# FactionRPG Optional Rules

Certain settings and player preferences might benefit from making slight changes to the core FactionRPG rules. These alternate mechanics are presented here.

## Infiltration

Infiltrate attacks represent the myriad of ways one can gather information about an asset, for example: bugging a conference room, examining clues left at the scene of a crime, exploring the wilderness, interrogating prisoners, prospecting for mineral deposits, spying on individuals, etc. If enough information is gained, you can turn the target asset to your cause, for example: bribing those in the enemy's employ, luring automatons into a trap, poisoning a politician's mind with hypnosis, etc.

This action allows you to gather profiles on hidden assets. If the action is exceptionally successful, then you may also outright seize control of the asset. The faction that contributed the most strength to the action decides which of the attacking factions gains control of the asset. In the case of a tie, the faction that decides who gains control of the asset will be decided randomly.

Beware of the risk, however, that if your attack is thwarted, your assets may become damaged or compromised.

INFILTRATE Effect if action is targeted Effect if action is "a shot in the dark" Additional Effect if one of the attacking assets has Specialization
$\text{Strength} \geq (\text{Defense} + \text{Value})$ The asset becomes corrupted and you gain another profile at random. Defender does not know the attack was made. Gain a profile on the asset. Defender does not know the attack was made. Interrogation: Also, the attacking factions gain another profile on a hidden asset belonging to the faction that had control of the targeted asset.
$\text{Strength} > \text{Defense} \,$ Gain another profile at random or learn that the defending faction has no other hidden assets. Defender does not know the attack was made. Gain a profile on the asset. Defender does not know the attack was made. -
$\text{Strength} = \text{Defense} \,$ The attack fails with no effect and the defender is not informed about the attack. The attack fails with no effect and the defender is not informed about the attack. -
$\text{Strength} < \text{Defense} \,$ Defender knows which faction(s) made the attack. Defender may choose one of these options:

a) The attacker knows the attack failed. The attacking assets lose total value equal to (Defense - Strength) assigned randomly among them.

b) Attacker thinks the attack has no effect and the attacker thinks the defender does not know the attack was made.

c) The attacker thinks the attack was successful and thinks that the defender has no (other) hidden assets.

d) The attacker thinks the attack was successful and the defender chooses which additional profile(s) are gained (the defender may choose to give two additional profiles if any of the attackers have Interrogation). The defender randomly gains a number of profiles on the attacking assets equal to (Defense - Strength).

e) The defender gives the attacker false control of the asset, turning it into a honeypot for the attackers. The defender must also choose either c) or d).

Defender knows which faction(s) made the attack. Defender may choose one of these options:

a) The attacker knows the attack failed. The attacking assets lose total value equal to (Defense - Strength) assigned randomly among them.

b) Attacker thinks the attack has no effect and the attacker thinks the defender does not know the attack was made.

c) The attacker thinks the attack was successful and thinks that the defender has no (other) hidden assets.

d) The attacker thinks the attack was successful and the defender chooses which additional profile(s) are gained (the defender may choose to give two additional profiles if any of the attackers have Interrogation). The defender randomly gains a number of profiles on the attacking assets equal to (Defense - Strength).

Planning: Instead, the attack fails with no effect and the defender is not informed about the attack.

### Corruption

An exceptionally successful targeted Infiltrate attack results in the target asset becoming corrupted by one of the attacking factions. We say that "(the asset) has been corrupted by (the faction)". This has the following effects:

• The asset continues to belong to its current owner and continues to count towards its current owner's reach, use its current owner's specialization, etc.
• The faction that has corrupted the asset always has a profile on the asset, even if the asset becomes Shrouded.
• Each turn, the faction that has corrupted the asset may choose to cause the asset to defect, immediately seizing control of the asset.
• There is no way to know if one of your assets has been corrupted by another faction.
If an asset belongs to Faction A and has been previously corrupted by Faction B then becomes corrupted by Faction C, the following occurs:
1. Faction C believes they have corrupted the asset.
2. Faction B believes the asset is still corrupted by them, which means that the asset now a honeypot belonging to Faction A that can be used against Faction B.
3. Faction A is not aware of any corruption.

If an asset belongs to Faction A and has been previously corrupted by Faction B then becomes corrupted by Faction A, the following occurs:
1. Faction A believes they have corrupted the asset.
2. Faction B believes the asset is still corrupted by them, which means that the asset now a honeypot belonging to Faction A that can be used against Faction B.

If an asset belongs to Faction A and has been previously corrupted by Faction B then becomes the subject of a failed Infiltration attack by Faction C, the following occurs:
1. Faction A is made aware of the failed attack and may choose the consequences of the attack.
2. Faction B is made aware of the failed attack and the consequences of the attack.


Beware that leaving an asset corrupted without causing it to defect, while providing an excellent means to further infiltrate the faction, allows for the possibility that another faction will corrupt the asset and the asset will become a honeypot that can be used against you.

### Defection

During the Orders Phase, a faction that has corrupted an asset may give the asset orders which will cause the asset to defect. We say that "(the asset) has defected to (the faction)". When this happens, the following occurs:

• The asset immediately belongs to the new faction and counts towards its new owner's reach, uses its new owner's specialization, etc.
• The asset performs the orders given to it by its new owner instead of any orders given to it by its former owner.
• The previous owner gains a profile on the asset.

### Honeypots

Any time a faction believes that they have corrupted an asset when in fact they have not, for example when performing an exceptionally unsuccessful targeted Infiltration attack, results in the asset becoming a honeypot. We say that "(the asset) is a honeypot for (the faction)". This has the following effects:

• All Infiltrate attacks made by (the faction) on (the asset) automatically fail.
• If (the asset) becomes hidden, (the faction) loses their profile on (the asset) and (the asset) ceases to be a honeypot for (the faction).
• If (the faction) attempts to cause (the asset) to defect, the defection does not occur and (the asset) ceases to be a honeypot for (the faction).