Engineering Retreat is different; it can actually make you win by denying opponent turns in a range of missions, whereas starting at very low points value, but above Retreat, will just make you play at a disadvantage. Getting your reinforcement troops prior to your opponent isn't an advantage, generally speaking.
It denies your opponent the chance to score in kill missions because points you never took are points your opponent never killed. Admittedly it is a disadvantage in missions were there is score for points of your army surviving.
I don't see the problem in sportsmanship with that. It's just another element of list construction to consider. You want to hit the right reinforcement threshold with your army so that you can get your reinforcement group on the table as quickly as you can while losing the minimum amount of efficacy and gaining the most yield for the points you're losing. That means planning around the rambos and hard AROs you are wanting to extend with, forcing them into positions where they'll die when and where you want to trigger reinforcement. The last thing you want is to spend an entire turn with your main attackers dead and yet have lost not quite enough to bring in your backup.
Most kill missions, other than Annihilation, you get score by killing more. Typically playing at a disadvantage in points means a proportional disadvantage in orders and/or performance (that's the reason we have a points system at all). Even then, Annihilation has scoring for surviving as well, and it only really matters in a tournament setting where scoring objective points for tie breakers matter. The one thing it does is deny your opponent a fun and engaging game, but that's a people relationship issue and not a gameplay issue. Even so, there might be good reasons to play 200 vs 300 that the rules don't need to get in the way of.
Having played my first reinforcement game yesterday, I'd be wary of trying to trigger your reinforcements early: On some missions, being able to drop 100pts wherever you want on your table side last turn is kinda broken. Like hidden deployement on steroid with its own order pool and wich doesn't trigger AROs. I know it's tempting to have them drop ASAP so we can FINALLY get a pitcher on the table, but I'm seriously considering playing the other way around: If I go first, go balls to the wall agression so that my opponent HAS to drop his reinforcement if he doesn't want to lose outright, and if I go second play as safely as possible to delay them for a last turn objective steal.
And by extension by bringing less points you cap your opponent in the maximum points they can kill, if you manage to kill more point than you have your opponent cannot kill more. the game and the scenarios are balanced under the assumption both players play at the same points.
Robert Shepard just did a batrep where he tried to break the format by playing with a 250 points reinforcement army, thus guaranteeing turn 1 reinforcements as first player: It is not something I would like to be blindsided by, admittedly. I would consider changing the reinforcement rules such that they never arrive on turn 1. It makes it much less of a good idea to try to game a guaranteed reserve drop, and makes the available (points * turns) math much closer to a standard non-reinforcement lists.
They don't serve their function to offset someone getting hit by an alpha if you do that though. It's an easier fix to adjust the reinforcements to specify X number of army points in a null state during the checking period to qualify for reinforcements arriving. Closes the loophole.
I do not see an issue in reinforcements arriving on turn one, for the player going second, a player can be mauled that severely on first turn. For the first player... well they are never supposed to be arriving on the first players first turn as it is theoretically not possible to sustain casualties before the game starts.
What you're talking about (hopefully) isn't what's discussed here. A downgrade of 100pts in a 350pts game isn't going to do anything but handicap yourself. The scale by which you'd have to downscale your force to the point where it is an actual issue is about the same as the intentional retreat button pushing tactic. It's also even fewer factions who can do it. This is by all accounts a paper tiger. Let's focus on actual discussions than worry about highly theoretical foul plays that no players are doing.
I would never intentionally start low on points. But I won't feel bad if I can't find anything to get it to exact. I'm not that compulsive lol.
The thing is, the way the rules are written makes it theoretically (and practically) very possible to have the first player deploy their reinforcements in turn one, since the rules don't say that you have to "sustain casualties", but that: "The Active Player counts their Victory Points and the sum total is equal to or less than the Request Reinforcements value listed in the chart below." So what Rob is doing is totally inside the rules framework put out by CB.
I remember something... How did id go? Oh, yes! The rules don't say that I cannot smash your models with a hammer!
Yeah… outside of a clearly identified theoretical exercise, this kind of an exploit is… [various derogatory terms for poor sportsmanship].
Adding these here for reference. And to ooh and ahh the images. I love Bixie a lot. Of course it's coming out after I just got the previous . I'll probably still get her just because she's cool. Maybe I can use her as a proxy. I love the Haetae design. I hope they actually come out with the HRL. That's the one I'm most likely to use. Rules-wise he’s pretty good. He doesn’t have a lot of skills but that also keeps him cheap. I like the Dokkaebi. At first I wasn't sure what to make of the head but now I like it a lot. There's no mistaking it as a robot. The Sulyong are a bit bland to me and I can't seem to ever fit them into a list! He's an ok troop but pretty expensive. I think again we are insulted by the likes of the Rounder who is the same troop but better. It has the same skills and more for cheaper. There's no way having ARM3 with only 1 wound and Terrain (Total) should cost more than Marksmaship. The Sulsa is pretty cool to me. I wish it was a bit more of an CC attacking pose but it’s still cool. He’s not as great in CC as I would like. I’m jealous of the Marspider, Apache, and Dawon. The Mim-6 is good but not as good as things like 6-4 move, climb+, super-jump, NWI or NWB. I want some more wire-fu damn it! They are finally giving us some CC specialists but they seem to want to make sure they are not too good. I wish I could just do a team of Bixie and Sulsa. I’m not a big fan of the cloth on the head but otherwise the Hwarang look fantastic. They are not bad for assault type units. Again I wish they just had something a bit more interesting. It's like they did just enough to shut us up about Frenzy. I love the +2dmg Combi but he’s so expensive it’s hard to fit in a list. Revised existing troops. I can't say I'm super excited for any of them. The Rui Shi is too much of a downgrade for me. The Son-Bae Mk12 is ok. I'd be a lot more likely to run them in a regular list. Overall, pretty good looking. I still wish we had received some cheaper troops like the Marspider, Dawon/Riksha, and revised Hawwa. I really do like them for the most part. I just don't like them in Reinforcements. They feel to constrained. Reinforcement Yu Jing Pack
The overall feeling I get, when reading that if you are 4Pts under because you genuinely can't add anything it is fine but if you are 25Pts short (but would have been able to add stuff) then it is un-sportsmanship; is that if you can you must. Which kind of answer my question : In Call For Reinf, it says if you meet at least one of two condition you can call; can you chose to not call them ? So the RAI answer would be the same, right ? If you can, you must. And if you can but don't then you are being un-sportmanship. So far, I played both my game with: as soon as you can call, you must call. But the RAW is not exactly saying that.
Again, I don't see what's unsportsmanlike about it. Even in Robert Shepherd's example, you can't expect that gimmick to win consistently enough to seriously pursue. You're in enormous trouble the moment you're not going first. Similarly, there's nothing wrong with holding back your reinforcements until a more prudent opportunity, either. People don't get bent out of shape when hidden deployments or parachutists are held back until later in the game, unless your meta is really scrubby. If you're playing an area control mission, you'd better bet your ass that P2 is going to try to hold the line as long as possible before bringing theirs in, it'd be silly not to.
First and foremost I must say I have deep respect for @RobertShepherd trying to break the game (and breaking the game) and be a courteous while doing it, most of you do not know or remember but @Death was such a forum member back in first and second edition and many improvements happened because of him and like him people trying to, and succeeding in, breaking the game, finding flaws and suggested improvements. To quote a great man, a game tested by hundred or hundreds of players is nothing with releasing it to the wild at the hands of thousands. I do not think it as ever assumed that a player will choose to play with fewer points than the maximum allowed, in the same way it was not predicted people would use camouflage markers and irregular orders to hide at what combat group the orders and markers belonged to hence the N3 FAQ and N4 been excessively specific about it. If it is found to be an issue some form of FAQ will happen about it.
In other games I've played, being lower points is used to determine things like wins in a draw, turn order and other significant impacts to the game. Some of those games saw it taken to the extreme at high level tournaments, with 10/15% of points totals being "spent" on gaining that advantage. With that being added to infinity, it will simply be the new meta. Increasing the odds of getting your reinforcements early enough to negate the power of their reinforcements might be worth enough that you start seeing people lean down their lists, skip that upgrade to an FO, etc. It's not unsportsmanlike at all if it's part of the rules. If you don't think it should be there then you will have to add a minimum points as well as a maximum.
