An Essay on Some Potential Over Performance Conditions of Spotlight into Guided Attacks

AN ESSAY ON SOME POTENTIAL OVER PERFORMANCE CONDITIONS OF SPOTLIGHT INTO GUIDED ATTACKS


Disclaimer

This essay is meant to my personal (and thus subjective) take on the current state (as of April 2023) of the Spotlight into Guided (Missile) strike meta of Infinity N4. Feel free to agree or disagree with the things I’ve written – but, please, please, please – remain respectful towards Yours truly, Your fellow commentors and especially the amazing people who’ve created and who continue to maintain this very best of games.


I’m also aware that the game is about go through a major upheaval in the near future, but as my crystal ball is broken (I’ve tried changing the batteries and turning it off and on again to no avail), I’m forced to work with knowledge I have at the moment!


Foreword

Hacking is one of the more unique mechanics of Infinity, and I’ve always loved its inclusion in the game from the background perspective. I feel that the infowar aspect of Infinity was damn near perfected for N4 – it’s a highly relevant theatre of operations that offers truly meaningful rewards for those who are willing and able to put in the work and bear the cost of setting up an effective Hacking presence, while forgoing infowar altogether imposes major dangers upon one’s force.


Furthermore, the modern-day Infinity’s BS Attack (Guided) attribute’s interplay with the universally applicable Spotlight Hacking program has introduced an extremely important rock-paper-scissors element to the game – Targeting opposing pieces for Guided strikes is an important counter to some otherwise potentially abusable strategies. My personal take is that the Hacking in general, and Guided strike meta in particular, are extremely well realized as of now. I am however leaning towards thinking that there are a few outliers of over effective (and thus somewhat exploitable) applications of Spotlight + Guided strike tactic, and I’d like to see constructive, well thought out and helpful discussion on if and how the situation should be addressed. I’m not claiming the utmost authority on the matter, and any suggestions I make are just that – suggestions – I’m fully willing to trust those in the positions of decision making to take full stock of the situation and act from the perspective of their goals and plans.


The Basics – the Guided Strike Kill Chain

Performing a Guided strike is relatively resource-intensive way of engaging opposing targets in Infinity – at least when compared to just peaking at a target from around a corner and firing a high Burst weapon at them “the traditional way”. Executing a successful Guided attack requires the player to…

1. Get a Targeted State imposition capable asset into a position to execute the Targeting play.

2. Forward Observe or Spotlight (or in the very rarest of cases, Pherobooster) the target successfully.

3. Hit the Targeted opposing unit with a Guided attack and take them out.

Each step of the kill chain imposes an opportunity cost in the form models its achievement requires, as well as in the form of Orders used to execute the said play. As I’m about to lay out in my breakdown below, I feel that the vast, vast majority of the time the opportunity cost imposed to the effectiveness to be expected is extremely well balanced. There are however certain specific situations that I personally find problematic.


For the remainder of the essay, I will forgo covering Forward Observing and Pheroboosting as relevant ways of achieving the Targeted State as part of the Guided strike kill chain. This is not because if feel that Forward Observing is somehow irrelevant, but rather because I really can’t see problematic instances of it happening – so nothing to see here (and I mean that in the best possible way)!


Mind Your Online Behavior – The Unique Mechanics of Spotlighting into Guided Strikes

Spotlighting an opposing target for Guided strikes incorporates a couple of important mechanics that deviate from the “norm of Infinity”. Firstly, these types of attacks are indirect – the Hacker partaking in them does not need to have a Line of Fire to the target they’re Targeting, and the same applies to the model actually executing the BS Attack (Guided) itself. The indirect nature of the tactic means, that not only can it be used to circumvent defenses too strong to be engaged otherwise (which I find is extremely important a mechanic for the health of the game in and off itself), but additionally the Guided attack imposes no risk on the model using it, and the Spotlight is only dangerous to the Hacker using it if the target itself is a Hacker too.


Then second important trait of this tactic is its inherent eventuality of success – where a model engaged my a traditional gunfighter has the (however small a) chance to take out their attacker, successfully Dodge out of Line of Fire, or survive a hit and fail their Guts Roll to escape the danger, there is no such respite when your piece is being Spotlighted – unless the model being engaged is a Hacker, their only choice is to Reset until they lose the face to face roll, only at which point they can elect to fail Guts if the 2’’ move will take them out their enemy’s Hacking area. Even if the now Targeted model escapes the Hacking Area via Guts, they still have to endure at least a single Guided strike AND successfully Reset out of the Targeted State in order to escape destruction.


I believe that when evaluating the power, importance, and potential changes that could be made to the Spotlight into Guided strikes, the tactic’s relatively risk-free nature as well as the implicit eventuality of success need to be considered as part of the big picture.


Ready or Not, Here I Come! – Getting a Targeted State Imposition Capable Asset into Position

Hackers are limited by their Hacking Area when it comes to their ability to wage infowar – while they are capable of performing attacks somewhat regardless of their physical surroundings (hence circumventing some defenses/threats), at their most basic they need to be able to get within 8’’ of their intended target to start Hacking. Getting the infowar specialist into a position from which to perform their Spotlight attack will impose a cost – either Orders spent to get there, or a passed over-Infiltration roll/successful Parachutist/Combat Jump intrusion. The Hacker’s advance into the attack position is not without its dangers either, as Opponents can contest the advance with reactive turn threats such as overwatch AROs, Hackers of their own and in the case of many Factions, deployable weapons of various types. Once the infowar operative reaches their “sweet spot”, they must still endure the dangers of activating there (thus becoming targets for potential AROs). Furthermore, regardless of whether the Hacker actually ends up being a part of a successful Guided strike or not, they are a high value asset that the player either has to spend the resources to exfiltrate, or one they must more less condemn to being destroyed by a capable Opponent in their active turn. All in all, using a Hacker to advance into Hacking range to perform Guided strike enabling Spotlights seems extremely well balanced – it shouldn’t be controversial to argue that this tactic is very much a necessary counter to some other tactics (such as “turtling”).


The alternative to moving the Hacker into the Zone of Control of their opposing model(s) is to extend their Hacking range via Repeaters. When using a model with an “onboard” Repeater (such as many Remotes), the risk on the Hacker itself is greatly reduced, but the Repeater carrying model still has to face the same threats and consequences as above, and in their case (without exception) without the protection afforded by a Marker State. There are obviously models that are better at this role than others (such as the legendary Morans), but they still comply with the same mechanical weaknesses and limitations as their more mundane peers. Just like with Hackers themselves, it’s hard to argue that Repeater equipped models are problematic to the game – they mostly have the same strengths and weaknesses as Hackers themselves, but by investing in yet another piece in the Guided strike apparatus, the player aiming to make use of the strategy is able to diversify their potential attack routes, and somewhat reduce the risk incurred by their Hacker(s).


So far so good, right? Okay, let’s move on! The next potential way to extend the Hacking Area of aspiring Spotlight Hackers is to use a Deployable Repeater. In its most basic form, getting a model to a position to use a Deployable Repeater effectively imposes the same challenges as getting a Repeater equipped model there – with the added cost of having to use a Short Skill at the destination. The strength of the Deployable Repeater play hinges upon the fact the survival of the model extending the Hacking Area is immaterial to the success of the play – the model in question can make their terminal advance in full view of every single model in the opposing force, and be destroyed while placing the Deployable Repeater, and still succeed. In most cases the reactive player can challenge the advance of the attacking model (thus creating a necessary and enjoyable game of cat and mouse), but there are unfortunately cases where this isn’t truly reliably viable. This is mostly the case when the Deployable Repeater carrying model is Camouflaged (such in the case of for example with Hunzakuts and Guilang Skirmishers) – the Camouflaged State extends the “terminal advance” of the attacking model from a MOV + 8’’ Repeater Coverage to a whopping MOV-MOV + MOV + 8’’ Repeater Coverage – the humble (and affordable) Hunzakut can thusly threaten any enemy model within 20’’ of its starting position with a Repeater into Spotlight into Guided strike, with the only counterplay available being the extensive use of Mines (a defense both too cost intensive and not widely enough available to constitute a realistic option as a general counter). The problem is further exacerbated by the existence of the FastPanda equipped Heckler, whose “terminal advance” can threaten targets as far as 28’’ away!


The other potentially problematic method of extending the Hacking Area of active turn Spotlighters is the use of Pitchers. While Pitchers in and off themselves are a good addition to the game, their part in the Guided strike kill chain can make them over performers – especially in Factions with access to Fireteam Compatible Pitcher armed models. The ability to launch two Repeaters per Order (with a 3+ Fireteam bonus) up to 40’’ away (hello Druze Hacker with X-Visor!), and then start Spotlighting targets for destruction from there on can be devastating. What I personally find problematic about this tactic, is yet again its low risk (the Pitcher firing model can screen themselves with Line of Fire blocking terrain, “slicing the pie” on any pieces looking to ARO against them from a distance, the only counter play to this in turn being Hidden Deploying an ARO piece in the right position, but this is yet again, is too scarcely available and too resource intensive a tool to be leveraged reliably), its high likelihood of success per attempt (usually landing one Repeater achieves the success state of the active Hacker’s player, getting two (or even more!) tries at a time makes this quite likely) and the eventuality of success (as long as there is Baggage available, the process can be repeated (pun intended) as many times as necessary, as longs as there are still Orders available). At the moment, Pitchers don’t seem to carry any meaningful opportunity cost either – they don’t cost any SWC, they’re usually found on the Hacker profiles that are highly effective in and off themselves and some Factions just lack them altogether – you can see the effects of this feast or famine effect for example by taking a look at the Haqqislam Sectorials… From a competitive standpoint the “decision making process” when building a list to win games quickly devolves into “does my Faction include (Fireteam compatible) Pitchers – if yes, include them!”


A major part of the issue that I take with the overperformance of Pitchers and some Hacking Area increasing equipment deploying units is the fact that they cannibalize other Repeater bearing platforms by consistently outperforming them. As an example, when playing Ramah Taskforce I mostly tend to active turn Spotlight through my Rafiq Remotes, but when playing Qapu Khalqi, I don’t think I’ve done so once since starting to play Druze as part of my list, despite having access to the exact same Rafiq!


I’m sure somebody is already jumping at the chance to point out that Spotlights in general are quite unreliable, despite their eventuality of success – you’re only rolling one dice on one dice, right? Well technically yes, but in practice no. First, while failing several dice on dice rolls in a row as the active player isn’t unlikely per se, you also do have to see the other side – succeeding in a number of Spotlights in a row isn’t unlikely either! For every game where a player uses the majority of their turn’s Orders to fail at Spotlights, there’s another game where they Target opposing models at will, and then proceed to take them all out. The other counter argument to the “it’s just one dice on one” is this: it doesn’t have to be. It can be four dice on one. If a player commits to the Guided strike plan (which they from a competitive standpoint usually should), the next logical step is to include several Hackers capable of executing Spotlight, and then using Coordinated Orders to hammer them home. This tactic achieves three things. Firstly, it diminishes the likelihood of a failed Spotlight against a critical target to an almost a non-factor level. Second, it makes Killer Hacker almost obsolete, as the most surefire way to take out dangerous enemy Hackers is to just mass Spotlight them and then blow them apart with Guided strikes. And thirdly, it makes reactive turn Hacking through Repeaters extremely deadly. See where I’m going?


Incoming! – Hitting and Destroying the Targeted Opposing Unit

Nine times out of ten, the difficult part for the attacker is over once Spotlight has been applied successfully. Usually the (well tucked away) Guided Missile firing platform rolls for 18s to hit their target, and no matter how many critical successes the reactive piece achieves, there won’t be any danger to the attacker, who just gets to repeat the Guided attack until the target is destroyed, or five Missiles have already been fired. The conclusion is not entire forgone though.


While as long the Targeted State persists, the destruction of the reactive piece is almost inescapable, there is still at this stage a way out for the defending player – a successful Reset, followed by somehow surviving the (now Normal Roll) Guided strike. Some considerations to be taken here include:

- Most Guided attack platforms are firing their BS Attack (Guided) with effectively BS 18, which results in a 90% chance of obtaining a successful result. This means that missing the crucial shot against a Resetting foe is extremely unlikely, as is losing several consecutive face to face rolls against Dodges – even in the rare cases where Sixth Sense is involved.

- Targeted units attempting to Reset out of the State are usually doing so at about the chance of a coinflip, unless there are additional States that have been imposed upon them. They’re effectively just hoping to get lucky.

- While hitting a 90% shot against a Resetting model is highly likely, taking them out for good with a single hit isn’t as straight forward. Even when using a Missile Launcher, there is a non-immaterial chance that the Targeted (even 1 wound) model will either pass enough saves to end up unconscious (and thus still recoverable), or they will pass enough saves to remain operational.

Here in lies an important caveat from my point of view: getting Targeted does not necessarily mean that the reactive piece’s fate is sealed. As of now, the mechanics do exist, for the reactive player to maintain (some) agency in trying to save their piece. The problem however is that in the vast majority of the cases, the chances of averting the Targeted model’s destruction are too slim to be a significant enough deterrent to the attacker. But does that truly has to be so? Just take a look at the Ariadnan Factions – while they do have access to Guided strike platforms, some excellent Forward Observers and even a few Hackers, we usually don’t see them trying to leverage the strategy. While the difficulty of achieving the Targeted State on the enemies of Ariadna can be part of the reason for this, I’d also argue that their weaker Guided strike platforms tip the math enough in the favor of not trying, that we don’t sit here lamenting on how Traktor Mules yet again ruined our day.


Where Do We Go from Here? – The Changes I’d Like to See

Okay mister smarty pants, enough with the whining, what would you have the game’s designers do? I’m not going to stand (sit?) here and pretend that I know for a fact how to bring the over performing parts of the Spotlight into Guided strikes into line with the healthy uses of the tactic, but here are some potential ways I’d use to approach the situation:


Target the Overperforming Hacking Area Extending Models: You could remove Camouflaged State possibility from models capable of carrying Hacking Area extending pieces of equipment. Such a decision was already made at the start of N4 when it comes to “onboard” Repeater carrying models (see “the Moran controversy”), and while the general belief is that the decision back then was driven my game mechanics considerations, I’d love to see the treatment applied here as a balancing tool too. To be clear, I’m not advocating blanket removing Camouflage from models such as Hunzakuts, Guilangs or Hecklers, but rather carving out their Hacking Area extending options as non-Camouflaging (and yes – I do understand that in practice this would mean removing Camouflage from the troops statlines, and then adding it back to most of their options via the profiles themselves).


I also feel that Pitchers would need to see some major changes. They could be made into Technical Weapons, thus eliminating the possibility of gaining Fireteam bonuses with them. I’d also advocate for removing all the abilities that allow for the firing several Pitcher shots per Order – this would include taking a long and hard look at Bit&Kiss. Other and/or types of changes could include a drastic rebalancing of the Pitchers rangebands and making Pitchers cost SWC.


Introduce More Counterplay and/or Cost to Repeater into Spotlight into Guided Strike: This change could be instituted by having a successful Spotlight impose a BTS save on the target, which would make applying Targeted via Hacking way more Order intensive. A small yet meaningful measure could also be to reduce the BS mod associated with Guided Attacks from a +6 to +3. On the other hand, a way to introduce counterplay, could be to bring back a form of the good old U-Turn EVO Hacking Program – players would then have a choice to include a soft countering model to the Guided strike strategy in their lists, and a player looking to leverage the Guided play against an Opponent fielding an EVO Hacker would either have to content with the fact that their Guided attacks just got a whole lot less accurate (not to mention more feasible to successfully Reset out of and survive), or they would have to spend the resources to take out the EVO first before proceeding. I’d personally word the U-Turn to act as an ECM Guided (-6), and it should be usable in ARO as to blunt some of the power of Spotlight into Guided alpha strikes.


Another way to enable for the reactive player to participate in counterplaying against Deployed/Pitchered Repeaters could include making them (but not the “on board Repeaters”) valid ARO targets when they’re used as a means of performing Hacking Attacks – this would allow for troopers to shoot/Oblivion Repeaters in ARO to neutralize them, if they’ve been deployed into full view/Hacking Area of defending models, thus offering a potential way to terminate/slow down the incoming infowar onslaught.


I trust that if CB indeed decides at some point to make changes to the Spotlight into Guided Missile strategy, they will take a measured approach to the matter – maybe you could introduce U-Turn (and/or some of the other changes proposed/possible) as ITS15 rules, and then taking it from there?


Help Me CB – You’re My Only Hope!

Carlos has repeatedly said in his videos (and I’m paraphrasing here) that “competitive players will do their best to find a way to break the game” and mister Bostria, I’m afraid I have to say we’ve found a way to do so. While some argue that “the GML play isn’t that prevalent in the(ir) current meta”, a bunch of us hardcore competitive players have walked the walk, and using the Spotlight into Guided strikes as a major part of your game plan has become way too optimal not to utilize. Not only is the strategy extremely powerful and safe (as I’ve outline above), its opportunity cost does not prohibit the inclusion of other strong units/strategies in the list being built, which in turn creates a world where some Factions just can (in highly competitive environments) clearly and dare I say arbitrarily outclass others based on their access to above the curve Hacking Area increasing equipment such as Pitchers.

While as a competitive player I personally find the Spotlight into Guided strikes in some instances to be a problematically powerful tool, I definitely find it saddening as a diehard Infinity enthusiast, because I feel that the strategy’s current state diminishes the Factions that don’t have access to its over performing tools, as well as cannibalizes the other unit options available to the Factions that do have them. Infinity N4 is an amazing game – it’s the best game I’ve ever played, period. All I’m hoping for is that it becomes even a bit better by toning down ever so slightly the few over performance conditions of Spotlight into Guided strikes.


While I’m not a big petitions kind of guy, if You more or less agree with the main point I’ve tried to make here, feel free to ping me and I can add your nick as a signature to end of this post.


Have a great day everyone!


With the utmost love, enthusiasm and respect, Grotnib