I don't know about the rest of people's communities here, but people using the rules "creatively" are kind of a red flag in mine
It's not to create controversy, argue or anything like that, it's simply to understand your point of view, which is not clear to me right now. Just to be clear, what do you consider "creative" in this discussion?
Thanks, I do not need to check if my rulebook is damaged, you know what we discuss in this thread this time and it is "am I allowed to take less than agreed in order to trigger loss related effects such as retreat! and Reinforcements? early/ automatically?" and this is not "Must I always strive to make exactly 300/6 points list or I can do a 298/4.5 list?"
Ah, ok, your rulebook is correct, perfect. If a player calculates his remaining army points and realizes that if he exposes a troop leaving it without cover as a bait for the opponent to kill it in order to trigger loss related effects such as retreat! and Reinforcements... Are the forum going to be flooded demanding that it be regulated when a player can or cannot put his troops in cover? Yes, I know perfectly well what is being discussed here, it is being discussed about ignoring what the rulebook says just because don't like the effect that following the rules can have.
Thinking about it coldly, the truth is that I don't know why I'm wasting time on this thread. The truth is that I am not interested in this entire discussion, I have entered just to understand why a player is attacked for using the rules correctly. And still I don't know why. My apologies if I have bothered anyone and hope you have a good and entertaining discussion. Bye.
Simply put, the FAQ and rulebook update is full of amendments for people who "use the rules correctly". There is a plethora of reasons why the rules are not written to the fullest and most minute detail that they can potentially be done, word count, page layout restrictions, page count, unexpected use of a rule, or the assumption that nobody would really consider using the rule in a such a way that a specific clause for such a case is needed to be written.
Having and meeting a minimum expectation for player behavior is key to both Infinity and, well, all wargames. If every possible and conceivable interaction has to be spelt out, the game then becomes an argument of rules minutiae, rather than played on the tabletop.
To be honest I do not see any kind of difference between a list bringing 250+50 with 50 points invested in 1 or 2 troopers from the main list dedicated to heavy ARO duty in order to bring that small 50 points of reinforcement group as soon as turn 2… and a list with 250+100 with 100 points invested in 2 to 3 troopers from the main group dedicated to heavy ARO duty in order to bring the 100 points of reinforcements as soon as turn 2. Specially true for those armies that want to bring only 2 or 3 models in reinforcements. Such as NCO Squalo Mk2 + tactical Sense Blade Ops Engineer support for Pano, or the Bronze+Ment+Vidocq reinforcement Haris for O12. Apart for that point one last remark about reinforcement game mode: After playing several games of it, including a tournament, I am not happy at all with the game mode rules neither the profiles balance of it. Won’t play it again, and my mental energy is absolutely depleted on about how to make the game mode more appealing to overcome all the negative things I have experienced with it. On another hand, bringing less than 300 points to a game should be fair game and should not bat an eye to anyone. I have a friend who happens to play what is called in the gaming scene around ‘tropical’ lists, and he sometimes turn up to a game with things such as a USAariadna list with a Unknown Ranger Haris for accomplishing missions… and the rest of the army consisting solely on Infiltration Heavy Flamethrower Grunts, Light Shotgun Hard Cases and Heavy Shotgun Fox-trots. His lists usually ends being less than 250 points with a full allowance of 15 troopers. He just want to put in your Deployment Zone as many templates he can and the Dice Gods allow. But ends having much much less than 300 points doing so…. … so he is against the rules by doing so?
I think that this conversation is one of those situatuons where an outside observer can't understand what's happening but those participating in the conversation know exactly what's happening. If I had to make a guess, some of the people attacking me don't like that I defend this gamemode vigorously because they don't like reinforcement gamemode and would like nothing more than CB cancelling it. This hatred stems from the fact that they have invested a lot of time (and some money) to mastering 6/300 non-interactive gameplay (pitcher GML, double bearpodes, etc) which ofc becomes obsolete if reinforcement mode becomes the standard way of playing. If you add the commdude+0 balance adjustment* to their favorite faction then all the cope and butthurt in this thread and in the social media channels becomes understandable. I also think that some people don't me because I thought this interaction before they did. That makes them feel stupid. Nobody wants to feel stupid. They might say that they don't like creativity in rules, but for some reason those same people were perfectly fine with N3 smoke tricks, fishdude shotgun tricks, order spamming and crit fishing to name a few. They are also fine wth N4 total immunity impersonators and bearpodes and pitcher GML play dominatiing the 6/300 meta. I guess some creativity in rules is more balanced than others. Comparing my reinforcement interaction to retreat exploit is such an underhanded argument. I don't really think that people saying that believe that themselves. If done correctly, the retreat exploit ends the game in one turn, which is a bummer because people don't get to play three turns. I have never seen it done in a real game so it's sort of a convenient boogeyman to smear someone who you don't like. My interaction lets people play the full three turns. It simply isn't the same thing at all. * People keep saying that they want commdude options. But vCA has three commdude options. vHaqq has only one. Clearly vHaqq needs more +2 options, right ;)
I can just say that at least for me, none of your claims about the reasons I was engaging in a discussion with you apply to me. I'm not invested in the GML strategy at all, and I didn't feel stupid because you thought of something before me. I merely tried to point out inconsistencies between different statements of yours. I will also say that assuming the worst about the motives of why people disagree with you is not a helpful way to lead a discussion in general. Neither is dismissing every criticism about reinforcements with blanket statements about assumed intentions. It makes you come across dismissive and haughty, none of which helps further your case.
It's funny that you said that because you haven't yet answered my question, which was: I had fun time. My opponents had fun time. I creatively used cheap profiles and won the games using 50p less troops than my opponent. What’s wrong with that? What if I'm right about the intentions? Are those people having a honest discussion? Because I have been sincere with my intentions. Those S-tier facton player tears are indeed delicious.
Thats something i repeatedly encounter since a couple of months again and again: People complaining about GML beeing unfun and stupid and the worst mechanic of the game Same people playing tournaments with GML lists (i guess because winning with sh*t is more fun than loosing with ideals) Same people relate after the games "my T-drone/Vertigo/Millisent/any other GML-crap was mostly decoration and did not fire once" experienced exactly like that in the reviews of the national tournament, multiple other smaller tournaments or quotet by random people like @Tanan. For something that is experienced that unfun for both players it has a awful lot of pressence in everyone and it´s moms lists. I call that hypocritical. Just to be clear: just beacuse i don´t like that gamestyle, it is perfectly fine when player field it. But please stop complaining about it then, for you are part of the "problem". The most interesting example of "creativety" in listbuilding was a JSA-Army counting 250 points in Hidden deployment and a couple Keisotsus, effectivly starting the game in retreat. with 4 Command tokens to cancel retreat state of a button smasher and converting irregular orders. A fine little joke for every kind of Button smasher missions and i guess everyone had a good laugh about it. I think that would be a smart choice. Make it fix that you have to lose Units worth 100+ Points to trigger REF. Ofcourse providing that this is how it is ment to be played To be fair: as long as it was not FAQ`ed it was basicly using the rules correctly, even if everyone disagreeing was right retrospective :- I cannot argue with enyone using REF like @tanat did or does, because, as mentioned by @Odiseo and @A Mão Esquerda : Players playing the “well, the rules don’t say I can’t” will do exactly that. Player A: the rules say I can. Player B: In my opinion, you shouldn't be able to. As long it is not explicitly forbidden it is allowed. The question is, to what extend this interpretation of the rules is good and healthy for the game and every player is fine with it. Damn i would love to see more of that. This list-curiosities that are mainly build for fun without min-maxing but just for the sake of lols. I understand that Infinity as a game is mostly build around competitiveness but that is a amazing level of "girls players just wanna have fun" :-D
Ah. so your honest intention was to attribute everyone else: which faction they play (CA) how they play it (GML-optimized) why they aren't great fans of the new game mode (because it nerfs the abovemenitoned playstyle and faction - per your words). Well, [sarcasm] kudos points to your world-spanning telepathic powers that allowed you to disclose what I play and how I play it. There's been years of online evidence to it. [/sarcasm] All that from a person who self-confessed to play CA GML list themselves (as evidenced by the two lists you've published, and claim to have played at a tournament. Which I find no reason to doubt). All that, and you still don't get why people here don't exactly make your fan-club...?
vNomads (another S-tier GML alpha strike powerhouse) is also nerfed big time by reinforcement mode, but that commdude+1 helps a little. It also helps that vCA is nerfed even more. I have understood that the hyperoptimized netlists of the reinforcement mode haven't yet emerged. "GLM is dööd" is a pale shadow compared to proper 6/300 GML alpha strike list and you know it. I also actually managed to lose with that list in that tournament (the Nourkias list is soo much better), so perhaps GML alpha strike is truly dead at the moment? Probably going to swich to some A-tier (commdude+2) faction in the near future.
@anubis Doesn't work that way anyomore because: https://infinitythewiki.com/Retreat_Situation "In game terms, each player, at the beginning of their Active Turn, during the Tactical Phase, must make a count of their Victory Points. For this purpose, consider any Troopers that have not yet been placed on the table (Airborne Deployment, Hidden Deployment…) as survivors. If the sum of the Victory Points is equal to or less than 25% of the points available for building the Army List, then that army enters a state of Retreat!." If you really wanted to do that you would have to have mission with retreat, a list with just one or two midfield infiltrators, win the LT roll, go 1st, start the game in retreat, use cmd tokens to cancel retreat state, push some buttons and end turn and winning the game. I'm not saying that it can't be done and it's not unsportsmanship behavior but going to a tournament with that list and expecting a winning matches... The problem with that play it's non-interactive for the other player. This isn't with problem in my reinforcement idea. I feel like concept is easy understand but apparently some people have hard time doing it.
I think the discussion has veered off by a longshot so lets stop it and refocus on the actual topic...
