• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Time Online

    4763d 12h 35m 58s

Community Reputation

1020 Excellent

1 Follower

About Spleen

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

1,610 profile views
  1. This is really interesting and appears to be correct to me. The only restrictions the ARO rules apply is that they must " choose the trooper activated by the Order as their target. " (obviously it's in the singular since coordinated, link teams, g:sync etc are more advanced) None of the rules that activate multiple troopers seem to refine this down to only being able to target the model that "provided" the ARO. I think the CG would in fact allow you to hack the crane effectively as though it didn't have stealth.
  2. You've answered my question here seemingly by ignoring it although perhaps I'm missing something? I understand that the rest of your post naturally follows from this assumption, I'm disputing the validity of these claims though. I think you get something at least resembling an ARO, even if not a real fully fledged ARO, when the CG activates regardless of if you are capable of hacking him or not, because anything less is disobeying the Repeater rules which explicitly state: In the same way, they can also react with Hacking Programs to enemy Orders declared in the Zone of Control of the Repeater as if it were their Zone of Control. Any result which is not exactly as if the event had happened in their normal Zone of Control fails to meet the dictates of this rule.
  3. Why does it depend on the hacking device you have? The relevant rules from the repeater section allow you to hack in ZOC of the repeater as though it was the ZOC of the hacker, if you activated the CG in the ZOC of the hacker it would force him to declare some sort of ARO against it or lose the ability to ARO, regardless of the type of hacking device you have. Isn't it then true that, if you ever ignore the CG and declare your ARO after the second skill, regardless of if you are able to hack him or not, you are inherent'y NOT hacking as though it was your ZOC and thus breaking the repeater rules?
  4. Right, but the cost of Fatality L2 probably isn't far off +1 BS for one of these units, based on Khawarij apparently paying a point for it. So any theoretically BS12 Fatality L2 unit would in lieu of the skill existing probably just be a BS 13 unit. I don't see "has existed from the start" as an excuse for something, it's either a good mechanic or it's not, regardless of how new it is. It just seems farcical to me to claim a BS12 unit paying for a skill that makes it on par with a BS13 unit is in any way alarming. Is it worrisome that there's CC20 units with martial arts 3 that can in the right circumstances get a 20% chance to crit just like a CC23 unit without martial arts?
  5. I assume you also don't like the implications of BS13 units existing?
  6. No I mean the N3 incarnation. N3 dropped late 2014, shortly after Operation Icestorm, it heralded a new Azra'il profile with an S5 silhouette and a lot of speculation about what he would look like. We would eventually get the new Azra'il Feuerbach model in March 2015, on his larger base, at this time, Human Sphere remained largely unchanged, including the link options. I played S5 Azra'il with S2 Hafza as 5 man core links, I'm not just saying I miss it to rile something up, I legitimately used to use this thing and miss having the option. Here is a thread of people discussing the ability to link the Azra'il with Hafza in 2015 And here is the post from that thread where people are confirming that not only are links using 4 Hafza dead, but Azra'il has lost his core linkability anyway in June 2016 shortly after HSN3 release
  7. I had plenty of fun putting their N3 incarnation in core links of Hafza before CB took away my ability to do that in HSN3 I miss the Azra'il core link that I used to run... QK are alright, but generally anything they do can be done better by someone else, you need to combo specific things together to make the most of them, and it just sucks to be basically the only faction who was losing options in HSN3 and still have nothing to show for it. P.S: I'd happily settle for a single Az'rail going in a Janissary core link, instead of the old 4x Hafza 1x Azrail link.
  8. The biggest boost for them would be a long ranged ARO weapon, yeah sure they get Hafza HRLs now, but that doesn't help them leverage their SSL2 while in a Haris or solo, if they had a sniper that would be real nice and give them an interesting unique role. Of course, I'd sooner predict Caliphate getting a SSL2 Haris linkable sniper unit than QK getting nice things. BRING BACK AZ'RAIL CORE!
  9. I love the way the armour on the back kinda bulks her out a bit and shows she's HI without playing with the delicate look too much, I think it strikes a really fine balance and works well. When I use Asura's currently I often find myself reminding people they are ARM 5, so I think it would be great if they got a little beefed up without taking it too far.
  10. I was specifically referencing eclipse smoke sorry, should have been clearer.
  11. sure, but it's a thing that only 50% of the factions have and of those that have it 3 have it in a fairly limited capacity. It's no coincidence that the sectorials where it's AVA is increased ALL give up other major game elements their vanilla faction would otherwise have. I'll agree that Tohaa were a mistake though.
  12. ITS has already swung in that direction in a big way from where it was a year or two ago, I'd be a bit disappointed I think if it was to go any further.
  13. It's basically your only HI Specialist choice in Nomads, and I think that alone will always keep it relevant, I mean don't get me wrong Grrls are great, but I think the frenzy hurts them in a non-linked context, at least in terms of durability, which I think is what your HI specialists need to offer. I certainly find room for a MB Hacker in my QK lists from time to time.
  14. There's definitely something there, I recall at least 2 people from Cancon this year who said they were from Tasmania and I've seen people organise ITS events for there. I'd suggest if you haven't tried already join the "Infinity Australia" facebook group and ask around there, they might have their own Tasmanian local group too but I don't know about it.
  15. There is no adequate text for explaining whether troopers get to disjoint forward by a base width when reaching the top of an object they are climbing or not. The examples don't help much either, as immediately below that image, which suggests you get a free base width, is another image which suggests you have to pay the full distance in horizontal movement when the object is wider. Generally by virtue of climb being a long skill and practicality, you do get that distance onto the object for free, because technically without climbing plus you can't make a horizontal move as part of your climb, but you also can't end your move in a position where your base isn't fully supported, so if you didn't get to move onto an object the skill would kind of fall apart. The rules are also unclear if you pivot around the corner while transitioning, or simply immediately shift from one surface to the other without occupying any intermediary space, if you pivot then you should basically always have a point out of cover when transitioning, if you teleport you could theoretically move straight into cover with a piece of scenery on top of the thing you are climbing and assuming you are using a ladder, you could then claim cover.