Oh. Something else I forgot to add. Reinforcements had a strong effect on go-second-win-rate. As the feedback above discussed. We asked players, "Did the player who dropped their reinforcements second win?" after every round, to have some kind of preliminary data to support the idea. In Supplies, 22 out of 30 games were decided by the player dropping their reinforcements second and winning. That's a 73% go-second winrate. In Highly Classified it was 16 out of 29. That's a 55% go-second winrate. Which is fine. In Frostbyte it was 25 out of 28. That's an 89% go-second winrate.
Regarding Deployment of REF: Why not limit dropping REF Troops in a 8'' (or better 4'') diameter zone centered on one of the troops already on the field (before deploying REF) in the players half, not beyond the middle. Technically choosing one of your modells as the center of your REF deployment zone. If you have no modell left on your side of the table, then choose a point in your deployment zone as center. That will prevent dropping REF in Sectors that does not have any presence of your own troops. And enemy troops that cleared quarters etc are somewhat safe from REF dropping directly onto them w/o a chance for ARO.
I played 2 games using REF: Supplies (both REF came in Turn 3) - I went second and won the game - but I was already leading in points at the end of turn 2. Mindwipe (both REF came in turn 3) - I went second and won the game - but I was already leading in points at the end of turn 2. In both games, my opponents REF were able to shift the score temporarily in his favour, but when my REF dropped I was able to get these points back. Did you ask what the score was before REF dropped and if REF changed that score in the end?
No we didn't. Sorry. Didn't want to complicate the score sheet with too many questions. I thought about digging into the "why" of the go-second winrate. Was it just how the games went anyway? Or was it explicitly due to reinforcements. But I ultimately decided against it because on some level I don't really care what the reason is. Whatever it is, I'm not interested in playing a format with 70-85% go-second winrates. If that's due to it being 250 points, or due to it being reinforcements themselves, it doesn't really matter on some level.
Hi everybody, I'm jumping in without having read anything of this thread yet, but I will (promise). I just wanted to put out there that me and my gaming group are slowly starting to experiment with the format and see what changes with changing the rules We tried, for starters, a "free reinforcement" mode, in which the reinforcement lists are independent form the main lists, and you choose which reinforcement list enters when it enters, rather than the start of the game. It was a mixed bag, some enjoyed the possibility to have different lists to fix different big mistakes, but most players disliked this variant because it was too unpredictable end/or because they felt they could not make enough different valid reinforcement lists with their faction. So this one was declared a failure Next we will try a variant where you don't have to buy the commlink model, but you can if you want to have it and use its profile and rules. I will post here results if y'all are interested, otherwise just feel free to tell me so and I won't :)
So my local group have decided to make Reinforcements the standard for our monthly game meetups. This is due to the games running quicker.
I see, do players think 300+100 is faster than regular 300? I am getting conflicting reports on this.
Is there any update on when CB will make changes to Reinforcements rules? My local meta is stagnating, due to lack of interest in Reinforcements, brought about by lack of rules support by CB.
@Koni I collected a lot of opinion, and I think the first problem to urgently solve is the reinf vs non-reinf adaptation game, because this choice is dividing many gaming groups, and this is very serious for the community; I say this with certainty as I am an ex Warhammer Fantasy player. I honestly choose to play with reinforcements when I bring a vanilla faction, but if I play any temathic sectorial I definitely don't want to mix it with a generic group of reinforcements; and like me, a lot of others infinity players.
They many good suggestions. I still think RF should be able to forward deploy but not so far like they can at the moment. Though I doubt that CB will took this way because many profils already optimized for mid and CQB. Don't expect a fast change or update. At least not before the campaign ends. My guess is not this year
Personally, I'm not keen on playing reinforcements; Generous proxy rules notwithstanding, I prefer to play with painted models that looks like what they're supposed to represent. With the REINF profiles for my favorite factions not available, I'd rather play non-reinforcement. But, I'm all for other people enjoying the format, and it certainly shakes up listbuilding. I'd really like if REINF could be balanced against non-REINF armies; The commlink mechanism seems good for this, adjusting the balance via the cost of the commlink.
Same here. Its possible to play with your collecton because there are a lot of regular troops that also have RF profiles but then you miss out the cherrys
Yeah. I can easily field a reasonable NA2 reinforcement group from random mooks, but the for the cool Koreans, or the martial arts Dakinis, I have nothing...
That is true, and a respectable stance, but this will inevitably lead to delays in some sectorial and reinforcements composition feedback.
I just won a small reinforcements tournament and had a blast doing it. What made my win perhaps more interesting than usual, is that I took significantly less reinforcements (60p and 48p to be exact). This meant that I could have more orders in the main force than my opponents during the course of the match and that I could tailor my force so that my reinforcements are triggered after few carefully chosen ARO pieces go down (the total being 57p and 44p because the unused points in the main force also lower the reinforcements threshold). My opponents tried to game it by not engaging my key ARO pieces, but that was proved difficult. While it can be said that I have been critical of CB rules writing quality in the past, the reinforcements ruleset is simply amazing and opens up a new way of playing while simulteneously addressing the faction balance issues and the most non-interactive rules interactions. CB, please don't change anything.
I don't understand this. Regardless of how many points of reinforcements you fill in the list, the points are separated. That is, you can't make a 300/50 list, it has to be 250/100 or, as Robert Shepherd did in a video months ago, renounce some points at any side of the list (regular or reinforcement) with no other advantage than to access the Reinforcements group early (he made a 150/100 or so cheapo Haqq list to deploy all in turn 1). Also, if you could exand a little on the games (missions, your faction, points in the lists, etc...) it would be more useful, since it looks like you claim that you won merely by being the first player to deploy Reinforcements, while in several feedback posts people comment how they had to do the exact opposite, making it a contest of which player was forced to drop the reinforcements first and so being at a disadvantage.
