My thoughts on ITS and Order count

[Claudius Sol]

I don't think high order count is necessary to win ITS, contrary to a lot of general opinion on the matter.

For a long time, I've played with 10 model single combat group lists. It's how I started the game. This last weekend, I won first place at a multi-meta ITS event held in North Texas with an attendance of 14 players from Oklahoma, Colorado, Houston, Dallas/Forth Worth (DFW), and College Station (central Texas and where I come from). These are my thoughts on my performance at the Big D Cup.

These are my two lists:
Yu Jing - Japanese Sectorial Army | 10 models
________________________________________________________

Aragoto Lieutenant (25|0.5)
Aragoto Hacker (37|0.5)
Aragoto Hacker (37|0.5)
Yojimbo (28|0)
Guǐ Fēng Combi (EXP CCW, Chain of Command, Holoprojector L1) (9|0|12xp)
Haramaki ML (47|1.5)
Haramaki Combi (33|0)
Haramaki DA CCW (28|0)
Haramaki DA CCW (28|0)
Haramaki DA CCW (28|0)
________________________________________________________

300/300 points | 3/6 swc
open with Aleph Toolbox : http://goo.gl/DZXHYk

Yu Jing - Japanese Sectorial Army | 10 models
________________________________________________________

Kisaragi Lt (28|0)
Aragoto Shotgun (21|0)
Aragoto Hacker (37|0.5)
Aragoto Spitfire (29|1.5)
Aragoto Combi (25|0)
Yojimbo (28|0)
Guǐ Fēng Combi (EXP CCW, Chain of Command, Holoprojector L1) (11|0|12xp)
Karakuri Combi (39|0)
Karakuri Combi (39|0)
Karakuri Mk12 (43|0)
________________________________________________________

300/300 points | 2/6 swc
open with Aleph Toolbox : http://goo.gl/ngCuUp


Notice, no model counts higher than 10 and SWC usage was fairly low. Now, I might be drawing "incorrect" conclusions since I like to theme my JSA lists around Aragotos and thus have a surplus of Impetuous orders. Though often during this event, my Aragotos did nothing of import or even died during these impetuous movements. I will say I got lucky a handful of times throughout the tournament and particularly during the final round.

I believe only once did I use the Aragoto Hacker(s) to perform mission critical objectives, mostly relying on them for additional firepower or for the Data Scan classified (which I somehow managed to get 3/4 rounds).

For the most part, I believe I achieved objectives and won through efficient use of orders and not a simple spamming of order generators. Before each order spent, I would take a breath and think carefully (yet quickly) about how I wished to proceed and make sure that the decision I made would be statistically in my favor or otherwise beneficial for my goals. If that meant sacrificing one of my beloved Aragotos to act as a distraction in my opponent's next turn so that my Karakuri didn't get annihilated, then so be it. I'll get into it more later about how I determine "efficient" actions.

Every move was made with purpose and a clear (to me, perhaps not my opponent) intent. Every shoot was done to either safeguard another unit or enable the acquisition of a higher priority target without unnecessary risk. Ranges were sized up and stored in memory for later use so I could gain a tactical advantage. Yojimbo spent his irregular orders well and didn't end a game with CrazyKoalas left on the table. Deployment of my impetuous models (notice: most of them) was done with keeping the impetuous move in mind so that I was more likely to move towards objectives and priority targets. Placement of models at the end of turns was done with more foresight as to likely positions of priority targets as well as objectives.

A large core of my game play (in tabletop games as well as others) is a strong ability to "read" my opponent. Any fighting game community member understands this term as 読み or "yomi" which literally translates to the noun "reading". It means to be able to predict the actions that a given person(s) are likely to make.
In Infinity, a good example would be:
Seeing your opponent's deployment, you've noticed a curious lack of model count in the primary combat group. It's likely that your opponent is utilizing Hidden Deployment or Aerial Deployment.
We can take this a step further and predict which of the two special deployments is being used. Facing Ariadna? It has to be Aerial Deployment. Facing PanOceania? Likely Hidden Deployment, though the possibility exists for Aerial Deployment.
And again, we can go one step further. Ariadna and 2 models missing? That's gotta be the (in)famous Mirage-5. PanOceania and a curious lack of SWC weapons? Very likely could be a Swiss Guard with Missile Launcher (or SwissMiss).
This is largely why I won the Big D Cup, I believe. Having only met one of my opponents before that day, I had no clue as to their tendencies, but was able to pick up on idiosyncrasies during deployment of each game and the subsequent first turn (except the last round where I actually managed to seize Initiative but had already played that particular opponent in round 2).

There is a lot you can glean from watching how your opponent deploys. Which model does he place first? Which model does he spend the most time figuring out where to place? Where is he looking as he places each model down? How particular is he about the facing that model? Is he being very clear and up front about how a particular model is deployed? Yet, don't forget to keep an eye on your opponent as you deploy. As you place down your own models, does he ask questions? Which questions are he asking? Where do his eyes go as you deploy? What's his body language telling you? As a practitioner of yomi, I am very careful on how I act during play so as not to give anything away. That's not to say I behave cold or indifferent. I am (as the vast majority of my opponents could attest to) a very friendly and generally comical guy. Though, being jubilant and being careful are not mutually exclusive.

There is also information hidden in how your opponent's turn is played out. Which models are he activating and in what order? Which paths does he prefer as he moves? Which of my own models does he appear to consider a priority and which are merely roadblocks? Does he play it safer at the cost of orders or does he risk the orders anyway by attempting to force his way with gun fire?

Of course, these are all just examples and you would have to develop your own sense of 読み方 or "yomikata" to know what keys and clues exist for you.

Using the information I gather from reading, I can make "good" plays by crippling the way my opponent is used to playing or prefers to play. I can perform actions that my opponent was not expecting and throw off his own reading of me. I can prepare ambushes and flanking maneuvers using a minimum of orders. I can complete objectives with little to no retaliation from my opponent.

TL;DR - Using information I get from reading my opponent, I can make efficient use of my orders that better my chances of winning. More so than if I simply maximized model count.

Anyway, I'll conclude this by challenging you to, in your next ITS or other event, attempt to better utilize your orders with the help of 読み方 rather than covering up your mistakes with more orders.

[macfergusson]

I think that how common multiple combat groups in ITS tournaments are may be a bit over-stated/over-hyped on the online communities. Much like Achilles or TAG rambo runs, when it happens to you it tends to stick in your memory more than the many other times different opponents played a more balanced list. Similarly, running 20 models in a game may happen, it may even happen often, but it isn't necessarily a predominant play style.

Personally, I would say that the oft-stated "maximize your order pool" is pointed more at the people bringing less than 10 models, not that everyone should be seeking to break in to a second combat group at a minimum. As an Ariadna player, the most model-spam prone faction due to the low individual point cost, I find that my best lists generally don't go above about 12 models, and often fall squarely on the 10 count.

All that in mind, I don't disagree with your overall points regarding careful execution of deployment and the use of each order. Spending an order without a goal in mind is akin to throwing away dollar bills. Have a plan, make every move to further that plan!

[Claudius Sol]

Good to see the "spam models" mentality isn't quite so ingrained near you! Gives a bit more hope. I noticed a lot of people at GenCon (not the invitational tournament, just casual games and other events) as well as at sort of "regionals" like Rumble on Route 66 and more recently The Big D Cup tended to breach that 10-12 or even 14 model count in favor of 14-16 or even 18 model counts. I also noticed a lot of sloppy play from those players (whether or not it was a result of the high model count... I only have anecdotal evidence). Generally, in my time playing Infinity since mid 2012, I've noticed model counts rising, which I have a hard time justifying.

But yes! Glad someone else agrees with my views on planning ahead and deployment.

[Scorch]

Thanks so much for this write up! Marvelous! Glad to hear your voice (and other voices too) thinking the necessity to push Infinity to the max order/max specialist limits is overrated.

I personally find it harmful for the game and the diversity it has to offer. Bringing a TAG is almost always bad, as his points can buy you three specialists as well. HI are 'slow', MI are 'slow', infiltration is better, etc. You can only go so many ways before you run out of options if you limit yourself to this max-out ideology.

Hope to see more of this!

[FatherKnowsBest]

Thanks so much for this write up! Marvelous! Glad to hear your voice (and other voices too) thinking the necessity to push Infinity to the max order/max specialist limits is overrated.

I personally find it harmful for the game and the diversity it has to offer. Bringing a TAG is almost always bad, as his points can buy you three specialists as well. HI are 'slow', MI are 'slow', infiltration is better, etc. You can only go so many ways before you run out of options if you limit yourself to this max-out ideology.

Hope to see more of this!

I bring TAGs and HI all the time. I hate having to include specialists and usually only take like 3-4 max. 4-2 is fine for me.

[IJW Wartrader]

While I agree overall, the two posts you listed are exceptionally order-efficient. Most other factions/Sectorials simply can't fit similar lists into a single Combat Group.

For Nomads I think about the closest equivalent to the first list would be a Bakunin Riot Grrl link plus a bunch of Zeros, but even then you have to start bumping any Combi Rifle or Boarding Shotgun Grrls up to MULTI Rifles to keep it in a single Combat Group.

[macfergusson]

As someone who has given advice like "maximize your orders" and "you probably shouldn't take a TAG due to how expensive it is", those are generally comments directed at very beginning newbies. These are concepts for people who are still learning mechanics and strategy in the game. It would be unfortunate if this then carries over into the general community in a "netdeck" sort of fashion, as these rules are meant to be violated once you understand the reasoning and ways in which to take advantage of them.

I think a lot of newer players are still having trouble with the idea that there is no one perfect list, and so are overly-zealous in following more generic advice. These newer players are also the same people who might have a bit less efficient order usage, maybe a little more sloppy play style. I guess what I'm saying is that this conversation may actually just be a symptom of the growth Infinity is seeing in the past year or two!

[IJW Wartrader]

Bakunin equivalent:

Bakunin Jurisdictional Commando - Untitled Roster (297/300 | 5/6)

Group #1 | 10 Models | 10 0 0

Riot Grrls Spitfire | Spitfire, Pistol / Knife (2 | 36)
Riot Grrls Multi | MULTI Rifle, Flash Grenades, Pistol / Knife (37)
Riot Grrls Combi | Combi Rifle, Blitzen, Flash Grenades, Pistol / Knife (31)
Riot Grrls Multi | MULTI Rifle, Flash Grenades, Pistol / Knife (37)
Riot Grrls Multi | MULTI Rifle, Flash Grenades, Pistol / Knife (37)
Zeros Hacker | Hacker, Hacking Device, Combi Rifle, Antipersonnel Mines, Pistol / Knife (0.5 | 30)
Zeros Hacker | Hacker, Hacking Device, Combi Rifle, Antipersonnel Mines, Pistol / Knife (0.5 | 30)
Zeros Lieutenant | Lieutenant, Combi Rifle, Antipersonnel Mines, Pistol / Knife (2 | 18)
Prowlers Boarding Shotgun | Boarding Shotgun, Grenades, Pistol / D-Charges, CCW (32)
Vortex Spec-Ops | Combi Rifle (9)

Open in MayaNet

Although you get Order efficiency via Infiltration and it's good having the Mines, I find Aragotos to be a lot less squishy and more Order efficient than the Zeros.

[Scorch]

As someone who has given advice like "maximize your orders" and "you probably shouldn't take a TAG due to how expensive it is", those are generally comments directed at very beginning newbies. These are concepts for people who are still learning mechanics and strategy in the game. It would be unfortunate if this then carries over into the general community in a "netdeck" sort of fashion, as these rules are meant to be violated once you understand the reasoning and ways in which to take advantage of them.

I think a lot of newer players are still having trouble with the idea that there is no one perfect list, and so are overly-zealous in following more generic advice. These newer players are also the same people who might have a bit less efficient order usage, maybe a little more sloppy play style. I guess what I'm saying is that this conversation may actually just be a symptom of the growth Infinity is seeing in the past year or two!

Very good points! It could indeed be a symptom of growth. Still, I think caution is adviced as not every meta has a veteran, and like you say.. Following these advices to the letter can easily influence people's experience of Infinity.
I understand the need for the advice, but I see it pop up more and more, and I think it can severely skewer a meta.

[Claudius Sol]

IJW:

I'm not saying you should only use 10 models. I'm merely wishing to downplay the "advantage" of multiple functional combat groups. I'd wholly expect a Bakunin player to have a second combat group with Sin Eaters, TR remotes, or hackers for defense.

Certain armies (Ariadna, Haqqislam, certain Nomads) can perform efficiently with 12-13 models on the table with a 10/2-3 split of combat groups. Armies like Yu Jing, PanO, Combined, Corregidor (in particular, I've noticed), ALEPH, and Tohaa can all perform as good, if not better, with a single combat group than with multiple.

Tohaa is the closest I would get towards order "spamming". I usually end up with 13 Tohaa models in my lists. 4 triads and 1 special.

Edit: This would be my Bakunin List if I ran one.

Nomads - Bakunin Jurisdictional Commando | 12 models
________________________________________________________

Combat Group #1
Reverend Custodier Marker (38|0.5)
Reverend Custodier Lieutenant (38|0.5)
Prowler Combi (32|0.5)
Prowler Combi (32|0.5)
Zero Minelayer (19|0.5)
Zero Minelayer (19|0.5)
Zero Observer (21|0)
Moderator Paramedic (13|0)
Moderator Paramedic (13|0)
Moderator Combi (9|0)
Combat Group #2
Sin-Eater Spitfire (32|1.5)
Sin-Eater Spitfire (32|1.5)
________________________________________________________

298/300 points | 6/6 swc
open with Aleph Toolbox : http://goo.gl/79rpiK

[Certs]

Agreed with IJW that JSA are a bad example. It's really easy to create a naturally order efficient force with them.

9-10 Regular Orders, half your units are MOV 8-6 with free Impetuous Orders thrown on top of that combat group, and the other half are cheap but capable and resilient heavy infantry who are MOV 4-4 and can move efficiently as a link team. That's wayyy more mobility than someone using a normal 10-man vanilla list for most other factions would have (excluding Tohaa), and you're probably more on par with the mobility that others can only match by using a 15+ sized list.

While, I agree that the large list trend is kind of a shame - it's kind of unavoidable (and maybe even intentional) with how the ITS is set up. Two guys both using 10-man lists against each other in an ITS scenario can have a very well balanced and interesting game. But, unfortunately, when it comes to competing, having those extra orders and mobility can be a big advantage.

I don't think that needs to be downplayed. It is what it is. But, I'm fine with also reminding players that building to compete like that isn't always necessary to play and have fun.

[Harlekin]

Thanks for the plea for one single combat group. I'm with you all on most points.
Still, Claudius, it's quite easy to call out a "one combat group" only contest, when you're able to bring quite some MOV8-6 specialists, isn't it?
On the other hand, there are AD specialists, Infiltrator specialists, a lot of MOV6-4 specialists available to every faction and (almost) every sectorial.

And the experience and knowledge about your opponents army list (which you call "reading") helps a lot - not only during ITS. ITS is somehow special as lists tend to be more predictable than compared to for example YAMS.
And not only the list, your opponent's actions also are by far more predictable, as he has the same problem that you have: low order count to achieve those precious objectives.

Overall, I also feel the elite models highly underrated and all those cheap order monkeys overrated. True, orders are important, but for example a single 90 points TAG can quite easily kill 2 (unlinked) standard LI with one order and are quite a impressive speed bump for all those cheap bunglers.
And in 300 you really have to cut back somewhere, when you're aming for 20-ist orders.

[Claudius Sol]

@Certs:

Yeah, JSA might have it a little easier than some, but they pay for that with no access to AD and very expensive infiltration/camo. MOV 4-4 HI isn't exactly rare, either.

I would like to note that I only used the 8-6 specialists for actually doing mission critical objectives (not classifieds) once in the whole 4 rounds. I wasn't even successful with him. (To give context, it was beacon race and a Karakuri handed off a beacon to Yojimbo so he could get it to the drop-off point. Ended up with Yojimbo dropping the beacon and a different Karakuri had to go pick it up and move it 20-ish inches to the drop-off point)

I'd like to argue that it's not impossible to achieve that mobility in other armies. Infiltration is much more readily available to many armies and cheap AD is also pretty often seen in other armies. Links are also cheap enough to permit these things, if you cared to bring heavier stuff. Corregidor, for example, has little in the way of 6-4 specialists, but has plenty access to AD specialists and Infiltrating FOs (even though they don't have camo). Steel Phalanx just gets super tough ODD troops, one of which can infiltrate (the Dire Foe). Vanilla ALEPH has Nagas and that beautifully elegant Sophotect. And of course, as you mentioned, Tohaa gets their Fireteam Tohaa rule.

The point I'm making, though, is not a focus on mobility, but rather a focus on efficiency. Remember, you don't need a lot of orders if each order you spend is spent well.

Even moving at 4-2, it is very easily do-able to complete your objectives if you take the right precautions and have the right mindset for it. I've played ITS missions with a fireteam of Wildcats being my only specialists before. I won that game despite ending with only 3 Wildcats left on the board. My two Hellcats had died, my Iguana had died, and I had some mook alguaciles that also died. But I completed my objectives and won. Not as well as I would have wanted, but this was a year or so ago and I hadn't quite fully developed my yomikata or how I wanted to play Corregidor.

Of course, having fun is always my top priority. This thread was mostly to fulfill a request by a friend of mine who wishes to be more competitive and wondered how I manage to win so often.

@Harelkin

I hadn't thought about the influence ITS had on my yomikata... I'll have to think on that some more and see what I come up with. I haven't played a non-ITS game outside of demos in some time. I might revisit YAMS this week and see how the readings are affected. I'll try to remember to get back to you.

[Certs]

Sure, you may be able to do just fine without a lot of orders if you're spending them well. But, at the same time, if you know how to spend orders well, then you'll likely be able to go that much further when you have more orders to spend. Shrug, that's the thing about efficiency.

[Harlekin]

The point I'm making, though, is not a focus on mobility, but rather a focus on efficiency. Remember, you don't need a lot of orders if each order you spend is spent well.

When it comes to ITS and you are facing an opponent who knows what he is doing - mobility equals efficiency. As long as you have the advantage of facing players who don't play on your own level, everything's fine. But as soon as you face another top player, you just won't stand a chance without those high mobility units (well, that's my experience, at least).

@Harelkin
I hadn't thought about the influence ITS had on my yomikata... I'll have to think on that some more and see what I come up with. I haven't played a non-ITS game outside of demos in some time. I might revisit YAMS this week and see how the readings are affected. I'll try to remember to get back to you.

I'm looking forward to get some feedback.

[Section9]

If I was going to play Imperial Service at a tournament, I'd end up taking 2 full combat groups. 8 Kuang Shi, the 2 KSCD, and then specialists. Pheasant CoC, Ninja hacker, Sophie, Dakini paramedic. Finally some guns.

I don't think you can make a viable ITS list with only 10 orders in ISS (though I will be happy to be proven wrong!)

But JSA? Aragotos, 3 Karakuri, Kempeitai, a Tokusetsu engineer and an EVObot.

Army list, spoilered for length

---

JAPANESE SECTORIAL ARMY
──────────────────────────────────────────────────

GROUP 1 10 0 4

ASUKA KISARAGI Lieutenant Combi Rifle + Light Flamethrower / Assault Pistol, Knife. (28)
ARAGOTO Spitfire / Pistol, Knife. (1.5 | 29)
ARAGOTO Spitfire / Pistol, Knife. (1.5 | 29)
ARAGOTO Hacker (Hacking Device) Combi Rifle + Light Shotgun / Pistol, Knife. (0.5 | 37)
KARAKURI (Forward Observer) Combi Rifle, Chain Rifle, D.E.P. / Pistol, Knife. (39)
KARAKURI (Forward Observer) Mk12, Chain Rifle, D.E.P. / Pistol, Knife. (43)
KARAKURI (Forward Observer) Heavy Shotgun, Chain Rifle, D.E.P. / Pistol, Knife. (42)
KEMPEI (Chain of Command) Combi Rifle / Pistol, CCW, Electric Pulse. (24)
TOKUSETSU KOHEI Engineer Combi Rifle, D-Charges / Pistol, Knife. (14)
PANGGULING (EVO Repeater) Electric Pulse. (0.5 | 13)

4 SWC | 298 Points

Open with Army 4

If you take a regular Aragoto LT instead of Asuka (or drop the Mk12 to a second Heavy Shotgun), you can give the Tokusetsu a helperbot. But I don't want to lose Asuka's flamer.

To be honest, I think my first suggestion for making hordes less desirable in ITS is to make the games longer. 4-6 turns, not 3.

[WiseKensai]

Full disclosure: I'm still a relatively new player, and I've definitely been looking to get 14-ish orders at 300 points YAMS games if at all possible. I haven't fielded much in the way of MI, and certainly no HI or TAGs.

I'm enjoying this discussion very much! The points that I've extracted so far are (apologies if I've missed someone):

• Claudius Sol -- Using information I get from reading my opponent, I can make efficient use of my orders that better my chances of winning. More so than if I simply maximized model count.
• Claudius Sol -- The point I'm making, though, is not a focus on mobility, but rather a focus on efficiency.
• Harlekin -- Overall, I also feel the elite models highly underrated and all those cheap order monkeys overrated.
• macfergusson -- Personally, I would say that the oft-stated "maximize your order pool" is pointed more at the people bringing less than 10 models, not that everyone should be seeking to break in to a second combat group at a minimum.
• macfergusson -- As someone who has given advice like "maximize your orders" and "you probably shouldn't take a TAG due to how expensive it is", those are generally comments directed at very beginning newbies.
• Scorch -- I personally find it harmful for the game and the diversity it has to offer.

I certainly agree with maximizing order efficiency as well as reading your opponent. However, those aren't directly at odds with having 14+ orders. In fact, if you had 14+ orders to use very efficiently and take advantage of the intel you gleaned from reading your opponent, wouldn't that be better than having 10? If you took a veteran player and handed them a 14+ model list, it seems like they would get more flexibility, not less.

So what does having a ton of orders mean? Well, it means you have some more opportunities to make mistakes, your models are cheaper so it's harder to put you in retreat, and you can physically cover more of the board. Now, all of those things can be handled by just playing properly. Don't make mistakes, i.e. think very hard, practice yomi, be very efficient. Sell your model's lives at maximum efficiency, which plays to the previous point but perhaps with more of a focus on dice statistics and model positioning. Covering more of the board can also be handled by clever placement and close attention to model facing. You do, of course, lose some redundancy. In a 14+ model list you can have 2-3 models covering a particular zone, but in a 10 model list it becomes easier to punch a hole through your formation simply because your formation is thinner.

Anyway. I'm not disagreeing with the general thought that a 10 model list can be equal or better to a 14+ model list played by the same individual. The above was my ham-fisted attempt to set the stage for these questions:

What are we losing by bringing a large number of orders?

Phrased differently and from another vantage point:

What does building a 10 order list get you?

I think by answering these questions, we build a stronger case for taking "just" 10 orders. As a start: at 14+ models at 300 points, you have to bring more cheerleaders, so you lose diversity. You also are less likely to bring high point cost models like HI, TAGs, etc. At least some of your SWC is going to be spent on squishy, single-wound LI models.

It seems to me that the case we're trying to make in this thread is that we should try to field a 10 order list because: it forces us to take higher point-cost models, it forces to think more carefully about our order usage, and it adds more variety and fun to the game (especially in order-spam metas).

So we're looking for models which are high-costed, order efficient, and resilient to protect our investment. I suppose it's time for those who haven't tried fielding HI and TAGs to do so (like me!). They're expensive, and the TAG at least has good mobility (I have mostly CJC models currently). They also can carry good weapons and have interesting capabilities, and back that up with high ARM and W/STR to keep them on the board generating those precious orders.

What other model characteristics/abilities should newbie players trying to get into this style of play be paying attention to? Mobility seems to be a big part of "efficiency" and I've oft-heard that "wounds are the best stat." Thoughts?

[macfergusson]

If you've not ever once fielded a TAG or beefy HI, you definitely should. If only to have a better understanding of their limitations and strengths, if nothing else.

What other model characteristics/abilities should newbie players trying to get into this style of play be paying attention to? Mobility seems to be a big part of "efficiency" and I've oft-heard that "wounds are the best stat." Thoughts?

Look at the stats on a Wulver. They are a prime example of this, IMO. Pretty much the only way for Ariadna to pick up multi-wound models is a dog of some kind, and Wulvers are the only regular 2 wound model I believe.

I had no grasp of how strong they were when I started playing. Now that I've been in it for a while, I look over their stats and wonder what I was thinking before! 2 wounds, higher BS, high mobility, good weapon options... This Warband troop in Ariadna is the equivalent to a good HI in other factions, and it can be insanely useful if you have room for it on your lists.

Chances are, though, you won't fit a Wulver in a list that has more than 10 models, maybe 12 tops.

[Scorch]

If you took a veteran player and handed them a 14+ model list, it seems like they would get more flexibility, not less.

My comment on the flexibility was meant in a broader context than just 'the amount of orders', although I can understand you reading it that way.

The thing is that the certain units and/or certain profiles are considered subpar because the pure numbercrunching says others are 'more efficient'. Combine that with the focus on 'max orders' + 'max specialists' and you are limiting yourself in your available options.
It is unlikely you'll see an MRRF list across the table that doesn't sport the Chasseurs. QK without Kaplans/Odalisques but with Sekbans is unlikely. NCA with Bolts? Unlikely. Hassassins without Farzan CoC/Barid hacker? Probably not. Yu Jing Agents? Nah. Acontecimento with Bagh Mari linkteam? Can happen, but unlikely. Morats with Vanguards? Can happen, but again.. they are considered subpar by many. Shasvastii have access to 4 Gwailos, but most think the Gwailos aren't worth the points. And that's the 'damage' I see happening thanks to the focus on efficiency and numbercrunching.

Now, don't get me wrong. I understand people tend to go for certain models/profiles instead of others if they feel the other profiles let them down in the pass. But on the other hand, consider this:
You are a new player.. so I guess you stumble upon lots of threads like this, filled with opinions (that's right, opinions) about models/profiles.. and you hear people complain about..let's say Imperial Secret Service. They get lots of hate because of their worth in ITS, by some. We can read 'few specialist', 'specialist not worth the points', etc.
I doubt many will go for ISS, because they see lots of people talking about them as if they are the 40Ks Eldar. And that's something we need to keep in mind, especially on the forums. Because THAT can harm diversity and the flexibility of tactics. In my idea, everything CAN work in Infinity. But you need to learn how. Don't try to hammer with a screwdriver, or fix your carwindow with a drill. It won't work. If people say A is bad, than people won't learn to use it.

[FatherKnowsBest]

I agree Scorch. I despise all the number crunching. It's all meaningless to me. I just play what I like the look of. If I'm playing ITS, I grudgingly will squeeze in a couple of specialists, but man.....do I hate having to do that. Pisses me off to no end.

[Claudius Sol]

What are we losing by bringing a large number of orders?

You lose the ability to make careless mistakes without severe detriment. This is one of my main arguments. If you "hold yourself to a higher standard", so to speak, you learn quicker what constitutes a good action and what constitutes a bad action. This is key to becoming a better player.

You lose, a little, the ability to have redundancy. Less model count means less repeats of models, more often than not. This, again, forces you to "hold yourself to a higher standard". You can't go losing your specialists or heavy weapons all willy-nilly.

Both of those make the game "harder". But making the game harder usually helps make you better, in my experience. I've played games where I purposely (letting my opponent know, as well) take fewer points than the max as a sort of "test" or "challenge". I often don't win these scenarios but they teach me things that I would never learn otherwise. They force me to do things I would never think of doing. Rarely, those things turn out to provide much higher odds of success than what would be the expected norm.

You lose a specific strategy involving the massing of many specialists in a, for lack of a better term coming to mind, gamble to perform AROs and survive long enough to complete objectives. It should be clear, by now, my position on this strategy.

You lose some element of surprise. When you place down 9 models and they're all in the same combat group... Your opponent knows there is a high probability of you having AD or HD. You can also play this to your advantage and "suggest" to your opponent this way that he should cover his backfield, when there really is no need. I've played a similar trick by having two warcors in a second combat group while the primary combat group contained 9 models. My opponent was ever waiting for the Ninja Hacker. Even so much as to use Sensor+Discover on several occasions. Slightly tangent to what I'm responding to, I suppose.

What does building a 10 order list get you?

Building a 10 order list gives you complete flexibility in who you spend your orders on and when (barring irregular and impetuous).

Building a 10 order list paces your turns rather quicker than higher model count lists.

Building a 10 order list makes it harder to neuter your combat groups (in the case of having multiple combat groups with <10 models per group).

Building a 10 order list opens up points for usage on more "elite" troop choices such as Heavy Infantry, Skirmishers, TAGs, Medium Infantry, Support troops, REMs, etc.

I'm sure there's more to these two lists, but that's what I've got for now.

[macfergusson]

You lose some element of surprise. When you place down 9 models and they're all in the same combat group... Your opponent knows there is a high probability of you having AD or HD. You can also play this to your advantage and "suggest" to your opponent this way that he should cover his backfield, when there really is no need. I've played a similar trick by having two warcors in a second combat group while the primary combat group contained 9 models. My opponent was ever waiting for the Ninja Hacker. Even so much as to use Sensor+Discover on several occasions. Slightly tangent to what I'm responding to, I suppose.

This is another reason Minelayers are super useful, that often aren't considered. If you have a 10 model list with 2 camo minelayers (bringing along their 2 camo markers at deployment), you can then keep 2 models in AD/Hidden without as much suspicion. They count up 6 models, 4 camo markers, and that makes a full combat group.

[Scorch]

I agree Scorch. I despise all the number crunching. It's all meaningless to me. I just play what I like the look of. If I'm playing ITS, I grudgingly will squeeze in a couple of specialists, but man.....do I hate having to do that. Pisses me off to no end.

Haha, not so much pissed off. More annoyed. I just don't like playing ITS. I am planning on a DS-mission system, focussing more on narrative, less on list building and narrative. More like Paradiso, where you can tune your list to what's ahead. Waiting for N3 to start writing.

I don't know, but the terrain rules, thematic structures of many armies (many close range weapons in haqq for example, that usually (fluffwise) fights in facilities, or ships) really make me wonder if Infinity started out with ITS in mind. I have the feeling it was meant more for narrative stuff. Why not create it?

Sure, it won't get popular with the competitive peeps. Fine, they have ITS. No problem. It's all matter of taste. I don't mean this as a stab to their preferences, but the amount of stuff that's available to the game itself, and the amount of stuff that is used in-game is skewered in my idea. It is one of the richest games I've seen.. On level with some RPGs.. Why not use it to your advantage, and work out something really cool.

Seeing the fluff available, there is lots to work with, as all these little articles leave so much room to fill in yourself.

Edit: much drunk, so excuse spelling mistakes

[kingfrankzappa]

This is an awesome discussion. After the recent "less than ten, you're dead" thread on the official forum I've been trying to play with single combat group lists with my CHA as much as possible.

I kinda have to agree with the crowd that say much of order efficiency is in maneuverability. Sectorials with limited access to impetuous or forward deployment options will definitely struggle with only 10 orders.

[Claudius Sol]

This is an awesome discussion. After the recent "less than ten, you're dead" thread on the official forum I've been trying to play with single combat group lists with my CHA as much as possible.

I kinda have to agree with the crowd that say much of order efficiency is in maneuverability. Sectorials with limited access to impetuous or forward deployment options will definitely struggle with only 10 orders.

Glad you're enjoying the discussion! Feel free to elaborate more on your view of the matter.

I don't think maneuverability needs necessarily walk hand-in-hand with high order count. I've been working on an objective based CJC list (Corregidor) involving Wildcats in a single combat group. Support would come in the form of a TAG and potentially Morans to hold the midline. I'm really divided and haven't so much as even proxied these things out as I've just played mental XCOM with the list. I'm having a rougher time making the list since I'm not a big player of CJC and the army is kinda a quaternary army (behind my JSA, Tohaa, ALEPH). Anyway, in a lot of my mental simulations the Wildcat team comes out well and the Morans even live a lot of the time if I deploy them a little reservedly and with proper support. I'll admit having 4-2 "line" troops with only one wound is a little difficult to properly utilize. Something I'm still getting the hang of, mentally, before I attempt it on the tabletop.

[verysilentmouse]

My experience with ITS and Shock Army works best with the 14 odd with the 7 orders in each combat group. Disclaimer haven't played in an actual tournament, but my local group only plays ITS.

[Scorch]

My experience with ITS and Shock Army works best with the 14 odd with the 7 orders in each combat group. Disclaimer haven't played in an actual tournament, but my local group only plays ITS.

Sounds like lots of remotes for them. I am really digging Acon's style, and am waiting for a Bagh Mari resculpt to make them in tune with Rao and other MI.

[Claudius Sol]

I didn't play during the game, but here are my thoughts on how much, if at all, ITS has affected my ability to "read" my "opponent".

I watched a game played between two of my friends. It was YAMS and pitted Morats vs. Military Orders.

There was only a slight difference in my reading ability. I had, roughly guessing at it, an 85% accuracy at reading my opponents with 10% of the remaining 15% being very close predictions with very slight variance. The biggest change I noted was remembering what the YAMS missions were and having to make an extra effort to predict what missions each player had. Not being involved in the game may have artificially boosted my ability to predict actions since I wasn't having to craft tactics at the same time. Though, these accuracy statistics are roughly on par (slightly lower than) with my usual predictive performance for the involved players.

One thing completely slipped me up towards the end, but it was generally agreed afterward between all players that the move I had predicted would have been the better option and that player just hadn't noticed the option. On the plus side, the option he went with was my third choice of action. I also messed up a few predictions due to criticals shifting probability.

[Harlekin]

Thanks for the feedback. Interesting read.