That is the first misinterpretation of the rules people do, the rules are indeed designed to give permission to do something and not allow to do something unless it is expressingly forbidden.
I myself have found Reinforcement Mode to be not of my like. But I will always defend you playing whatever you like in whatever form you like. Your Reinforcement playstyle of bringing the most possible troops to the main “groups 1 and 2” up to almost the trooper cap limit and just bringing 1 or two troopers to the “Reinforcement group 3” is perfectly fine. It is legal, legit, and should be expected as one of the possibilities the game offer in that game mode. It shouldn’t matter if that means the Reinforcement group 3 is underpopulated, neither that is allowing you to bring them ASAP in either turn 1 bottom or turn 2 top. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. But in other hand... A Reinforcement Game Mode that is most efficiently played by trying to bring as close as a “15+ order list main combat group 1/2” and letting the reinforcement themselves to be an afterthought shows two things: A) That maybe what you really wanted to play is 250 points meta game instead. Where the GML / Bears / Whatever-you-do-not-feel-like-playing-against-today-in-the-current-300-points-meta… are not as present. A refreshing air for the mind and spirit of all the players involved. B) That the current core mechanics of the game and turn system works poorly with the reinforcement mode. Order economy in Infinity is KING, and one of the biggest selling points of the game. And it is much more useful to have as much orders as possible from turn 1 (15 order non reinformcement main combat groups with a 1-2 order reinforcement group) rather than having the 'premise of reinforcement mode' with a balanced group (10 order non reinforcement main combat group with a 5-7 order reinforcement group) that would imply not having as much orders as possible from turn 1.
That implies that my friend "around 249" point list consisting of: ────────────────────────────────────────────────── GROUP 1 10 1 MINUTEMAN (Lieutenant [+1 Command Token]) Rifle, Light Flamethrower(+1B) / Heavy Pistol, AP CC Weapon. (0 | 24) 112 FTO Light Shotgun / Pistol, CC Weapon. (0 | 12) UNKNOWN RANGER AP Spitfire, Chain-colt / Heavy Pistol, T2 CC Weapon. (1 | 47) FOXTROT Boarding Shotgun, Shock Mines / Pistol, CC Weapon. (0 | 20) FOXTROT Boarding Shotgun, Shock Mines / Pistol, CC Weapon. (0 | 20) GRUNT (Infiltration) Heavy Flamethrower, Light Shotgun / Pistol, CC Weapon. (0.5 | 11) GRUNT (Infiltration) Heavy Flamethrower, Light Shotgun / Pistol, CC Weapon. (0.5 | 11) GRUNT (Infiltration) Heavy Flamethrower, Light Shotgun / Pistol, CC Weapon. (0.5 | 11) GRUNT (Infiltration) Heavy Flamethrower, Light Shotgun / Pistol, CC Weapon. (0.5 | 11) GRUNT (Infiltration) Heavy Flamethrower, Light Shotgun / Pistol, CC Weapon. (0.5 | 11) GROUP 2 5 GRUNT (Infiltration) Heavy Flamethrower, Light Shotgun / Pistol, CC Weapon. (0.5 | 11) GRUNT (Infiltration) Heavy Flamethrower, Light Shotgun / Pistol, CC Weapon. (0.5 | 11) GRUNT (Infiltration) Heavy Flamethrower, Light Shotgun / Pistol, CC Weapon. (0.5 | 11) GRUNT (Infiltration) Heavy Flamethrower, Light Shotgun / Pistol, CC Weapon. (0.5 | 11) GRUNT (Infiltration) Heavy Flamethrower, Light Shotgun / Pistol, CC Weapon. (0.5 | 11) 6 SWC | 233 Points Open in Infinity Army Is illegal because he is not using 67 points of the available 300?
Yes that is something I really wanted and CB has delivered on that. Didn't have to wait for N5 to happen, where that's finally resolved. Everybody rejoice! This is an interesting argument. While I agree that order economy is indeed the King and one of the biggest selling points of the game, this selling point in 6/300 gamemode means that you are insentivised to cripple opponents order economy using safe, reliable and repeatable alpha strike instead of you know playing the mission. This reduces nearly every mission to Annihilation and some optional button pressing in the final turn. Reinforcement mode (=4,5swc/230p and effectively free points from reinforcement dudes) makes alpha striking a lot more difficult so it in a effect makes the game more about missions because you can no longer easily cripple the opponents order economy. So it kinda fixes the core mechanics of the game. You could do the same by playing missions that give the an extreme advantage to the 2nd player. Perhaps CB should release a more GML friendly gamemode for those players who really want to experiece that every time they set up a table? Like everyone gets a free burst3 B&K and couple of hackers for that most interactive coordinated spotlight...
Reinforcements does significantly address the issues of how powerful alpha striking is as a strategy, and particularly kills GML tactics with the limited SWC you have. Buuuuuuut... In it's current form, my experience is that it weighs the scales too heavily on the side of defense. It doesn't make a well executed alpha strike any less impactful (or necessary - but it can depending on the mission and turn order, since there are missions where the second player auto-wins if they drop reinforcements at the bottom of turn 3), but it makes them so hard to execute that it makes taking second turn the dominant strategy. The reinforcements games I've played at their best have been dynamic with more emphasis on mission play and positional play, and at their worst have been static and dominated by hard ARO pieces that you don't have the orders and SWC to deal with. As people grasped reinforcements more and more, the later kind of games have become more common, at least from what I've seen. People who dislike reinforcements aren't necessarily fans of GML or the alpha strike meta at 300/6, but it can be true that reinforcements deals with those issues while having it's own set of issues of a similar magnitude. The general sentiment that I hold - and that a decent amount of other people seem to hold - is that reinforcements is great in principle, but has a set of issues that can make it frustrating to play. It's also worth mentioning that while GML, for a multitude of reasons, is problematic right now, it does need to exist and be viable in someway imho - otherwise you could end up in situations where you can more or less choose to just opt out of hacking and not have to care about the mechanic at all.
Unfortunately, we live in a world and play games where we just can’t go with what we “think” the makers intended. We need to work with what we have and not what we want. Unless I’m the judge, GM, DM, or whatever has the power to say yes or no, we need to go with rules as written. No matter what your head cannon is or what you think the makers intended. If they intended something, they should have written it.
A game system is the language/ code/ system that allows two players to interact with each other, for it to function both players must speak the same "language" the same goes with providing feedback the assumption is one plays the game the designer designed and balanced and not some variant or modification of the rules. Does this means you are not allowed to have fun and house rule, or play variants, field unequal forces and challenge yourselves in your own private games? No, the world is your oyster and nobody is going to stop you from playing is a way that is not "official", but, we need to have a common language in rules discussions and feedback threads and that means the discussions must be made on the assumption we are all discussing the game and rules in their expected, designed, state, the game is designed around 300/6 15 troopers standard and 250/5+100/2 15-17 troopers reinforcements, the later been the subject of this feedback thread. I will admit it is not the first time I see discussing taking significantly lower points lists for advantage, but this is the first time I see the discussion been done seriously, while they are interesting thought experiments and a stress test for the system, it is not how the game is designed and not a good way to draw data from. It is the same as been reported of a problem or something never been a problem and after discussion you realize the player plays significantly lower or higher points than the standard game.
You still clinging to that absurd conspiracy theory where all of us are sinister masterminds plotting to overthrow CB's attempts at balance so we can keep oppressing people with our CA GML lists is absolutely hilarious, not gonna lie. Specially when the only guy we know for sure plays CA GML lists is you
If a ‘problem’ only exists at the extremes and in deliberate attempts to break to bounds of the game, is it really a problem? “This issue shows up when I deliberately play a gimmick skewed list trying to bring this meme to life” isn’t an issue with the game.
This sounds like a sales pitch and too good to be true. lol I'm poking a bit of fun but would love to get more detail as you wouldn't get more orders by taking less points in reinforcements. As already mentioned you are capped to 250 and 5 SWC oh wait you have to take a Comm trooper for some unknown reason just to play .. so you really start at like 229 and 4.5 SWC to build your list. Perhaps you took fewer units in reinforcements so you could put more units from the 15 model cap in your main pool. This wouldn't be dependent on points but model count.. but if so I'm following now :-)
I have. Nothing, as I've said before. You just claimed that's also what CB intended when they wrote the reinforcement rules, and I challenged that claim based on the rules they wrote. Then you're telepathic and people who play infinity are much more one-dimensional than people everywhere else. That just doesn't match with my experience, so I'm doubtful. Also, again, Schadenfreude isn't a good look on anyone when you try to have a reasonable discussion.
@burlesford As I suspected. You think that my approach is wrong because you think it's against the intent of the designer. Nothing I say can change how you feel about it. This also means that even if you personally enjoyed it, you would still think it's wrong. But let's do a hypothetical. CB grows a spine and says that my approach is in fact the designers intent, you would immidiately reverse your position and start enjoying it, right? Also there is plenty of salty vCA player tears out there if you know where to look.
The big question here is Cui bono? How can you draw advantage from that, and @Tanan just pointed out exactly that, no matter if someone likes it or not. And that is either a flaw of the rules written and will be changed so it fits more the "intentional meaning" or it is a smart exploit and everyone is fine in doing so. I am, hands down, all in for "play as intended", but i have no fruitful ground to defend to play it differently. Playing REF like Tanan did is not wrong. There is no rules I could find that sais "you are not allowed to downgrade the points to a limit where you automaticly trigger reinforcements". I have a lot of lists that cannot hit the 300/6 mark exactly, and i know a lot of people have lists the same. Where tho is the limit of "this is the minimum of points you have to spend in a 300Point List". Since it is not mentioned....is it 299? 295? 69? Who´s to decide? Tanan is not wrong. He is not playing unallowed lists. For me it just does not feel like REF. It´s (for me) not in the sense of the game mode. I just feels more like and Army with 250 points and 2 AD-troops/HD-Troops that happens to come ASAP. And since he is the only one coming up with this strat he is ofcourse in a remarkeble advantage due to more orders in every turn. Some could say he plays Reinforcement in the most un-reinforcement way. Thats also a thing I thought about since a couple of posts; to not play REF as intended but as much un-reinforcementlike as possible. That is not a very good statement for the ruleset unfortunatly, but REF is not the first mode that this happens to and defenetly will not be the last. The problem i see is: how can CB manage to make the rules more to be played as intended without giving you the feeling that something like playing fewer points brings you an advantage. Is that so? I don´t have a lot data to vNomads in REF but can you explain that? Since the overall opinion is, that Nomads arent just superior in GML but basicly everything else aswell apart from beeing bad. Only thing that comes to my mind are the lower SWC to build up a proper repeater network via morans and the like, but on the other hand do the reinforcemnt units include dirt cheap repeater drones and depl.repeater spektrs.... and with your way to play REF they can be positioned more efficient as infiltrating units I don´t know if a can agree with that so joyful. I would realy like the non-interactive options beeing adressed more directly in some way or another, and not via a game mode, that at this moment does not look like it will be the go-to on most tournaments (which is, and i know i repeat myself, very sad). I cannot help but either is this a figure of speach i don´t understand since english is not my mothers tongue or this statement sounds awfully arrogant. "I worked so hard to loose with this list although my skill dwarfes my opponents". Due to some previous posts of urs i sadly have to asume the later.
You keep misreading me. I'm not saying your approach is wrong. I'm saying there's a discrepancy between saying the game mode is perfect and then intentionally playing it differently than advertised. Your approach might be perfect. It might in fact be the best way to play reinforcements. I'm just saying that if it were the way CB had intended the mode to be played, they would have likely set the threshold 50pts lower or advertised a different points format as the standard. You make a LOT of assumptions. I didn't even say anything about whether I enjoyed reinforcements or not so far, in any way it's being played. I have no stake in this part of the discussion. Maybe the difference between you and me is that I'm not the kind of person that actively looks for salty tears in order to make fun of them. My wish is rather for everyone to be able to enjoy this game as much as possible in any way they can.
@burlesford I feel that you aren't answering my question, so I'll ask again. If CB clarified that my approach is in fact the designer's intent, you would be fine with that?
I think that my approach is the soul of Infinity. You can take the superpowered TAG or a single wound trooper with a combi rifle. The choise is yours and it's surprisingly difficult to say which is strictly better. It creates those highly entertaining "magical" or "cinematic" moments in which you think that anything can happen. It's all about having a weaker, less repeatable and less safe alpha strike. You have less points, less swc, less slots, less orders. Opponents AROs are way more powerful (because you aren't punished for AROing) and your primary attack vector (faspanda delivered GML) is weaker. In REF mode hard AROs are king and vNomads have far too long relied on deployables and null deployment. It remains to be seen if they can produce Atalanta/Noctifer/Suryat HRL level AROs threats. If promoting REF gamemode is non-starter, then perhaps you should start whining and praying that N5 is released sooner? ;) My opponent did few mistakes but I made more. I also got unlucky. And like I said before REF makes GML a lot weaker in many ways. Even if I had played it perfectly it would still have been a tight match and I would have probably lost because obviously playing with a small reinforcement force isn't an autowin. I doubt that I run that list again in a tournament. Sphinx alpha strike list looks a lot better.
That is not something solely vNomads have to suffer from, but all armies. Maybe some armies suffer more from that than others, and Nomads are very SWC hungry if played in some ways, but so are other armies playstyles. I can agree, that the reduction of SWC hits nomads harder than some other armies, but again: not the only one and not all palystyles. That nomads rely on deployables and null deployment does imho not mean they cannot do something else aswell (what, to my experience, grinds the gears of people complaining about nomads). Don´t get me wrong, i don´t get butthurt because of a so called nomad-nerf, quite the contrary. I just doubt that changes/limitations are as impactful as they may look on paper. Why are so much of your posts sprinkled with this pinch of deragotary? I don´t think anyone in here wants you personal harm
@anubis as it is evident from at least one experimental battle report you can design a list that alpha strikes with reinforcements arriving on first turn of the first round, it is a clear abuse of "you must make a list of equal or less to the agreed amount". In the same way making a list that starts in retreat with the sole intention of playing fist grabbing a few objectives and ending the game before the second player plays or making a 249 list in a 300 points game in order to prevent your opponent from getting maximum points in annihilation. They are creative ways to draw advantage not intended or balanced for in the rules.
I'll clarify what I'm saying here. I think that CB has listened to GML feedback ("whining") and that feedback has influenced the REF mode, in which the GML and alpha striking in general is a lot weaker in crippling the opponents order economy. You could say that if this is the case then all that whining paid off big time and all those whiners should pat themselves on the back for job well done. Whining I mean customer pressure works. I want to emphasize that I could be wrong here. It might also be that REF mode is a result of wild partying. We can truly never know for sure. Assuming that the whining worked in this case it's safe to assume that CB remains susceptiple to even more whining. If an alternative gamemode is not enough for you then next edition is probably the thing you should concentrate your efforts on. While it's certainly possible that CB can release the core rulebook changes in a FAQ, I think that they rather release a new edition. But hey what do I know. This is all speculation.
