List Building: 'Standard Games' vs. ITS builds

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.

**Alpharius**

Continuing on from here:

Talamare wrote:
Alpharius wrote:
Talamare wrote:
imo ITS and Infinity are 2 completely different games, with 2 completely different mindsets

and before you even think of dipping your toes into ITS you should know Infinity in and out

I personally feel jumping into ITS before you get core mechanics down, will just lead you into being a player with sloppy core gameplay.

This is a very interesting statement and, to steal a phrase, I do want to know more!

Can you elaborate?

You can find ITS rules on their website, but basically when you play an ITS game. Your core focus becomes getting objective points, it doesn't matter if you "lose" the battle as long as you scored more points.
Because of this it is decently common for players to play awkwardly in terms of direct gameplay, but makes sense in terms of scoring objectives.

For example, In a normal Infinity game, a strong, high point target with a big weapon is often a priority since he is dangerous on the opponents turn; however during an ITS game a much weaker specialist will often be targeted with priority with the intent to deny them from scoring objectives.
How you build your list changes drastically as well, previously units you would never bring are sudden a decent choice since they are specialist troops or have specialty ammo.
How you spend your orders are different as well, while in a normal annihilation game you would likely attempt to find the angles and assault patterns that would leave most kills while having the least deaths. In ITS the goal is instead to clear enemies that would provoke dangerous ARO while spending the majority of your orders to complete objectives.
One final point I will make, In normal games setting an opponent in retreat is often a Godsend, marking that you have basically won the game. In ITS setting the opponent in an early retreat might mean you do not get to complete objectives while he uses his final turn to sneak the lead in objectives and thus win the game that he was "losing".

These are certain nuances to the game, that I feel is more important to learn after your have established a good "mental math" about which way you should handle each situation. Situations such as ODD behind a wall with a strong weapon or Basic Anti TAG combat.

and:

Knight wrote:
With your armies, I'm not surprised. I'm not going to derail the thread any further but I'm disappointed classified objectives didn't receive any additional change apart from the random tables. It can be frustrating to play PanO in ITS.

It seems as if I might have been preparing for 'tournaments' in the wrong way?

And unfortunately or not, the vast majority of INFINITY gaming I'll ever be able to do is most likely going to be "ITS" based, as there just isn't enough of a player-base near me to generate any sort of 'pick up' game.

So, I should actually be looking to get 'specialists' in as much as possible?

And not just hackers and engineers but doctors too?

Because in some ITS missions, you'll need a specific type of specialist?

As well as a model with a specific type of specialist ammo?

Or you won't be able to complete certain objectives in certain missions?

I'm thinking about playing in the ITS Tournament at Adepticon in April.

What do you think about this PanO list:

Panoceania | 10 models
________________________________________________________

Fusilier Lt (10|0)

Fusilier Combi (10|0)

Fusilier HMG (19|1)

Machinist Engineer (15|0)

Palbot (3|0)

Kamau Hacker (28|0.5)

Croc Man BShotgun (29|0)

Croc Man Sniper (43|1.5)

Jotum (104|2)

Sierra Dronbot HMG (28|1)
________________________________________________________

299/300 points | 6/6 swc
open with Aleph Toolbox

: http://goo.gl/RSEZE3

I was thinking about switching out the Kamau hacker for a Croc Man hacker, but that would require some additional work to make it fit SWC and points.

**Alkasyn**

IMO, only 2 specialist is not enough, I usually try to go for 3 or 4 even in 1 combat group lists. Also, if you start your Croc Men in TO, you will too small of an order pool to act.

Like this for example:

Haqqislam - Hassassin Bahram | 12 models
________________________________________________________

Combat Group #1

Muyib HRL (34|1)

Husam Panzerfaust (Viral Sniper Rifle, CH: Mimetism, Hacker (Hacking Device)) (25|0.5|12xp)

Muyib LGL (23|1)

Muyib Medic (27|0)

Muyib Viral (25|0)

Barid FO+Lt (17|0)

Muttawi'ah BS (11|0)

Lasiq Viral (26|0)

Fiday Mines (33|0)

Ragik HMG (38|1.5)
Combat Group #2

Shihab (28|1)

Kameel EVO (13|0.5)
________________________________________________________

300/300 points | 5.5/6 swc
open with Aleph Toolbox

: http://goo.gl/EP0FVZ

**Alpharius**

TO on the table as a marker doesn't generate an order?

I thought that was only for 'hidden deployment'?

**Knight**

Alpharius wrote:So, I should actually be looking to get 'specialists' in as much as possible?

Having good amount of specialists is a good start, you have certain leverage in case one of them gets down and you have multiple avenues to deploy and approach to the objective. Though there are specialists and good specialists, the sort of models that have speed, mobility and decent WIP.

And not just hackers and engineers but doctors too?

Forward Observers, Chain of Command, paramedics, specialist troop, whoever qualifies. Having a good spread of specialists is great for secret objective, though with mediocare WIP and expensive specialists I find it better to specialise and hope for the best. It'd be certainly bad, if I'd took Bipandra, Trauma Doc and then went against an army with viral ammunition or not rolling for experimental drug, however in the opposite event it's not bad. I'm rather certain that I can achieve the objective or have a clear idea what I want to do and expect from my specialists.

Because in some ITS missions, you'll need a specific type of specialist?

As well as a model with a specific type of specialist ammo?

Or you won't be able to complete certain objectives in certain missions?

ITS missions are very specific, ideally you'd want to build your army for each of them. No idea how the tournament organisers will handle them.

I'm not a fan of a TAG in ITS. I think they're too situational and eat too many points that could have been invested into more useful areas. Could they work? More experience players will have to answer on this one.

**Alkasyn**

Alpharius wrote:
TO on the table as a marker doesn't generate an order?

I thought that was only for 'hidden deployment'?

Correct, but deploying them as markers takes away a lot of the surprise potential, IMO. I'd never deploy my TO camo on the table as a marker, the element of surprise when you come out of thin air and start taking potshots with your sniper is priceless.

Regarding the TAG: They might work, but a TAG list is usually a one trick pony list, where if it dies, you will have a problem due to the lack of specialised firepower. I'd say go for it, there's hardly anything that doesn't outright work.

**Alpharius**

For me, being the definition of 'inexperienced', I'm leaning more towards what I think would be fun to use and fun to build and paint.

For instance, this list is another one I'm considering:

Combined Army - Morat Aggression Force | 12 models
________________________________________________________

Combat Group #1

Sogarat Feuerbach (70|1.5)

Morat Lieutenant (16|2)

Morat Combi (16|0)

Morat Hacker (28|0.5)

Morat Paramedic (20|0)

Raicho MHMG,HFT (89|2)

Ikadron (9|0)
Combat Group #2

Oznat (21|0)

Preta Chain (5|0)

Preta Chain (5|0)
________________________________________________________

300/300 points | 6/6 swc
open with Aleph Toolbox

: http://goo.gl/y2BWli

but perhaps it would function better in ITS as:

Combined Army - Morat Aggression Force | 15 models
________________________________________________________

Combat Group #1

Yaogat Lieutenant (31|0)

Yaogat Sniper (42|1.5)

Sogarat Feuerbach (70|1.5)

Morat Combi (16|0)

Morat Hacker (28|0.5)

Morat Paramedic (20|0)

Morat Observer (19|0)

R-Drone Repeater (8|0)

Ikadron (9|0)
Combat Group #2

Oznat (21|0)

Preta Chain (5|0)

Preta Chain (5|0)
________________________________________________________

300/300 points | 3.5/6 swc
open with Aleph Toolbox

: http://goo.gl/SYzATQ

**Talamare**

Don't underestimate the power of a Tag

Planting that sucker overwatching objectives will win you games. In ITS people do not want to spend time and orders trying to take down your TAG.

Remember the goal of the TAG would not be to go rambo into the enemy back line, but to sit south of the mid field in safety and harass anyone who tries to go for objectives. Have an even more obnoxious Ammo Sniper assisting and you can deny the most important part of the board.

Oh 'ammo' is just what I call Multi or DA or whatever you use to destroy crates.

So yea, lets make a quick list of what your list needs for ITS

Specialists - At least 2, Recommended minimum of 3
Ammo - DA, EXP, Viral (I think)... Basically things to destroy crates. Recommended to bring a Sniper of this type, and 1 more. Tho 3 none Snipers would likely work as well
Speedster - Basically someone fast with hopefully decent defenses to run the beacons. One is usually fine

**Knight**

Smoke tends to block the most threatening lanes. A simple Sierra will provoke the same reaction. A TAG would be harder to take down but at the expense of the quality of your own specialists. My opponents love smoke/MSV2 combo, hence I prefer my SWC models with SS2.

**IJW**

Another thing to bear in mind is that you get TWO lists and you're likely to be playing a mix of objective-based missions and table control/battle missions.

So it's perfectly acceptable to make a list with no Specialists at all, on the understanding that it's not the only list and that you might be at a disadvantage when it comes to fulfilling the Classified Objectives.

**Knight**

Today's game gave me some interesting insight.

1. Climbing plus or super jump on my Spec Op. If I had remembered to climb rather than move around and shoot, I wouldn't been killed by ARO. Either of those abilities would have given me nifty short cut.

2. The new tables for secret missions are horrible. Random, hard to achieve and give you little VP in return.

**IJW**

I assume you disliked the 2013 classifieds as well?

**Noir**

Knight wrote:
Today's game gave me some interesting insight.

1. Climbing plus or super jump on my Spec Op. If I had remembered to climb rather than move around and shoot, I wouldn't been killed by ARO. Either of those abilities would have given me nifty short cut.

2. The new tables for secret missions are horrible. Random, hard to achieve and give you little VP in return.

The new tables are becouse people were memorizing the old table and they wanted to make it harder to know what the other guys Classified Objectives are. It is only bad if you want to know what the other guy CO are or him yours. Plus as side missions they should only give a little VP, the Scenarios are what you should focus on.

**Knight**

I preferred ITS 2013 table. Considering we have rules for hidden deployment I fail to see why we needed four new tables rather than a classification of a public and a hidden roll. Cheaters are going to cheat no matter what.

I'm fine with the secondary objectives being less worth. However the VP scale for primary missions varies, easily drifting between a scenario where a classified mission wont have any effect to tipping the balance. It feels very gimmick and undefined.

**Alpharius**

Sounds fair enough - we already have a lot of 'hidden' and 'trust' based mechanics in the game after all!

**Noir**

Knight wrote:
I preferred ITS 2013 table. Considering we have rules for hidden deployment I fail to see why we needed four new tables rather than a classification of a public and a hidden roll. Cheaters are going to cheat no matter what.

I'm fine with the secondary objectives being less worth. However the VP scale for primary missions varies, easily drifting between a scenario where a classified mission wont have any effect to tipping the balance. It feels very gimmick and undefined.

Still not seeing a issue...

ITS 13 - roll on 1 table.

ITS 14 - roll on 1 table, you get to pick.

**Mathieu Raymond**

Can we all use this thread to get lists picked apart?

I was playing with Aleph Toolbox, and I was wondering if this would be ok for ITS:

Panoceania | 14 models
________________________________________________________

Combat Group #1

Fusilier Lt (10|0)

Acontecimento Spitfire (17|1)

Auxilia (14|0)

Auxbot

Auxilia FO (20|0)

Auxbot Observer

Machinist Engineer (15|0)

Palbot (3|0)

Trauma-Doc Doctor (14|0)

Palbot (3|0)

Hexa Spitfire (31|1.5)

Fugazi Dronbot Repeater (8|0)
Combat Group #2

Kamau Hacker (28|0.5)

Bipandra (24|0.5)

Palbot (3|0)

Mulebot Rifle (21|0)

Bulleteer Spitfire (29|1)

Croc Man Combi (33|0)

Bagh-Mari HMG (27|1.5)
________________________________________________________

300/300 points | 6/6 swc
open with Aleph Toolbox

: http://goo.gl/plhLfh

Sure, it has no real heavy hitter, but it can do a little bit of everything.

**Alkasyn**

Maybe swap the groups for the Croc man with someone else, otherwise you have 7 order and 5 order starting groups, which is not ideal, unless you really see one CG as being the more important one and WANT them to have more orders.

**Knight**

I don't think I've ever had a heavy hitter on my double groups. I think the army is a good start. I'd just swap Bulleteer for Sierra and try to find points for Crock Man with mine layer.

Generally I'd try to find a way to include Konstantinos or Singh. Both of them are strong picks for us. I did use TR Mule but always considered those points could have been spend more beneficial. Important to note that you lack multi ammunition, though you could potentially blow containers with an engineer. I consider him rather weak, I would definitely preferred Bagh Mari with MSR.

Panoceania | 14 models
________________________________________________________

Combat Group #1

Konstantinos Inf (34|0)

Bagh-Mari Sniper (34|1.5)

Acontecimento MineLayer (14|0.5)

Fusilier HMG (19|1)

Trauma-Doc Doctor (14|0)

Auxilia (14|0)

Auxbot

Mulebot Minesweeper (8|0)
Combat Group #2

Sierra Dronbot HMG (28|1)

Acontecimento Paramedic (14|0)

Auxilia (14|0)

Auxbot

Kamau Hacker (28|0.5)

Fusilier Lt (10|0)

Hexa Spitfire (31|1.5)

Singh (37|0)
________________________________________________________

299/300 points | 6/6 swc
open with Aleph Toolbox

: http://goo.gl/20Grtx

**Mathieu Raymond**

I wasn't wedded to the groups themselves, so whatever you can propose I'll look at.

I'm just wondering if I keep myself at a tight 10 order single group (more powerful units) or do I go over like this and split it into two groups. I tried to somewhat balance the number of orders to make sure I could still burst everything on a single model if I needed to accomplish an objective or kill that desperately.

**Alkasyn**

My list for QC - I spammed units I don't usually use, as I noticed whoever Dominates first and gets 3 points will have an easy game ahead of him.

Haqqislam - Hassassin Bahram | 16 models
________________________________________________________

Combat Group #1

Husam Rifle (Viral Sniper Rifle, CH: Mimetism, Hacker (Hacking Device)) (13|0|12xp)

Ghulam HMG (21|1)

Ghulam Sniper (18|0.5)

Ghulam Doctor (17|0)

Ghulam Lieutenant (13|0)

Fiday Mines (33|0)

Daylami Camo+Rocket (14|1)

Muttawi'ah Chain (5|0)
Combat Group #2

Kameel Minesweeper (8|0)

Najjarun Engineer (17|0)

Barid FO (17|0)

Farzan BS (32|0)

Fiday BS (34|0)

Ragik HMG (38|1.5)

Daylami Camo+Rocket (14|1)

Muttawi'ah Chain (5|0)
________________________________________________________

299/300 points | 5/6 swc
open with Aleph Toolbox

: direct link

**Mathieu Raymond**

A quickie: aside from being a specialist, does FO do anything for you if you have no GML?

**Noir**

Mathieu Raymond wrote:
A quickie: aside from being a specialist, does FO do anything for you if you have no GML?

Yes, ARO Flashing.

**-Loki-**

Noir wrote:
Mathieu Raymond wrote:
A quickie: aside from being a specialist, does FO do anything for you if you have no GML?

Yes, ARO Flashing.

To elaborate, Forward Observers have a Flash Pulse. This allows you to 'blind' an enemy model. Use it like a BS weapon, they take a BTS save against 13 damage, and if failed, can only use short skills that don't use LoF. It lasts until the end of that player turn, so doing it in ARO blinds the model for the rest of the players turn. If you're up against something significantly tougher than your FO that you probably wouldn't beat with your normal gun, it's a good option.

**Talamare**

FO also works with grenades and grenade launchers

If you bring a TAG that has a heavy grenade launcher, its honestly nearly as good as having GML

**Alkasyn**

Yea, the FO in my lsit is there for a cheap (for Bahram) order and for the Classified Objective. Flash Pulse is great on linkable models, I'll have to start using FO in my Triads sometime.

**IJW**

Especially in Haqqislam where the standard WIP is so high.

Important note - even though it's WIP-based, BS modifiers still apply including the +3BS bonus for a five=model Fireteam.

**Mathieu Raymond**

Oh shoot. I have to learn to use fireteams if I ever want to do ITS, then. I have the rules, I just need to read them and play them.

**Knight**

I don't think they're mandatory in the new ITS. My MAF opponent plays without them. I can see why, that's a lot of models that are tied to a specific movement and facing. I don't immediately build a link team but rather after I've build a list look at the units and see what can it be done to optimise. Certainly I wont say no to B5 Spitfire or SS2 Bagh Mari link.

**PhantomViper**

Knight wrote:
I don't think they're mandatory in the new ITS. My MAF opponent plays without them. I can see why, that's a lot of models that are tied to a specific movement and facing. I don't immediately build a link team but rather after I've build a list look at the units and see what can it be done to optimise. Certainly I wont say no to B5 Spitfire or SS2 Bagh Mari link.

Link team members have no restrictions on facing AFAIK?

**Knight**

You need to decide what angle you're going to cover. For example overseeing the objectives might result in AD taking advantage of a specific line of fire. Terrible thing should it happen.