One thing that I do not enjoy in wargames is when one dice roll, especially one that is difficult or impossible to modify, has a large effect on the game. I don't mean that one lucky ARO shot that crits an Avatar or whatever, but when a unit's design philosophy is built around succeeding or failing a single roll and having that single roll largely impact how effective that unit is. In Infinity this effect can be found primarily in several deployment skills, where a single dice roll determines if an Impersonator, Infiltrator, or Combat Jumper lands and does a ton of damage - or appears way at the back of the table and does very little. Using these skills, I wish that there were more options in their deployment - infiltrators rarely pass the central line, combat jumpers typically walk on with parachutist, and impersonators typically huge the DZ line. On the receiving end, it can be frustrating when an impersonator rolls next to your LT and there is little you can do about it - though that specific situation I don't attempt to remedy here. I would like to suggest something like the following as an idea to discuss; When placing an Impersonator, Combat Jumper or Infiltrator, select a location and roll applying the relevant mods. On success, place the model as we currently do. On failure, place the model at the target location. The model is deployed without marker state, and spends one turn in the stunned state. This state cannot be cancelled by doctors or engineers. Any variation on the negative state can be applied. A rule change could also be accompanied by MOD or price changes to the skills in question, as well as other changes. It may also only affect some of these deployment skills and not others - perhaps leaving Impersonators alone due to their high power? I'm not married to the specifics, mostly the idea of options in between "have it all" and "cheerleader mode". This idea attempts to generate options that exist between these two outcomes. These options are created by the fact that you can aim for a location near your target, where you could be safe (or somewhat safe) on a failure until your model recovers. This gives you avenues to leverage some deployment skills partially and safely instead of going for the maximum risk. This can have a pretty large impact of your options for deployment. Do you aim for the premium damage location, where the model will instantly be killed on a failure? Or do you aim for somewhere nearby but secluded, where the model will be useful later or destroyed at an order cost? I think it can particularly have a positive impact on skirmishers, giving a much higher incentive to attempt to roll them past the central line and making certain terrain layouts or forms on a table more valuable as 'hiding places' than they currently are. Anyway, what do people think? For others who also prefer a more granulated approach, do you have another way to help shift these type of skills from "all" or "nothing"? I'd love to hear them!
It is a great topic but I think you will be hard pressed to convince anyone it's okay to deploy their model right where they wanted, revealed and stunned. But let's play around with this a bit and see if we can get an 80% consensus from people. What if we applied these rules. Infiltrators: - The user of this skills can deploy up to the Midfield line normally. - The user may deploy 4" beyond the midfield line if passing a normal PH roll, and may deploy further, applying a -3 modifier for every 4" further toward the enemy DZ but may not deploy in the enemy DZ. If successful the marker state may be applied. - If the roll is failed, the user of this skill must deploy on their side of the midfield line, within 4" of the midfield line, not in silhouette contact with any terrain feature or building, and revealed. (CB can apply individual unit buffs as they see fit.) Combat Jump: - The user of this skill can deploy in base contact with the board edge anywhere outside the enemy DZ. - The user of this skill may deploy anywhere on the table, within 8" of any board edge except in the enemy DZ after succeeding at a normal PH roll and declaring a point on the board edge this distance is being measured from. If the user fails, it must deploy at the measuring point on the board edge, not in silhouette contact with any terrain feature or building, and revealed. - It may deploy further toward the center applying a -3 modifier for every 8" increment away from the declared point on the board edge. - If the roll is failed, the model must deploy 8-16" toward the direction of the point which measurement for deployment of this model was made, not in silhouette contact with any terrain features or buildings, and revealed. (CB can apply individual unit buffs as they see fit.) Impersonation: -The user of this skill can deploy normally anywhere in the Midfield. - The the user of this skill may choose to Deploy 4" into the enemy DZ on a successful WIP roll, and may deploy further, applying a -3 mod for each additional 4" band into the enemy DZ. - If the roll is failed the user must deploy outside the enemy DZ but within 16" of the originally desired deployment location, not in silhouette contact with any terrain features or buildings, and revealed. (CB can apply individual unit buffs as they see fit.) The intent is to allow the users to attempt to salvage their failures but at the same time be penalized.
Sorry for the delay, I have been a bit unwell (perhaps covid, that shit is tearing through NZ right now) so haven't really paid much attention to the forum lol. I'm not certain what you mean by this? That revealed and stunned is too harsh, or not harsh enough? These are some reasonable ideas Wuji. I like the ideas suggested for failure states, particularly the one for infiltrators. I don't really like the increasing difficulty but its not inherently a bad idea.
Revealed and stunned right next to the model you intended to assassinate seems very harsh, and may lead to players not attempting at all. As far as the increasing difficulty, it doesnt necessarily have to be that but, this would allow CB to put a +3 or +6 to infiltrate on more troops to give the game a bit more depth and allow for the modest failure penalty to be more acceptable.
I would aggressively use my impersonators a *lot* more with the rule I put forward. It gives you the ability to aim for useful locations out of direct fighting range in the enemy DZ and actually get there. So an Impersonator on a rooftop or something similar.
Aaahh, I see, but then we have to ask CB what was the thematic intention of Impersonation. Plus. Starting in the marker state just outside their DZ or not in the marker state but hidden on some roof will likely cost the same amount of orders and possibly not be able to enter the marker state cause of ZoC. If we got along better, I'd test both suggestions with you but...
I quite like this suggestion. It's simple, makes thematic sense (the unit becoming disoriented while deploying in unfamiliar enemy territory), and allows for high risk/high reward choices with a way to recover from a failed roll with smart play. I never use combat jump or infiltrate with the current rules because the risk of failure is too punitive, but I would definitely use it if these were the rules.
Either engage in the discussion properly, or don't engage in the discussion. None of this passive aggressive stuff. I'm glad to hear you like it. Whenever you have an idea, there is always the thought that you are the one loon who thinks its a good idea lol.
Well, there was no intention or implication of aggression, more like lamentation. You could have just asked what I meant by it.
You know what? I could have answered that better and I apologize. But in the nicest possible way, discussions with you have a tendency to devolve into drama, and I just don't care about getting into any of that drama at the moment. So if someone leads with a message like that, I'm not inclined to follow it up and unpack it.
I'd actually like to have such units simply fail to deploy on a poor roll, requiring a player to try again on a subsequent turn- representing a Combat Jumper missing a launch window, an Infiltrator being unable to get into position in time or an Impersonator being unable to break cover without being killed. Doesn't render to the unit irrelevant with one roll, but does give the opponent time to prepare for them- particularly deadly for Infiltrators, and can lead to an Impersonator's target getting away.
Yeah, that's why I said lamentation, and I didnt understand for certain what the rest of what you said was.
This would be kind of cool but the loss of the order and the ARO till your next turn and maybe you flub that one too seems like noone will attempt unless it's cheap and you have lots of orders. I feel universal application is always the test on whether or not a rule is good. What will work for some armies wont work for others. Plus, AVA being a thing CB puts their sales into is a factor, if lots of midfield presence becomes less viable, sales for that strategy will go down. Very complicated little problem.
Thats a really interesting approach. I like it more than the current one. I would use risky deployment more often with this approach. The "deploy at the edge of your DZ" is barely a level above killing the unit on a fail for most options, turning them into expensive cheerleaders in many cases. It also just feels weird - I much prefer failures to relate to the location a model attempted to reach, such as the ideas here or even the old scatter rule, rather than randomly appearing on the other side of the table. I don't follow the rest about it reducing midfield viability. Midfield is very capable with no cross-line deployment at all. The part about sales is pretty counterproductive - being able to discuss tweaks that may weaken strategies is kind of necessary for rule discussion.
Yes, having a model deploy in your DZ table edge is garbage, I agree with you there, which kind of makes people. Ot want to deploy this way with some of the more short range infiltrators like a Hawaa and Ninja Hackers. I like the old scatter as well but I understood CBs attempt to simplify, which is why I also attempted to simplify, burning also wanted to penalize at least a little, so that's why I suggested pushing the models back to roughly where they would have started their infiltration/ impersonation/aerial deployment from and be revealed and not in cover. Obviously the the first 8 inches for the AD wasn't too bad maybe it shouldnt be since it was never on the table to provide an order or an ARO... The midfield viability comment is in reference to the fact that bot everyone has cheap infiltrators or infiltrators that are still 80-90% viable if revealed in front of the enemy. Some skirmishes, and some armies just can't afford being revealed like that. Which is why I made the point about universal applicability. You're right, sales shouldnt be apart of the discussion but we all subconsciously hear the voice of CB saying something like "we'll never make that change unless the majority of you force us to" in like a nazgul voice...
This is an interesting idea, and worth developing. The first problem I see is that the player infiltrating could find a new target/position for its infiltrator, and the oponent in subsequent turns will have it's force reduced and might find it harder to defend.
I think I like this more than the current rules, because it means you still get a chance at using the skill to do something fun and meaningful, but the fact that three bad rolls means you never even get to use your trooper is kind of a bummer. If you could spend command tokens to reroll then I'd likely risk using these skills, but otherwise I'd probably just stick to parachutist and infiltrating in my half of the table. Out of curiosity, what if these skills had no penalties? What if a failed combat jump means you have to deploy using parachutist, failed infiltrate means you have to deploy in your half, etc.? You get the excitement of potentially using the skill to its fullest, and your consolation prize is that you get to use the "safe" deployment option of these skills instead.
Command token use would be nice, and no hard penalty would be cool too. But what happens if the command token fails?
For the latter, it cuts both ways: the unit was not on the table in earlier turns and so its player had to play with a reduced force until then.
But I'm talking about a change caused by the rules suggestion. Right now, the Infilrator/Impersonator has to deploy without Marker State on your Deployment Zone, touching a table border. It provides its Order, but it is probably exposed and/or not well protected, and cannot provide much to the Game as it's not efficient to expend Orders to move it up to the oponent's Deployment Zone. Not a big difference between not deploying it or having it deploying where it doesn't contribute to the game. Following SpectralOwl's idea, the Infiltrator/Impersonator won't provide its Order until deployed, but it'll surely have an impact on the game as you are getting another change to deploying it wherever is necessary according to the state of the game. And, as said, the oponent will probably have less troops to deal with it.
