Tamrielo

Members
  • Content count

    1,851
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Time Online

    979d 12h 4m 43s

Community Reputation

2598 Excellent

About Tamrielo

  • Rank
    Information Broker

ITS

  • ITS PIN G8344

Recent Profile Visitors

1,957 profile views
  1. You've also been playing the game for years, and have a pretty solid concept of design intent and how certain rules can chain together in Infinity, as well as a fairly long history of following the rules forums and seeing how other interactions shake out. The rules themselves aren't clear-- show a new player the listed rules and ask what the mods are at the end; very few are going to intuit the above chain of events, particularly because they're inconsistent with the rest of the shooting rules. "You're never going to forget it after the first time it happens" is exactly the kind of bad play experience that I think is bad design. It's "haha, gotcha! you get punished for doing what seems to be the intuitively correct thing!" I still don't know whether you gain or lose the cover bonus, or how distance mods are drawn. I've been playing this game for years and I can't answer that question with certainty, simply because the listed exception is not detailed enough. At best my interpretation would be "the template is static, but you can pick mods like any other shot", which is at least somewhat consistent with other rules and avoids a large part of the bad play experience, but even through this discussion I don't think that's clear. Given that the entire section about Orders being simultaneous suggests that the intent is that there be no functional difference between Shoot->Move and Move->Shoot (and other, similar ordering stacks), I find it very surprising that impact templates should change that intent so dramatically. Also, there are plenty of weapons that lack a non-template mode: all grenades, all grenade launchers, smart missiles, and light shotguns. Not exactly a small subset of available weapons.
  2. Because it's explicitly inconsistent with the rest of the shooting rules without enough detail as to reasoning or implications. There are multiple examples of impact templates, but this kind of important one is overlooked. It's an unintuitive "gotcha" rule that makes for a bad play experience on the receiving end, which I pretty much think is bad design regardless of where and how it appears. It's not a balance issue; I don't have strong opinions about it being balanced one way or another. I have more issue with the play experience of "haha, got you out of cover thanks to this obscure rules interaction" that anyone who isn't a rules forum regular isn't going to intuit.
  3. Er, not that it's terribly relevant to this, but I've kind of been playing this game for quite a while. One of the biggest improvements between N2 and N3 from my perspective was the streamlining and elimination of exactly this kind of loophole. I'm pretty familiar with the game-- this stands out to me as a rules exception that is inconsistent with the direction the game has been moving over the past 5 or so years.
  4. I mean, to be entirely clear, I think that's a terrible interpretation, because it creates rules loopholes and trickery that give an undue advantage to players who delve into rules minutiae, and is unintuitive compared to the rest of the shooting rules, but I want to be clear about how it's supposed to be played.
  5. This is my question as well. I am looking at your unit from around a corner where we both have cover. I can move with one Short Move skill to a position such that neither of us have cover. The standard resolution makes no difference between me declaring Move+Shoot and Shoot+Move, because since we can both pick any point along my movement to resolve, you get to fire at me out of cover and I get to fire at you out of cover. If you have an impact template, I appear to suddenly get these two options: Move+Shoot. In this case, we both are denied cover, because you place the template at any point along my Move, including points where I don't have cover. Shoot+Move. In this case, because you are forced to declare your ARO in response to my Shoot, you MUST shoot me in cover, whereas I can then walk out of cover and shoot you such that you don't have cover. Is there a third option, such that you must place the impact template down but can then alter the range/cover/etc mods based on my movement? Can I 'cheat' certain troops by forcing them to declare at an unfavorable time but gaining the full benefits of my own Move?
  6. In general, Infinity is very well balanced. The Intruder is stronger enough, used properly, to be worth 9 points more than a Nisse, and a Mobile Brigada has options (particularly as part of the Corregidor sectorial) that the Father-Knight doesn't. If you find another faction that you like the look of better-- perhaps you'd like to use your Intruder more like a Nisse, in which case the Nisse will look better, or you prefer the way the Father-Knight works, definitely give it a shot, perhaps even proxy the pieces in some test games before spending money. While the factions are generally very balanced, there's definitely playstyle that comes into consideration, and you may prefer to play in a way that doesn't mesh well with Nomad strengths. That all having been said, here's my take on Nomads vs PanO: PanO: Good at shooting, but very straightforward and fairly predictable. There's not a lot of trickiness or asymmetric play with PanO, they tend to just try to outshoot you in straight fights because they often lack the tools to stack odds in their favor by striking at unexpected angles. Lots of very strong high-end troops and a few very well optimized middle-end troops, but generally underwhelming cheap troops. Specialists are a notable weakness, both because PanO has fewer of them and generally low WIP across the board, so one you start playing with objectives their weaknesses show more. Lots of HI and generally poor hacking defense means strong hackers can hit them hard. Still, "shoot them better than they can shoot you" is a strong play. Most PanO units, as mentioned above, are very good at doing one thing, so if you need something done and don't have a units specifically good at it, you can struggle to fill the gap. Nomads: Good at highly versatile units, which makes them seem trickier than most. Playing Nomads effectively requires a really broad and flexible playstyle, using all of the tools at your disposal and surprising your enemies from unexpected angles. Nomads have lots of very strong middle-end troops which taper off at both the low and high end, so a Nomad force is likely to have a lot of medium-cost units with a broad toolbox, which means power is dispersed across a lot more units than other factions, and also that Nomads rarely have a single lynchpin unit on which their tactics rely. With average shooting, good-but-not-superlative WIP, and incredibly strong hackers, they are very good at adapting to pretty much any situation. The cost is that Nomads feel each loss more keenly than other factions, because oftentimes every unit in a Nomad list is doing two or three jobs, so taking a hit or a lucky crit can often mean losing a big part of your toolbox.
  7. Re: Grenzers vs Wildcats: Wildcats have a point spread of 17-25, for a full link that's 85-125 points. Grenzers have a point spread of 23-32, for a full link that's 115-160 points. The lowest-possible-end link cost for a Grenzer team is 30 points more than Wildcats, which is a whole extra unit, and not a simple cheerleader or warband, either. Wildcats then have slightly better loadouts, whereas Grenzers have MSV1 instead of Multiterrain. If you're playing on boards that use the full complement of terrain rules, Multiterrain on your 4-2 MI is very, very good. MSV1 is not to be sneezed at, certainly, but are you really getting 6 points of extra value out of every single model in that link? 30 points overall? Is having MSV1 on a handful of link filler guys really worth more than a BSG Spektr? The FO/Sensor Grenzer is pretty good, but you're probably not going to spend 27 points per filler guy; the Riot Grrl comparison is apt because when you start talking about mid-20s point units, you're now talking about HI links in the current meta. Wu Ming, arguably the best HI link in the game right now, start at 25 points for their 'filler' guys. In Infinity, I would much rather have an ARM 0 W 2 unit than an ARM 3 W 1 unit. Hell, I'd rather have an ARM 0 W 2 unit than an ARM 5 W 1 unit. Ask any Tohaa or ALEPH player, that extra bit of raw survivability makes a huge difference in the kinds of choices you can make and risks you can take. It literally means you can walk out into most single AROs without worrying about losing the unit, which is a huge tactical boon. Anyway, part of why I mentioned the "shadowrunner" style of links for Tunguska is because both the Securitate's special 'thing' (mobile Repeater) and the Grenzer would be really great in a versatile link with each other. I don't necessarily want or need more than one of either, but I do think they'd make a good addition. Plus, it'd be unique while still staying in the existing constraints of the game and make Tunguska feel unique without having to flood a ton of new units in just to make the sectorial feel 'filled out'. It's seemed to be a direction they've been looking; trying to find interesting ways to make sectorials feel unique and cool without simply giving them more units and bloating Vanilla.
  8. I'm underwhelmed by Grenzers, even in a link. Most of the really good 1W linkable troops that aren't basic line infantry are in the 17-25 point range, and Grenzers start at the high end of that range. By the time I have a full team of Grenzers, versus comparable 1W links, I could afford a Spektr. I pretty much expect to see a revamped Securitate, though I think they would be fine with some minor tweaks. They'd be a very good Haris option. I'm secretly hoping to see a Tunguska rule like "Fireteam: Crew" wherein linkable troops in Tunguska may form a Core link but may not have more than one of any included unit. I think that would make for a thematic, shadowrunner style aesthetic for the sectorial. In general, though, I think we're going to see a LOT more Tunguskan units for a sectorial to make much sense.
  9. If you're going to take Bolts, take them with a plan to use their entire toolkit as best you can. Bring them with a Lt that is likely to die before they do (Squalo is a good example), use them to hold positions in midfield, and commit to that plan. Bolts are an extremely specialized use case that looks like a generic, overpriced unit. It is largely also that second thing, but in the right list with the right strategy and right tactic, they can be the right choice for the job. And, like anything, play what you like. If you really love how Bolts look or their fluff or just love having shotguns on your line infantry, you can make them work. If you're looking for a reason to justify their existence, you'll find a thousand arguments against ever including them. I don't use them; every time I've made a list with them I've retooled that list to do something I like more without them. I think Auxilia are better CQB troops point for point, even after all the nerfs, and I like them aesthetically and conceptually a lot more anyway. I have seen lists where I think Bolts are simply the right choice, and while I personally tend to make those same lists in a different faction and accomplish the same thing only (in my opinion) better, there's something to be said for letting Neoterra play in that particular sandbox.
  10. Don't apply your Avatar to their Marut. Apply it elsewhere, and tie up the Marut with cheaper units. There's almost certainly going to be smoke available to the Marut, and so you want to ensure your Avatar isn't in a position to be attacked by the Marut directly. In that straight fight, the Marut plus one support unit (coming in at less than the cost of your Avatar) outclasses you. You need to break the support network for the Marut first, and starve it of orders. Draw it out, ideally away from its support-- if you can get it to end its turn out of range of Myrmidons, you can capitalize on that and get into a firefight on your terms. Otherwise, you're going to wind up with a Marut covered by smoke taking ARO potshots at you. If ALEPH goes first, you want your Avatar as far away from the Marut as possible, forcing it to either do nothing or move out of position. If you can draw it out enough, send in a Daturazi or something, engage it in melee before it can flame you, and then do whatever you need to with the Avatar, particularly killing Myrmidons who can free up the Marut.
  11. Phlyk really hit the nail on the head. To add to it, I like how the Lt special rule, despite being consistently applied across all factions, behaves very differently depending on the faction. It creates a lot of strategic variance between factions and allows people to come up with ways to use their lieutenants in interesting, varied ways. I get a real sense of a solid, well-established command structure when I'm playing Yu Jing, and when I play PanO I get a sense of a more laissez-faire army with less ingrained hierarchy. Nomads give me a similar vibe, and ALEPH forces me to really consider my Lt choices for optimal deployment, simply because I need to be sure about where I'm spending my limited points. I especially like units that get Lt options or Chain of Command within a sectorial but not in Vanilla, because oftentimes those minor changes alter the entire way a sectorial can approach listbuilding. The Lt rule creates a really interesting dynamic and a surprisingly effective catch-up mechanism for a savvy player who's behind.
  12. Because minis games do not have large enough playerbases to develop a representative sample size. Even the biggest, most heavily attended tournaments are not large enough (by an order of magnitude or more) for that kind of statistical analysis to hold water, because the sample sizes simply aren't large enough compared to the possible permutations of the game. There are also myriad other factors that determine what the "top" players play, and in general "top players" win because they are top players, not because they're playing the "best options". This is true even in other competitive formats where the sample sizes ARE large enough to determine a suite of "best" options (see: League of Legends)-- the top players there often play "lower-tier" picks simply because it provides them an unpredictable edge or because they're uniquely comfortable with that pick. At any rate. The last time I played Tohaa was with a Kamael-heavy list. I can't provide a battle report (it was more than a year ago), but I can provide the list and the general strategy: Tohaa ────────────────────────────────────────────────── GROUP 110 KAMAEL (Forward Observer) Combi Rifle / Pistol, Knife. (0 | 13) KAMAEL Sniper Rifle / Pistol, Knife. (0.5 | 16) KAMAEL Sniper Rifle / Pistol, Knife. (0.5 | 16) KAMAEL (Forward Observer) Combi Rifle / Pistol, Knife. (0 | 13) KAMAEL Sniper Rifle / Pistol, Knife. (0.5 | 16) KAMAEL Sniper Rifle / Pistol, Knife. (0.5 | 16) KAMAEL (Forward Observer) Combi Rifle / Pistol, Knife. (0 | 13) KAMAEL Sniper Rifle / Pistol, Knife. (0.5 | 16) KAMAEL Sniper Rifle / Pistol, Knife. (0.5 | 16) CLIPSOS (Forward Observer) Combi Rifle, Antipersonnel Mines / Pistol, Knife. (0 | 25) GROUP 26 1 GAO-RAEL Sniper Rifle / Pistol, CCW. (1 | 31) GAO-RAEL Sniper Rifle / Pistol, CCW. (1 | 31) KAELTAR (Chain of Command) Light Shotgun, Flash Pulse + 2 SymbioMates / Pistol, Electric Pulse. (0.5 | 21) MAKAUL Heavy Flamethrower, Eclipse Grenades / Pistol, Viral CCW. (0 | 13) SAKIEL Lieutenant Viral Combi Rifle, Nimbus Plus Grenades / Pistol, Knife. (0 | 24) SAKIEL (Forward Observer) Combi Rifle, Nimbus Plus Grenades / Pistol, Knife. (0 | 19) 5.5 SWC | 299 Points Open in Infinity Army Simple goal: Make my opponent's own active turn miserable. Removing the swarm of linked snipers is a giant pain, and even removing one is just 16 points you took off me. In the meantime, I have a ludicrous number of AROs against you and most of them are dangerous, and even if you try to smoke me out I've got the pair of Gao-Rael as icing on the cake. The double-Sakiel+Makaul team runs interference and does some work if the Clipsos goes down, but with this much ranged firepower the Clipsos gets to chill out until it's perfectly safe to go, and has PLENTY of orders to get around. After running it, I swapped one of the Kamael sniper teams to group 2 and the double-Sakiel team to group 1, just for better order division. The list was gross. I lost about four sniper Kamaels on my opponent's first turn, and they lost a TAG and most of a linkteam. I had free run of the board to hit objectives on my turn, and relinked some sniper teams, and then my opponent had to do the whole song and dance again. It's not a list I'm likely to run again; it was described as "the least fun list I've ever played against". Lesson learned. Right now my Tohaa are hanging out with my Ariadna camospam list on the "mmmmmaybe let's not play these" shelf.
  13. It's a comparison between all three, as well as the Asura. MSV3 can be priced out straight from looking at the Charontid's selection of profiles. A comparison between the Hsien and the Aquila requires a lot of figuring out other skills (the toughest of which is Martial Arts L1), but lets you doublecheck. The Hexa is definitely a strange case to me, especially when compared to both other PanO TO Camo Infiltrators (Order Sergeant) and the Clipsos and Noctifer. There are other considerations like AVA. Bolts have competitors in their own faction but still provide unique tools, and in one notable case unlock a compelling playstyle that otherwise isn't available in-sectorial (Bolts + Squalo Lt). Chasseurs are excellent, but are limited AVA, making other (slightly less good, but slightly cheaper) camo infiltrators compelling choices in conjunction with them. Part of the identity of Ariadna is that it has a lot more camo infiltrators than other factions, and that's represented both in having more profiles (even if they aren't all perfectly optimized) and having excellently optimized profiles. Both things feed into that identity.
  14. @Section 9 has the right of it. Even if I had taken the time to put everything all at once into a spreadsheet (I haven't, it's mostly just stuff I've memorized), there are still enough uncertain stat calculations (like the cost of BS, and certain skills that are on every profile of a very small number of units) that I wouldn't want to spread it around as some kind of holy grail of findings because no matter how many times I add the "this is uncertain and speculative" disclaimer, it'll get skipped over. Everything I've figured out can be figured out with no more math than it takes to build a list and a bit of time with ARMY. I've spent enough time on there putting together enough lists for enough factions that I have a majority of unit profiles memorized, and can call to mind units that make for good comparisons. But I've also tried to reverse-engineer the formulas (not just the basic value calculations) and my big takeaway is that there are too many potential variables to get more than about a 15-20% confidence interval for any given derived formula. That's nowhere remotely close enough for me to say "hey, I think I've got something here". Here's the thing, though: some of those hard-to-derive formulae are for some pretty basic things, like stat values, which means that trying to make a particular claim about a unit's overall cost is very hard. I do think (and have mentioned before) that I think the Hexa is overcosted by 4-5 points, or should have Infiltration without any change in cost. I do also think the MSV3 was perfectly costed in N2 and ate enough nerfs in N3 that it's only marginally better than MSV2, not more than twice as valuable (it was more than twice as valuable in N2). The Chasseur is fine, the Bolts are costed appropriately but maybe don't have a particularly ideal combination of skills/equipment/profiles.
  15. Interestingly, there don't seem to be many/any of these. A lot of times they're reflected in the native stat boosts various factions get, or their availability of certain troops or types of equipment. When it isn't, it seems to sometimes appear on equipment itself, and put on either heavily optimized platforms (Interventor with HD+) or spread very widely (Doctor+). A note on formulae: There are certain cases in which flat, universally applicable cost estimations don't reflect the real costs of a unit; this is especially true when trying to calculate the cost of stat boosts. I suspect these are the formulae that CB doesn't want people reverse-engineering and spreading around, and deriving them takes a whole lot more than simple arithmetic (and is almost certainly going to be inaccurate anyway). I absolutely understand not wanting to have this sort of thing spread around because they're the kind of edge cases that are game-defining, where the design team basically has to draw a line in the sand and say "here is where we're starting from". They're honestly not worth even trying to derive accurately, because you can basically be assured you're going to get it wrong and draw misleading conclusions. There are a huge number of possible variables that would affect that and the sample size of units in Infinity isn't large enough to come close with any kind of acceptable confidence interval. It's like reading a well-written book series and then trying to guess at all of the things that inspired the author-- you might get some right, but you'll almost certainly get some wrong, and you'll never know which is which. On the topic of MSV3, I'm in the same boat as Toadchild, in that I bring an MSV3 because I want an Asura, not for any other reason. The Charontid is the prime example of a super amazing HI that also has an MSV3, but the Asura isn't too far behind. I agree that the Aquila feels less exciting just due to a lack of bells and whistles. I do feel like there are meaningful differences between the Aquila/Hsien and in a similar vein, the Swiss/Hac Tao. They weren't really there in N2 and in N3 I feel like they're much more compellingly different, even as nearly-identical units in different factions. Would love to see an Aquila in an ORC Haris in Neoterra, though! I find this fascinating and it confirms a sneaking suspicion I'd been having. I'd originally commented that I thought N3 had some "fudged" point values, because some units didn't *quite* add up from simple math. With enough similar "fudges", it hints at a formula for when things don't quite add up the way I expect, and as above, that's something that saves me a lot of time in not even bothering to try to derive; there's no way to get it right. Short version: sometimes the numbers don't add up exactly the way you think they might, don't worry about it, it's complicated. An HMG is an HMG is an HMG, though, except when it isn't