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.

Ive been getting curious about this game and while theorizing some potential builds a question struck me? How do you keep a regular opponent guessing who your LT is? Seems you would to run a different list every game but even then wont your opponent become accustomed to your lists? "Oh, hes running his double Caledonian Mormaer list, his LT for that one is the Veteran Kazak." It seems like it would be an issue during tourney play as well if one opponent lets slip to your next who he should gun for... at first I thought it was just an issue of replacing a single model in the list each game but given that the cost of an LT can vary widely and some unit types dont have an LT option it seems more complicated than that, like you would basically have to have enough for 2 or 3 different unique lists plus some extras in order to really mix it up, which would invalidate the idea that you only really need a handful of models to play...

Using Sectorials for one is a good way to do so.

For me, my LT is going to be one of 3 rifle Ghulam most of the time. Simply number each one, and change which one it is each game.

But then doesnt your opponent know to gun for the Ghulams every game? Seems hit or miss as a deception technique...

Maybe, but at the same time I think Loki's theory is this:

If your opponent thinks "Ghulam #2 is his favorite to use as a Lieutenant!" and then you suddenly spring "Ghulam #3 is the Lieutenant" it becomes a very big confidence shaker.

 Kanluwen wrote:
If your opponent thinks "Ghulam #2 is his favorite to use as a Lieutenant!" and then you suddenly spring "Ghulam #2 is the Lieutenant" it becomes a very big confidence shaker.

Numerical fail!

chaos0xomega wrote:
But then doesnt your opponent know to gun for the Ghulams every game? Seems hit or miss as a deception technique...

You have three Ghulams, which you can spread across the board. They need to spread out their troops to get them. Also, usually Ghulams are on cheerleader duty, meaning they don't risk their collective asses much in the front lines, so barring impersonation/paratroop drops, they'll have a hard time getting on your back lines.

Plus if you're gonna play lots of games with the same opponent you can use a list that looks the same but isn't. For example in my list, three Ghulams, a Jannisary, a Naffatun and a Tuareg (not sure about this) can all be Lts. Just change things up a little.

And from experience, I've played a lot of games where one of my two Ghulams is the Lt., and most of those games I didn't suffer Loss of Lieutenant, even if my opponent knows that one of my Ghulams is the Lt. Just because you know who the Lt. is doesn't mean you can kill it, or you can get to it.


edit: spelling mistakes

 Casey's Law wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
If your opponent thinks "Ghulam #2 is his favorite to use as a Lieutenant!" and then you suddenly spring "Ghulam #2 is the Lieutenant" it becomes a very big confidence shaker.

Numerical fail!

You're a numerical fail!



Yeah, I'll fix that...

Hmm interesting points to consider. Im pretty excited to get intothe game though im still not sure what im doing faction/list wise. I keep trying to build lists based off of how much I like tye model, it seems I have a preference for special/heavy weapons (sniper rifles and autocannons in particular) and heavy infantry in general. Im writing 300 pt lists with only 8-10 models which im told is not good?

My 300 point list has 11 models. That's quite good, because one group's maximum is 10 and you can't share orders outside that group (on my list, the 11th member is an irregular, so even if he's included in the 10-man group he won't share his order anyway so he's in a separate group). And those are fine: my list consists of 3 sniper rifles and just one Spitfire. Just be wary of SWC points.

In addition to the above points, it makes it more fun to switch who the Lt is. After a few games, they won't bother looking for the Lt when they puruse my list, because they know it's some random Ghulam. They then start gunning for my Ghulam, I've this game switched it to a Jannisaire. He spends his game gunning for a backline fig while the Lt is really in his face killing things.

Lt shenanigans.

One thing that I do, which I think is totally legitimate, is to ask my opponent before the game which models have access to a LT statline. I'll openly say that Ghulams and Druze could me in mine in return. But it isn't always as easy as knowing the options; in my last battle report, I killed my opponent's LT by accident, because his dudes all kinda looked the same ('guy with rifle painted in dark colours and hiding behind a wall') from across the table

I think that QK have it best for hidden lieutenants; ours can have a holoprojector, so can be replaced with another model instead (such as one that is both pathetic and has no LT option). Oh, the comedy confusion

chaos0xomega wrote:
Ive been getting curious about this game and while theorizing some potential builds a question struck me? How do you keep a regular opponent guessing who your LT is?

Actually, it's worse than that - during the roll-off at the start of the game you have to declare the WIP of your Lieutenant, so you need to have multiple models that could be the LT and that all have the same WIP.

I think a lot of players overestimate the importance of killing the Lt.

As I see it, it's easy to create a list (or easily changeable lists) with enough possible Lts that trying to kill them becomes a bad tactic.
A list with three or four possible Lts... it's just more worth my orders to get on with objectives or kill your high value troops so you go into retreat. If the Lt is one of the order monkeys at the back, the Lt order isn't being used to kill me. If the Lt is one of the active models, I've got a good chance of killing them as collateral.

And versus a list with Holoprojector Lt options? Hell, anything on the table could be the Lt, even the models that normally couldn't be.
But even then, lists with obvious Lt choices (like Sun Tze or Saladin, whose WIP values and Strategos give them away automatically) can do fine.

In any case, I don't know many people who stick to the same lists repeatedly - rewriting them regularly it helps keep tactics fresh and less predictable. Also, given it's pretty much impossible to only buy "just enough" Infinity models, you have to keep changing lists to make sure you get to use all your lovely models every now and then.

As such, deliberately finding the Lt only rarely features in my plans - I only do it occasionally such to keep my opponents more on the back foot regarding how they think I play. After all, If I were completely predictable, always using/avoiding the same tactics, I'd be too easy to strategise against.

Good point. I also realized after posting that im very much in the wysiwyg mindset which is making me thonk this is a more complex issue than it really is but as I understand it is not important to the game, correct?

Say it once, say it a hundred times: Nothing in this game will win it for you at the list building stage. Even in the paradiso campaigns, with the new benefit of having engineers. It's all how you play things out.

If you had two engineers for instance:

The enemy will try to kill them both, but while you have to split your forces to defend them he can focus his whole army taking them out- all it takes is one sniper DA ARO and your engineer is gone. Having just half your force try and cover for him can end badly. ***can***.

If you have one:

The enemy will have one target... but you both know what is going to happen. There is the danger of hidden deployment surprises, but paradiso keeps this in mind and limits unit tools that allow the enemy to destroy your engineer without regard for how you're playing.


And this is all beside the way most people play: Homebrew or with the popular player-developed random-objective generators. With my players we play a bit more RPG, but we've stolen quite a bit from the new paradiso rules (giving every unit a stungun on capture missions is a great one).


This all pertains to your Lt discussion because 9/10 there are going to be more important things for the enemy's assassins to be going after than your Lt, even if they know 100% who it is, and every army can bring 1-2-3 Lt options in a match. So really in the end my advice is simple: Play some games and stop theory crafting. wysiwyg exists in a 'light' mode for official tourneys, but between you and me I've played with a pan-o player who spams mercs (providing him smoke) and msv, and even that supposedly "overpowered" strat isn't even an effective counter to half of what I can field, even in a sectoral.

Cut out some cardboard circles the shape of a 25mm base, write names on the bases, print out some tokens, use some books as terrain and play a game against yourself if you can't guilt a gf into it, charm a friend into it, or bribe a stranger into it with free food.

@chaos0xomega: WYSIWYG is not that strongly enforced in Infinity, because you have to be explicit about what each model represents. Even if it's a model representing exactly what it officially is, you have to confirm that.

Hence, it's not too big a deal. However, it is good to stay close to WYSIWYG, because you'll get fed up answering "What's that model again" or your opponent may get stroppy if he ends up on the wrong side of forgetting what a model represents.

@Viti: Personally, I'd say having a list with too few models capable of completing the objectives (be that a scenario objective, or just a "kill everyone" objective) is a mistake that can very heavily impact on your chances of victory. One crit at the wrong time... and there went your chances of winning.

In a scenario list, having two engineers/hackers means that even if your opponent can go go full-bore against a half-defended specialist, he has to do that... then take on everything to get to the second one. And it also means he has to spend a lot more of his precious orders not actually getting on with his own objectives.

All of my scenario lists have included at least two models that can complete every objective, and usually a way to heal those models if they do go down too. I don't like relying on chance.

I'm a huge fan of Camo Lts. I dont know how common they are in other armies but in my Ariadna and CA I'm almost always going for a Camo Lt.