That is interesting, glad to see a counter opinion, what the opponent and observers really disliked was how much longer the game took to finish. I found that 125 points casualties for reinforcements was even more difficult to achieve than 100 so even though I mauled my opponent on his first turn he still had not lost enough to trigger reinforcements on second turn, of course mission and lists play important part on how the game is experienced.
Participated to a reinforcement tournament yesterday. Missions were Supplies, Decapitation and Unmasking. Had awesome time and reinforcements really added to the games without causing any issues with win conditons or timing. CB, please don't change anything (points, commdude tax, trigger mechanism) about reinforcements.
I will point out that your TO wisely picked 3 missions that work better with the mission than most in the current packet. There are others that the same cannot be said for.
Here are some more thoughts after hosting a 3 round, 11 player tournament and collecting feedback. We deliberately selected missions that should work well with Reinforcements (Supplies, Decapitation and Unmasking). All of them worked fine, and in some ways, even better with Reinforcements. Positive Supplies and Unmasking were now more about playing the mission than killing and in Decapitation there was actually always a decision to make whether to take 1st turn or deployment. These are changes that we enjoyed. Another positive aspect was that there was more to play on later turns of the game and the first turn was less decisive. Issues The biggest issue that was raised, was that it is both thematically and gameplay-wise silly that the Reinforcements can appear almost anywhere on the battlefield (on your side of the table), get into perfect position and there is nothing the opponent can do about it. Therefore, whatever is in the midfield will die almost automatically when the opponent’s Reinforcements arrive. This feels bad and unrealistic. The players have adapted to this by keeping most of their forces hidden in DZ, until Reinforcements arrive, which makes the game more stale and boring. Suggested Fix Dropping of Reinforcements could work like a simultaneous combat jump (which succeeds automatically), within Drop Pod’s ZoC and would therefore provoke AROs. If dropping of Reinforcements provoked AROs, that would also make it more beneficial to take control of the midfield to restrict the entrance of opponent’s Reinforcements. That would also make the game tactically more interesting and complex.
The point being that adjustments need to be made for the game mode to function well in conjunction with the ITS packet. Had your TO chosen poorly, your weekend may not have been nearly as fun.
@Triumph I don’t know what you are arguing for. It’s not like everyone is a fan of Countermeasures or Biotechvore even if reinforcements aren’t used. People like different scenarios and there are always winners and losers with any ruleset and mission selection. What is important that reinforcements have gutted vCA and vNomad GML play. That alone makes any mission 100% more enjoyable. CB needs to be strong and not cave into pressure so that we can kiss those factions goodbye.
When only 3-4 out of 20 missions van use Reinforcements then something needs to change. And also when there is a huge consensus among players that various parts of Reinforcements need to change because they don't really work as intended then it's in CB's best interest to change things so people keep playing the format. Also out of the 3 missions you played, only Decap and Supplies work decently well with Reinforcements. Unmasking with its Exclusion zone is fairly hostile.
There's at least 20 missions, if Reinforcements only work well with 3-4 of them and then scenarios don't get changed/tweaked then that's poor testing by CB. If people are forced to play the same 3-4 missions continuously then they will stop eventually.
The exclusion zone is fine. Consider Decap or Supplies, being allowed to deploy on the halfway line means you can set yourself up 24" away from the mission target assuming it's as far back from the halfway line as physically possible (realistically it's going to be a little closer than that although possibly the distance may end up being further if it requires getting up and down buildings). In Unmasking the Designated Target needs to be at least 16" up the table, that places it at the furthest 32" away from your table edge. Even with the EZ you can still deploy 16" forwards. This means your reinforcements can start 16" away from their target. It's quite possibly actually closer than what you'll be facing in supplies or decap. They're potentially 8" from a console or 16" from a DT. The real value for the reinforcements is them getting to choose what line of attack they're going to take. They essentially deploy with the information of the opponent's ARO capabilities then immediately attack, similar to if for some reason after the initiative roll your opponent wound up both deploying first then going second.
I’m still trying to figure out what is the mission that reinforcements have turned from the best of mission to the worst of missions. Regarding Unmasking with reinforcements, I think that particular scenario is all about making taking as hard AROs as possible and pointing them to enemy direction to force enemy to waste orders killing them and triggering your own reinforcements as quickly as possible. You would never play this kind of list in non-reinforcement game because of GML.
Yes that's fair I guess. My problem with the exclusion zone is that in all of the games I've played, Reinforcements have come down turn 3, and to me only being able to spend 5 orders on your Eeinforceme ts over tue course of the game just makes the format unattractive. Being prevented from deploying in the midfield when you're only getting 5 orders to spend on Turn 3 makes this feel like Reinforcements is a waste of time. I would rather play a normal game and have the additional orders on the table from Turn1, at least then I would be able to spend more than 5 orders, and get some actual mileage out of the models.
I can see your point in putting up AROs but if the games I've played so far, and also from what I've heard, being the first to Deploy your Reinforcements is a huge Disadvantage when th opponent can then drop their models without AROs and then delete the first Reinforcements.
Normally that’s the case, but Unmasking is all about pushing buttons and killing decoys and designated target. Killing enemy troopers (including reinforcements) is waste of orders from the mission point of view.
It's a pretty common complaint so far the 40% casualty threshold is too high so you're not alone in that department. There's people like @Aspect Graviton who are already testing lowering that number.
I've only played 2 reinforcement games, so I don't think I have enough experience to know if this is a good idea: Option A: Require the drop pod to be placed within ZoC of the commlink trooper (or a marker indicating where it died) - I think this is only practical if CB also expands the # of Commlink profiles, since line troopers are difficult to push into the midfield. Option B: Require placement of a drop pod beacon during deployment (maybe at the same time the Commlink in deployed, like minelayer) - the drop pod must be placed within a certain distance of the beacon is ZoC too broad? I don't know)
Puts too much agency is player 1's hands to control game state. Think of it like this, I put my commlink in a fireteam run up the table snipe your commlink the screw you over into basically DZ deployments, while if you attack my link that's somewhere up the table my reinforcements get to start in the middle of the table. You haven't had a turn yet. I have momentum and now deployment advantage.
That does make sense. Hearing and reading the reinforcements feedback, there seems to be a lot tension between P1 and P2 balance - ITS is normally P1 biased in my experience, but for certain missions, reinforcements has biased heavily towards P2. The way reinforcements arrive without any opposing player agency (neither counter deployment or ARO), feels antithical to the Infinity experience. Either there needs to be a completely different mission set for reinforcements, or reinforcement deployment timing/procedure needs to be rethought.
Next play of Reinforcements, I'm going to try out the following fixes and ask my gaming group if they'll do the same. If they turn out okay, we might use them as optional rules at an ITS tourney, depending on what the season packet's missions look like. - Reinforcements are optional; Players using Reinforcements get 300/100, those not using Reinforcements get 350. SWC limits for each group match points as normal. - Players inform each other whether or not they are using Reinforcements, with the player who took Initiative informing their opponent first. - Threshold to trigger Reinforcements is 100 victory points. - Reinforcements portion of army list is Closed Information until Reinforcements enter the game (other than that you are using Reinforcements). Then the info is subject to the usual restrictions (CoC not revealed, etc.). - A Commlink trooper is not required to field Reinforcements, but is still available to be taken optionally if desired. - Commlink troops if optionally taken may increase the number of Troops slots, move into the new Order Group added when Reinforcements arrive etc. [IMO this is totally worth the points, SWC, and Troop slot, but it’s nice to have it be elective.). - Dropping of Reinforcements works like a simultaneous combat jump (which succeeds automatically) within Drop Pod’s ZoC and would therefore provoke AROs, and be excluded by Exclusion Zone. - Tourney rounds are at least 15-20 minutes longer, to allow the later Deployment, explanation of abilities, etc.
