More on topic for this thread that was started after we'd gone around the circle a few times though. https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threads/ends-on-retreat.34775/
Valkyria Chronicles, a computer game with many similarities to Infinity, Order pool, a type of AROs, had the penalty where each time you activated a unit its move range got cut in half. Cutting it I'm half would be too drastic I7n Infinity but maybe -1" per activation down to a minimum of 1". Mov would probably have to be adjusted for most units for it to work.
Yeah I could definitely see that. I myself was pondering something to the effect of "For every 3-5 orders spent (Possibly Classification based?) on a model in a turn it takes a -3 modifier to all rolls." Allowing bigger more powerful units like TAGs to still have some freedom to be stompy murder machines while they would also gradually get worse in fighting so they wouldn't be immediately dominating in as many games.
I think the Infinity equivalent would be using MOV values, where the first value is only valid for the first order, rather than the first skill of each order. I don’t like something that requires tracking a specific number of activations for each individual trooper. That’s a lot of overhead for a non-electronic game. As you said, would require significant tweaking.
Its not as bad as you'd first think. Most players locally stack their Order tokens next to models as they spend them. Its helpful to remember what has happened during a turn and helps to prevent you from accidentally double spending or underspending orders ("Did I take that order off already? I'll just take one to be safe.") Of course you have to move little order stacks around with guys.
I think Infinity already has too many tokens marking per-model state and I don’t want to see more added.
I get that I used to play Blindfold chess and so I generally dont favour token use and frankly often forget mine and play by memory with some minor markers (usually which every coins I Have in my pocket). However I saw some of my locals doing the orders by models thing and tried it out. It really does work quite well and isn't bad to do. You're already handling the order markers as you play anyway all that happens is where you're putting them shifts. I'd encourage you to give it a shot for a game and see what you think. :)
I already frequently do something like this, but I don’t wish to impose it as a requirement. The variant I do is leaving orders on the table where they were spent, as this leaves a breadcrumb trail showing the overall shape of my turn. It’s good for individual models, ok for fireteams, and bad for coordinated orders.
Limiting orders on a unit I feel is just stupid. It's one of the massive draws that Infinity has over other systems where either everything activates in phases (40k/ Killteam), or where models are picked and only get one activation a turn (Warmachine/ Hordes). The order system is pure resource management, where while you can run all 10 orders through 1 model, it will be at the cost of doing something with another model that may have more mission impact. Limiting the use of orders within a pool takes away one of the core decisions that need to be made during the game. Limiting order expenditure on models through mechanics like reducing stats, adds a layer of complexity that adds nothing but more extraneous book keeping and table clutter. It also reduces the usefulness of orders like cautious move and other order intensive plays. the other approach by reducing CG (most likely to 5) size is even worse as strategic use would effectively halve a group before stuff like HD or AD come in. If you are that concerned with pieces going full murder hobo and running the table there are a couple of things you need to keep in mind; 1. Learn to leverage defensive tools better 2. If they are ramming a mechsuit down your throat, then they are wasting orders doing that instead of playing the mission, meaning they have one less turn to play the game. 3. You can make point 2 far more effective through by point 1, to make them bleed orders for minimal to no gain.
It’s worth pointing out that the number of orders you can spend on a single model is already limited to (about) 10. That number is purely arbitrary, and there’s no fundamental reason combat groups could not be made larger or smaller.
Given that base 10 is default in a lot of things in peoples day to day, 10 is probably the least arbitrary number to be picked.
It's also just about the number of short Moves needed to cross the board into the opponent's DZ for one troop. I suspect that was designed to prevent first-turn Rambo strategies from ruining the game if the opponent used AROs well while still leaving plenty of room to fight, take objectives and adjust position for backline units.
All that limiting orders on a single unit would do is push armies that rely on strong solo pieces (many vanilla armies, ISS, NCA, etc.) and buff ones that don't (Aleph, Tohaa, OSS). And looking at those lists, that's probably the opposite of what would be good here. I don't see why everyone has such a big issue with alpha-striking. These are the big reasons you could be heavily affected by an alpha strike: 1) you deployed poorly, 1b) you deployed on the wrong side of the table 1c) You exposed key pieces by deploying them too aggressively 2) your opponent has a list that will just fold back under pressure 3) you didn't bring tools to control the table (direct AROs, camo, deployables, infowar, impersonators if you have them) 4) You didn't use a strategic command token In the Age of the Kamau, alpha strikes feel weaker than ever. We need to be buffing them, not making them go from frequently sub-optimal to impossible.
It was mine, too, until the Campaign rules came out. Then it was quite explicit that the Dead state in-game meant flatline Dead. I love VC, but: I think it'd still be Infinity, but it would be a really big change. I'm hoping the N4 change is more like N1->N2, getting all the FAQs/Errata into the physical books. The time I totally rolled up Josh's army with a Cutter, it was straight up "bad deployment", he didn't have enough ARO presence to deal with a TAG charging up his flank and his troops were far enough apart that he couldn't effectively 'warn' ARO to get more coverage as I closed.
if *I* ever run a campaign, it's getting a Medevac roll on the 'Dead' models before the Cubevac roll.
Nah, when you get alpha struck you shouldn't reconsider your deployment and how you play top of game defense, instead you should complain about how powerful active turn attack pieces are.
Ultimately there should be a balance between offense and defense where on the one hand the first player doesn't just win by default because they can overrun their opponent and on the other hand the reactive player shouldn't be able to just lock down the entire table so that the active player can't actually move up. Sometimes people have bad experiences and start threads discussing the issue from either end.
