Battlemode FAQ and feedback

Hi all,

based on a couple of comments that have come out of threads I wanted to compile an FAQ/Errata specifically for Battle Mode as it is somewhat its own entity within the game.

So far I am aware of the following issues, but if there are more questions, or if there is feedback on any of the scenarios and how they play/score, please do list them here so I can add them to the document.

  • Faction listings need to be clarified as explicitly binding you to those choices only.
  • Objective markers in scenarios need to be clarified as to if they are intractable beyond the parameters defined (eg can you search searchables etc).
  • Clarify Minor/Major victory

Great idea! I’m looking to get a game in this week with a friend. We’ll do a Battle-Mode scenario and note if anything confusing comes up. Thanks!

On the suggested game sizes: after playing just under 20 games, I’d contend that your suggested sizes are a bit inflated. My group has been playing anywhere from 250-750 caps regularly.

  • 500 may be a smaller game for experienced players (it’s starting to feel that way to me), but to a new player it may involve almost every model they own! (the assumption may be that new players are less likely to play battle mode, which is probably fair)

  • 750 definitely feels like a “large game,” usually taking a bit over 2 hours. Tournaments running 750 cap games are going to be struggling with at least some of the players running up against time limits (a similar situation arose for the Battlefleet Gothic events at Adepticon, where over the past few years they’ve been incrementally reducing the game sizes in an attempt to allow even 50% of games to not be called due to time).

  • 1000 seems like more of an XL or XXL game size.

On Terrain:

  • Terrain always placed at least Yellow away from other terrain makes sense for larger battle games where mass maneuvering is important, but for a thematic skirmish game it’s incredibly limiting. Rows of buildings, a pile of trash next to a house, or a car crashed into the edge of a stand of trees are all disallowed under this rule, but are the type of terrain that make a beautiful battlefield and which can force interesting tactical situations.

  • There should probably be some sort of guideline for what counts as a “piece of terrain.” Designating a number (12-16, or 14 depending on method chosen) doesn’t help much without context. 16 individual trees/cars will look a lot different than 12 6" stands of woodland/5-car-pile-ups. Does a large 10" building still just count as one piece, or should it take up multiple slots?

On Objectives

  • I assume players are supposed to write down which investigation marker corresponds to which objective? If so, wording should reflect that.

  • When exactly are objectives placed? The section says “before each game,” but you don’t know which table half is yours until partway through the Battelfield Setup portion of the scenario. Are they placed as soon as deployment edges are decided? After deploying models but before the first turn?

  • Alternating placing objectives one at a time AND alternating placing models one at a time adds up in terms of time spent deploying. This is related to my earlier point about tournament times and suggested game size. Experienced players not prone to analysis paralysis won’t have a problem, but for many players you can expect a baseline of maybe 30 seconds per objective if waiting to see what the opponent does and analyzing as they go. That adds up to 5 min just placing objectives! (It may seem like allowing players to plan their next move while the opponent places an objective would help, but perhaps counter-intuitively, this always slows down placement in my experience, regardless of the game).

On scenarios:

  • Hold the Line: wording should be clarified to, “A player controls a Searchable Marker if they have at least one friendly model in base contact with it at the end of the round, as long a no enemy models are also in base contact with the same marker.”

  • Defend Your Stash: wording needs the same update as Hold the Line above. Also, there should be something to tell you how to decide which diagonal table corners the home objective markers should be placed in (it’s very possible that Player A prefers they be in corners 1 and 3, while Player B prefers they be in corners 2 and 4)

  • Extract the Information: can a marker be scored once per round per player, once per round for hackers AND once for smashers, or once per round period? The wording is ambiguous.
    Also, Agility is an awkward skill to use for the smashers; obviously Super Mutants will use it, while Brotherhood will go for hackers. But most Survivors models have better Agility than Use Computers, and unless you really skew your list build (free techs + Codsworth for example) a list that has better Agility has MUCH better Agility than a list that has better Use Computers. It’s not a problem per se, but strange that a scenario about extracting information will usually be both sides trying to smash the computers, (side-note that, “smashing” using Agility sounds quite wrong. Some other name for the non-hacker faction may be better, maybe saboteurs?).

  • Raiders: when are VPs scored in this scenario? At the end of each round? It’d be nice to change the Searchable Markers in the diagram to have 2 letters and a blank per side, as those are the markers actually used. The distances on the diagram also don’t line up with the distances specified in the Battlefield Setup section. (Setup has two markers Black from the table edges, diagram has them at Red). The fluff intro is…very disconnected from the mechanics of the scenario. Both sides are simultaneously the ones who worked intensely, and also the ones who prefer to steal than toil, and the settlements are a stone’s throw apart?

  • Scrapyard: this scenario has the same issue as Raiders does with the diagram and the descriptions conflicting.

  • Miscellaneous thought: while I’m glad that this game doesn’t revolve around killing each other, I’m a little disappointed that none of the scenarios offer a source of VPs for things like killing the opponent’s leader, scoring the first kill, or killing more enemies than your opponent. Even 1 VP for things like that, in addition to the scenario objectives and secret investigation marker objectives would be interesting. Either as a general rule or included in certain scenarios.

Suggestion, less about an FAQ and more just in general. Maybe something around WYSIWYG (as some games are pedantic about it, and if you play that game for a while it becomes habit) - the expectations around what you need to do and whatnot.

Of course, that does lead to a suggestion for a weapons upgrade pack for those of us that like cutting up miniatures and replacing things. :wink:

Weapons pack is closer than you might think :wink:

I am very keen on WYSIWYG but based on the sheer variety of models and weapons in Fallout, we decided against enforcing it. More power to you if you do decide to convert everything though, I plan to once I get a few more minis in hand.


I would like to know about how Mama Murphy’s Foresight will function in tournament setup. Clearly, Boost cards are not in play, but what about looking at objective markers? I am concerned about potentially being stunted to only being ABLE to use 2/3 foresight points available (which would sort of make her a poor choice for competition, and that would make me super sad. )

Hi, Guys! I have question about Objectives markers in the Battle mode game. Soon there (in Russia) we have another one big tournament.

  1. Please explain to us, can players use differ side of markers? and on other side we have picture of skillcheck. (in rulebook using investigation markers for both players) Because we make custom markers.

  2. And how to plase it. Secretly located means that player did not know where his own perk located and place markers randomly? Because word randomly more understandable.

  3. Objective markers is Investigation markers? A player can look at any face-down Investigation Marker in Awareness range. Or it’s not investigation and can be open only on B-t-B contact.

  4. And what the point to enemy forse look at marker.

  5. I read Forum, but on january, 2019 was write that will be errata and FAQ for battlemode. Where it? Because battle mode is main battle in Russian increasing community

With best wishes, Aleksey and Russian community

1 Like

Hey there.

1 - You can use anything to represent the objectives (may I suggest our nice 30mm scenic objectives available from the store :wink: ) but the player must record somewhere what each one represents when they pick from the Objective list. We suggested the tokens as you don’t use them in Battle Mode, but its a nice thing for players to create their own set of 30mm custom objectives or else use the ones we make.

2 - players should know what they are putting down. Maybe keep a little map or note if you forget, but essentially the tokens are bonus quests for each side to get extra VPs. You know where your missions are (and what they do) but not your opponents unless you move B2B as per the rules.

3 - do not use the rules for Investigation or Searchable tokens. They are purely objectives that work as per the Battle Mode rules. In an update I will change this to 5 30mm bases (or 5 scenic objectives) but you will need to be able to identify them so you can assign the missions/quests to each one. Only B2B can look at them, but each player should remember (or make a note of) what their missions are as they pick and deploy them.

4 - so they can try to stop you finishing an objective. Most likely they won’t/can’t but it gives another tactical option if the game is very close.

5 - Battle mode has taken a back seat to the narrative elements of the game as that seems to be where our main player base is. However , its good to know Russia plays battle mode (its the way I like to play) and I am still planning an update. Hopefully I will have more on that in the near future.

I’d love to hear more about your events and how you are playing. If you wanted to help us develop the rules (do we need more missions, are the missions unbalanced etc) it would really help me make Battle Mode better.


I’d love to help make battle mode better. Maybe we should see if we can organize some games in TableTop Simulator? That’s what all the Infinity players have been doing during isolation.

Right, gotta try out the simulator!

We’ve got a module set up, that sounds like a great idea of for sure.

I can get folks under NDA and into the playtest environment if anyone is interested. Drop me a line.


Our group would be interested, but none of us has the simulator. Currently we can still meet and play in our country.

Happy to do both real and digital for sure, it all helps :slight_smile:


Perfect. Just let us know how to and we will do our best :wink:

1 Like

I’m interested. I didn’t realize there was a TTS mod already. I’ll check it out this evening.

Good afternoon! Me and my friend who asked the questions above, we represent the Russian community. We play exclusively in battle mode. We are ready to take part. The total number of players we have is 22 people in St. Petersburg and 28 in Moscow. What do you need to do to join the test program?

1 Like

Hello, Jon!
In Saint-Petersburg, Russia, we have a FWW players community with numbers over 20 and near so in the Moscow. We are regullary running tournaments with Battlemod rules and will be glad to take part in the playtests with feedbacks.
You can see a foto and reports from our`s events on the FWW official page on Facebook (by Kserks Assiriyskiy messages).
Also we have TTS and it is possible to make playtests online.
If we can help your with it, please take us on board :slight_smile: