Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hey guys,

As we are getting a number of new faces here with reports of their first games, thought it might be an idea to have some kind of thread where questions can be posted and answered (rather than new threads popping up all over the place). Also, please note I resisted the temptation to use the word 'noob' in the title of the thread.!.

So, to get the ball rolling! As a fairly newbish player myself, a couple of questions came up from a game yesterday. Any help would be greatly appreciated!


1) My Heavy Infantry Janissary trooper was hacked and immobilized. In my own turn, I tried a 'reset' order to re-gain control of him. This was a face-to-face roll, as the hacker was still within 8" (and his zone of control). Is the hacker's F2F roll effected by the BTS value of my unit? So, in this example I would be rolling a standard WIP roll, my opponent with -3 to his WIP?

We reasoned that as the suit's hacking protection systems had already been cracked, the BTS should not apply to the F2F roll. Is that correct?

2) A unit tries to make a 'cautious move' between 2 pieces of terrain. However, this movement takes him across the view of a mine. Is the mine allowed to react as ARO (and blow him up!) as the unit moves past? The moving unit is not visible to the mine at the beginning or end of his movement.

We rolled on whether the mine would be able to react or not. In the end it could, but the Myrmidon struck by the full force of the viral mine managed to survive!
We couldn't decide on a logical reason why the mine would explode or not - one would have thought that the mine would blow up even if the unit making the 'cautious move' moved stealthily, but we weren't sure?

Any help would be greatly appreciated in any case!

I think the BTS still applies but I'm not sure myself!

As for the mine I think it can go off. Mines don't ARO per se, they simply explode whenever an enemy is within their area of effect. After all they can go off if markers move into their radius

BTS still applies.

Mine still goes off. If you activate within ZoC of a mine, it goes boom.

Thanks guys. Regarding the mine, the model has 'total cover' when it first activates, and then finally at the end of its cautious movement. Don't suppose that makes any difference?

Nope. Mine goes off as soon as it has LoF. If this means you're in the open or only partial cover, then that's what happens.

Any movement that takes you past any LoS can cause an ARO. Its not the start or stop, its simply crossing the path.

And BTS still applies.

Ok, Hacker questions, data incoming.

So for bringing Posthumans I am required to bring a hacker. What else can a Hacker do for me on the battlefield besides fire her weapon?

I poked around the Wiki, and found information about hacking remotes, and enemy guided ammo. Then it alluded to disabling devices, such as enemy weapons, but I have not been able to nail that down.






Automatically Appended Next Post:
A completely seperate question incoming... Data link established.. What does LT.S. mean? I got an error in the army builder when I tried to add a mercenary to my army. When are you allowed to bring a mercenary?

You can with a Hacker:
Hack remotes (immobilizing them).
Hack Heavy Infantry (immobilizing them).
Hack TAGs (immobilizing them).
Hack AD: Combat Jump (forcing your opponent to tell which Jumpers he has and deploy them immediately).
Hack Guided ammo (making it miss it's target).
Hack other hackers (wounding or killing them).
And of course, include remotes in your army!

drazz wrote:Any movement that takes you past any LoS can cause an ARO. Its not the start or stop, its simply crossing the path.

Well yes and no. If you use a long skill cautious movement you can avoid AROs by starting end ending in total cover.

It's just that mines don't ARO they just go off.

And don't forget, you can also possess a TAG you immobilized via hacking (though not Combined TAGs).

With an EVO Repeater around (units added as remotes in Human Sphere) you can also make you AD troops more accurate when using AD3 insertion. The EVO repeater also has other programs that reinforce hacking abilities as well (halve BTS, allow combined hacking attempts, allow TAG possession in one hacking attempt).

Finally if you have a Hacking Device Plus (Nomads, Combined and Aleph) then you can use it to act as a Forward Observer without line of sight (yes, even through Repeaters).

When you use an order to stop an Impetuous model from coming on the board via Combat Jump, do you declare it to the opponent or you just leave aside an order and it's up to him to decide if it's a bluff or not ?

Do you tell him :
I'm using an order for some reasons
or
I'm using an order to prevent combat jump from an impetuous model

 Shadowseer_Kim wrote:
So for bringing Posthumans I am required to bring a hacker. What else can a Hacker do for me on the battlefield besides fire her weapon?

In order to field the Posthumans, you are not REQUIRED to field the/a hacker. It's an option. You are only required to field at least two posthumans of different marks if you want to field them at all.

Huh, I remember having encountered an error before.

Now then, what is IT.S.? and Why will the army builder give me an IT.S. error when I try to make an Aleph army with a mercenary?

I believe "I.T.S." stands for "Infinity Tournament System/Scene.

This is essentially a reminder that if you were fielding an army following the official rules for tournament play, Mercenaries are not allowed unless specified by the specific sectorial allowances.

ITS stands for Infinity Tournament System.

The tournament rules system linked to the rankings that CB use.

It gives you an error, because (with exceptions for Sectorial armies who can use selected mercenaries in their lists) Merc units are NOT allowed under the tournament system.

A vanilla Yu-Jing army will come up with an ITS error if you include (mercenary ninja character) Saito Togan - because a vanilla army CANNOT include the merc under tournament rules (outside of a tournament, all is fair, though).

A Japanese Sectorial Army (Yu-Jing sectorial option) force can include Togan and NOT trigger an error report because Saito Togan IS an ALLOWED unit for them - even in tournaments.

ok, so it is allowed, just not for tournament play. Thank you!

To make a comparison, it's "allowed" in the same way Forge World models are "allowed" in 40k games. The rules are there if you want to have fun, but get your opponent's permission first.

Outside of a Tournament game, feel free to use mercs to plug holes in your list. Want some AD troops in your Ariadna (with a chance of better than normal gear) because you like the Yuan-yuan miniatures? Use their availablility (AVA) as mercs to include up to that many.

In a tournament list, however, ONLY the sectorials that include the mercs in their list of allowed units can take them and even then, this will ONLY apply if it is a sanctioned tournament (where the TO has paid for a tournament pack ).

JSA can use Saito Togan AND Musashi.

QK (Haqqislam sectorial) can use Druze mercs AND Yuan-Yuan.

Corregidor Jurisdictional command can use McMurrough, Valerya Gromoz (hacker), Senor Massacre, etc.

Infinity army's validation rules take tournament into account - but if you are not playing in one, feel free to ignore that "error".

 Von Skyfury wrote:
When you use an order to stop an Impetuous model from coming on the board via Combat Jump, do you declare it to the opponent or you just leave aside an order and it's up to him to decide if it's a bluff or not ?

Do you tell him :
I'm using an order for some reasons
or
I'm using an order to prevent combat jump from an impetuous model

You need to tell your opponent how you use every single actions so you need to announce your holding an Impetuous model from coming on the board.

 Von Skyfury wrote:

 Von Skyfury wrote:
When you use an order to stop an Impetuous model from coming on the board via Combat Jump, do you declare it to the opponent or you just leave aside an order and it's up to him to decide if it's a bluff or not ?

Do you tell him :
I'm using an order for some reasons
or
I'm using an order to prevent combat jump from an impetuous model

You need to tell your opponent how you use every single actions so you need to announce your holding an Impetuous model from coming on the board.

That's great that question has an answer... but what the hell just happened??

I think my question was overlooked so I posted on the Official Forum.
Then when I got an answer, I posted here so everybody gets to know it

 Pacific wrote:
Hey guys,

As we are getting a number of new faces here with reports of their first games, thought it might be an idea to have some kind of thread where questions can be posted and answered (rather than new threads popping up all over the place). Also, please note I resisted the temptation to use the word 'noob' in the title of the thread.!.

So, to get the ball rolling! As a fairly newbish player myself, a couple of questions came up from a game yesterday. Any help would be greatly appreciated!


1) My Heavy Infantry Janissary trooper was hacked and immobilized. In my own turn, I tried a 'reset' order to re-gain control of him. This was a face-to-face roll, as the hacker was still within 8" (and his zone of control). Is the hacker's F2F roll effected by the BTS value of my unit? So, in this example I would be rolling a standard WIP roll, my opponent with -3 to his WIP?

We reasoned that as the suit's hacking protection systems had already been cracked, the BTS should not apply to the F2F roll. Is that correct?

2) A unit tries to make a 'cautious move' between 2 pieces of terrain. However, this movement takes him across the view of a mine. Is the mine allowed to react as ARO (and blow him up!) as the unit moves past? The moving unit is not visible to the mine at the beginning or end of his movement.

We rolled on whether the mine would be able to react or not. In the end it could, but the Myrmidon struck by the full force of the viral mine managed to survive!
We couldn't decide on a logical reason why the mine would explode or not - one would have thought that the mine would blow up even if the unit making the 'cautious move' moved stealthily, but we weren't sure?

Any help would be greatly appreciated in any case!

Sorry guys been hoping around so I didn't see this thread.

1) The BTS does still modify the hack attempt.

2) The mine is still allowed to act because it's explosion is not techincally an ARO, but rather it's function. That being said though, the mine's controller decides at what point it goes off during the order.

3) AD Impetuous. There is a lot of back and forth about this one, but it's commonly agreed that you declare when you use the impetuous to stop the jump. This is because Impetuous is supposed to be a hindrance to the model and in the case of AD it's nothing but a benefit if you were not forced to declare.

4) The CF nailed the hacker question, however Post humans do not require a hacker.

5) ITS = Infinity Tournament System. Infinity tournament packages come with points that players can earn. Players are then ranked across the world and receive a faction base army rank depending on what faction they played. Current ranks: http://www.infinitythegame.com/its/

6) Mercs are 100% legal for friendly play unlike Forgeworld which require the other player's consent. You must however follow the List building rules outlined in the book. http://infinitythegame.wikispot.org/Availability%28AVA%29

I ordered a new model today, a kempeitai. I was wondering what other peoples experience has been with the Impersonation rules. Any success with it?

Impersonation is a very powerful rule, especially at the beginning when your opponent might not know how to deal with it.

But remember, the only Kempeitai with Impersonation is the merc Kempeitai and he can only be taken against Yu Jing. Also, he is not legal for the ITS format so you need your opponent's agreement before playing with him.

The regular Kempeitai can have the skill Chain of Command, which is also very nice and gives you a back up if you are agressive with your Lieutenant.

No, it just means he can't be taken in an ITS TOURNAMENT list.

There is no "opponent's consent" malarkey in Infinity.

Not playing in a tournament?
Feel free to take mercs, a "merc" list, or whatever.

Playing in an ITS? No mercs (unless allowed by sectorial list), period.

I'd still ask my opponent first, just to make sure everything's ok.
And then I don't think anyone will be against it =)

There was no need to add an opponent's consent line in the game because at the time, no douchebags were playing it.
Normal "game play" gentlemen's agreement compacts adequately covered the situation.

As the game gains popularity, it will however, attract them like a pile of dung breeds flies (however unfortunately) - and it might need to be added in a future add on.

Our normal reaction should the DB brigade express interest in "our" game is to point them at WM/H instead. The "15 second kill" games tend to appeal more to them anyway.

...Lol Chromedog..

(I agree with you completely of course though)

So do I
But from the News & Rumors :

 BrookM wrote:
I'd play Infinity, but the players are pretty snobby about the superiority of this game and new players.

So while I agree it would be nice to never encounter TFG while playing Infinity...

The players we point to WM/H are the ones who go into a new game with the express purpose to find loopholes and exploit them.

Every game that we have played with them has become "not fun" - so if they are going to play a game, we'd rather they did it with the "other lot" who are like minded (like-minded to them, not us).