. There's an elemntary logic in it (putting them between LI's 1W and typical HIs 2W), but then it comes short on more fine distinctions. However, "fixing the MI" is just a sidenote there.
That's why I didn't go into details. It's quite the rabbit hole. THEN the demands will come for immunity(shock) because it's still not good enough. ;)
A side note regarding MI: I feel that this group should be given NWI as standard, with true HI starting at 2W. It'd make the balance more about greater maneuverability and field coverage vs greater staying power and order efficiency.
Yeah, and I also remember that people complained about them anyway, because they were still slow, expensive, and fragile. Having a few cheap and/or durable heavy hitters backed by a battery of cheapleaders and some warbands if available was being considered a better investment. We had a JSA player who liked to play like this. Two full combat group, multiple Keisotsu, some bikes, Oniwaban, combat remotes. HIs and TAGs were "too expensive", he said. Sometimes this wiped the table, but once you figured it out it was easy to punch out the teeth out of this list, leaving a bunch of Keisotsu not able to do much with all the orders they had.
Yes. Design wise though, if you wanted toys you generally had to take them. That was the value. Why not roll with 1/2/3 wounds for light/medium/heavy? I mean until everyone ends up with a reliable 2 wounds per shot? Otherwise medium infantry is a legacy label.
