• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Time Online

    787d 5h 46m 16s

Community Reputation

2533 Excellent

About Tamrielo

  • Rank
    Information Broker


  • ITS PIN G8344

Recent Profile Visitors

1,702 profile views
  1. 1.) It might be the highest chance in the game, but it's not a thing I will ever plan to do. Those odds simply aren't good enough, in my opinion, for anything short of a desperation strategy. If I'm resorting to a desperation strategy, then something has gone very wrong with my plan and any troop will do. Because of this, I don't really put a lot of stock in "Bolts are good at doing this thing that isn't a good idea" in much the same way I put zero stock in Marksmanship LX. 2.) I generally don't spearhead with linkteams, it's a good way to lose your link early. Pushing a link out without support from the rest of the army is a tactic I see opponents use a lot, and basically unless they're Tohaa (and have multiple backup links), it's a tactic that gets punished a lot. I sweep with Auxilia (they're amazing at this), clearing traps and flaming targets of opportunity, which generally also gets me an upfield specialist. My links are wave 2. Exception: highly survivable HI links, and even then I want to support them with forward troops. 3.) Honestly, I kind of feel like Bolts are bloated enough as-is. Adding more bloat just exacerbates the problem they already have. I'd rather just see a basic Bolt get an Eclipse launcher, rather than a weird Auxbot_2 addition, but if any of them got one, I do think it would be the Combi+Drop Bears profile. It's not so much tacking it onto that profile that's a problem so much that now that single profile becomes the go-to Bolt but it doesn't change the value of the Bolt link, which is clearly supposed to be a core link for Neoterra. 4.) Eh, I remember when "the reality was clear" that Plasma was never going to be seen outside of CA, Haris was never going to be seen outside of Haqq, Ariadna was never going to get "proper' HI, Corregidor couldn't have smoke access, Nomads weren't going to get strong HI, Hassassins weren't ever going to get visors, ALEPH couldn't be allowed to have Pitchers (then called Markers), Remotes couldn't ever be linkable troops... the list goes on and on. Trying to predict the future of the game by claiming solid, unchanging edicts isn't a good way to figure out what might or might not happen. 5.) I... guess? PanO has four units with MSV2 and one with MSV3 (which is minimally better than MSV2). Konstantinos, one Order Sergeant profile, the Black Friar, the Nisse, and the Aquila Guard. The only linkable one of these is Konstantinos, who has a combi rifle. I just don't see that there's anything scary about those profiles that isn't just as possible in factions with smoke access, and a +3 linking bonus or +1 Burst (or both) is much better mathematically than +1 native BS. ALEPH runs a much scarier MSV-heavy force than PanO can, and they have trivially easy smoke access. As for playing against a PanO list with smoke, I've done it. It wasn't that much different than playing against any other faction with smoke, but my experience isn't worth a whole lot because it's a small sample size of anecdotal evidence. I'm not going to make claims about what works and what doesn't gamewide with just a handful of anecdata.
  2. 65% chance to survive is not high enough for me to be risking a linkteam primary troop in the Active turn. Especially not in a faction that lets me use G:Sync bots to clear out mines at close to twice the speed and at absolutely zero risk to my order pool. If that Camo marker isn't a mine, well, now I've got an Intuitive Attack set up. Bolts don't get that chance. I don't think an Eclipse-equipped Auxbot Bolt really makes Bolts more attractive, it just takes the profile that was already the best use-case for a Bolt and gives it even more reason to be the one Bolt you take. If you're looking at Bolts holistically, rather than making a single profile attractive, any changes really need to provide value to a Bolt link. Also, whatever, flooding the board with smoke from a link at a PH of "I basically don't fail"? It's not like every single other faction in the game can't do that, and several of them can do it with Eclipse Smoke. I absolutely don't buy the argument that PanO couldn't get Eclipse Smoke on troops other than the Guarda. I even think the argument for "no regular Smoke" is pretty thin.
  3. Points reduction to match Wildcats would be a good start-- the cheapest Bolt is 2 points more than the cheapest Wildcat, and Wildcats have more universally useful special skills as well as a Deployable Repeater on its 17 point BSG profile. Some more optimized profiles would help a lot as well, especially if there's no points break and every Bolt is made slightly less optimal via Bioimmunity and Vet L1. A BSG+Drop Bears Bolt would be a very nice add, coming in at 20-22 points (depending on how much they pay for E/M grenades), having a Heavy Rocket Launcher option (cheaper and mostly better than a Missile Launcher), and a couple more hacking options. A Haris profile would get Bolts to see a lot more play, I think the Combi+Drop Bears profile is the perfect choice for this, but a Specialist Bolt in some form would be equally good. Mixed links with ORCs would have a very Yu Jing or Hassassin Bahram sort of feel but would still be interesting, I think they'd avoid the problem Muyibs have of basically being the required unit inclusion in virtually every list. Eclipse Smoke would instantly make them interesting and highly functional, and I don't think they'd alter the play of Neoterra or the balance of PanO that much in that position. They're still slow, but you'd be getting a good return on them. The biggest problem I (still) have with Bolts is that they look awesome but are functionally only slightly better Fusiliers, coming in at twice the price. The only way they're making up for that is if you use them as an aggressive close-range unit, which isn't always easy given their slow speed and lack of any mitigating skills-- Wildcats are both a more notable upgrade from Alguaciles than Bolts are from Fusiliers and have Multiterrain and V:Courage, which come up a lot more often than Bioimmunity/Vet L!. I definitely don't think that the repeated nerfs to Auxilia have left Neoterra in as varied a space as they once were. I don't really think any PanO sectorials have a super broad array of available playstyles compared to many other sectorials, but Neoterra is no better or worse off than ASA, and probably only slightly better off than MO.
  4. We clearly have very, very different ideas on how relevant the existence of a single model is on deployment. In every single case where a Strategos L3 unit exists, there is an alternative unit without Strategos that requires the same level of consideration and won't be revealed. Even if the feared Strategos model is not present, you still need to worry about a selection of powerful CA TAGs, Achilles, etc. The only situation in which I can see you changing your deployment strategy dramatically based on knowledge of Strategos is against Haqq, and quite frankly it shouldn't change that much there, either, because it's Haqq, you know Fidays are a possibility, and whether or not one is being paired with Saladin doesn't stop one from appearing and causing you problems. As I mentioned above, as someone who plays with a Strategos model on the regular, I do tell my opponent straightaway that they're dealing with Strategos L3, because it makes little difference to me whether or not they know at deployment if I have a Marut, because a good player will prepare for it or other extremely dangerous options. Strategos is meant to provide a net benefit for its user, like many abilities that cost points, but does not necessarily provide exclusive benefits to its user, often involving some tradeoffs that still provide a net benefit to the user. There are a number of skills like this in the game, and I consider Strategos one of them. @Alexb83 -- You say that your mind boggles at my claim that deployment decisions don't meaningfully change based on the knowledge of a Strategos L3 unit, then two paragraphs later say directly that they don't, because your opponents don't change their deployment decisions. Furthermore, Strategos is compulsory in that it is not hidden information, so you can't *choose* to have your Lt not be revealed and forgo the bonuses it provides (though you can choose not to use them, should you desire). @n-sphere -- I don't see the opposing player as being the one to ask, much as it isn't the opposing player who asks if they should turn around so that you can deploy Hidden models. It is on you as the Strategos player to reveal your use of the skill in a timely manner, much as it is on you to declare your AROs and not your opponent's to ask if that model you've forgotten is going to respond. As I mentioned above, I as the Marut-using player declare at the start of the first deployment that Strategos is in effect. Because your opponent can adjust their deployment until they declare it over, even if they claim it's over and you push back saying "No, Strategos L3", they can still rearrange their units to respond because it's still their deployment. All that's changing is how long you let them potentially waste time before giving them all of the information they'd get anyway. One way or another, they were going to get to know that you have an Avatar and get to react accordingly. I guess you could be really squirrelly and say "I am not using Strategos L3" in the same way a particular sort of D&D DM says "You detect no traps", and in so doing give up a third of the advantage of Strategos? I still maintain that, as mentioned above, the knowledge of a Strategos unit does not or should not fundamentally change deployment decision making.
  5. I run a Marut a lot. As soon as initiative is determined, I inform my opponent that "Strategos L3 is in effect." My opponent can reposition minis until they declare their deployment is complete. Trying to "gotcha" them towards the end of that process rather than being up-front about it is discourteous, in my opinion. It doesn't change the ultimate outcome, and my opponent may have now wasted both of our time, if any adjustments need to be made. Yes, the existence of Strategos means that a savvy opponent can know if I brought an Avatar to the table. Me succeeding with a 17 on my Initiative roll provides the exact same information, and is in no one's control. Decent knowledge of possible unit combinations and costs lets me, as a savvy player, suss out someone's Lieutenant most of the time, or at least reduce the possibilities dramatically. There's not a whole ton of difference that's going to be made by a slightly different deployment based on expectation of an Avatar; it's not like someone can change their list. Are you really putting that much weight on being able to put your opponent off-guard just from deployment? A savvy opponent will deploy as if there were an Avatar anyway. Digging for "gotchas" in the rules isn't really how Infinity's rules are written. What, precisely in the rules, is stopping me from openly lying about where my Hidden Deployment models are? There're no rules about what "marked in secret at the start of the game" means, nor how one might go about determining whether or not an opponent lied about their Hidden Deployment. People have come up with a variety of means with which to be sportsmanlike about this, mostly revolving around not trying to pull one over on your opponent. Strategos is the same way. At a design level, Strategos L3 is really cheap in points for the benefits it brings. The explicit cost of Strategos (because it is NOT hidden information) is that it reveals your Lieutenant before the game begins. That is part of its design. Yep, your opponent gets to ask you if you have Saladin, or a Marut, or an Avatar before they put down any models. In return, you can deny them a strong strategic model placement advantage, double your own strategic model placement advantage (amplified because you're denying theirs), and gain additional order flexibility that isn't available any other way, and you spend 4 points in your list. Seems like an incredibly balanced trade. The "chess-like" placement of units during deployment is, as far as I can find anywhere, a relic of N2 and doesn't exist in N3. If your opponent gets down to their last model and you say "I have Strategos L3", they can reposition their entire force if they so desire. Similarly, because Strategos is not an optional skill, you can't see what your opponent has and then decide "nope, I'm not going to reveal that I have Strategos"-- you must use it. Given that, there's no real reason not to tell your opponent that Strategos is in effect as soon as the first player begins their deployment, other than to potentially waste time.
  6. @Teslarod I... honestly don't know what you're talking about in your response to me. I never advocated for unlinked Magister MLs at all; you'll notice both of my suggested lists were Military Orders lists. I have no idea where this "90-point Magister Knight" bit is coming from, I've certainly never said anything of the sort. I try to be extremely precise about what I'm getting in lists when I describe things, and I'm certainly not making any kind of claim here or elsewhere that a unit costs more than its list price, with the rare exception of things that literally cannot be included without some additional expenditure (e.g. remotes and a hacker). I find that kind of point conflation misleading and unhelpful in general, so we do at least agree on that. You'll note that at the very start of my post I commented that I don't think very highly of the Father Knight in general, or the Missile Launcher loadout in specific, but that there are lists that I think that the specific FK ML loadout has a reasonable place and why, and provided some examples. To be abundantly clear about my opinion, since it apparently wasn't clear from my previous post: I am of the opinion that the Father-Knight Missile Launcher loadout is largely less good than other options, except in the specific case where it is a secondary ARO threat positioned alongside a more significant ARO threat in a list built around providing overwhelming threat saturation in ARO, because this forces opponents to make difficult target priority decisions. This is best accomplished in Military Orders, not Vanilla.
  7. I can't say I've ever been impressed by an unlinked Missile Launcher. It'll get a really satisfying lucky hit in every so often, but they tend to have big targets painted on them and not a whole lot of offensive punch. 49|1.5 is comparable to bringing two TR HMGs, and as an ARO threat I find paired TR HMGs to be much, much deadlier at ranges similar to the FK ML, with the same weaknesses and a much scarier active turn if necessary. I think the Father-Knight is a decent enough platform in general, but tends to be outclassed by slightly more specialized units. I also tend to feel like the Missile Launcher is a mediocre weapon in general outside of a really select number of units, of which the Father-Knight isn't one. I personally prefer to have my expensive units pull their weight in the active turn rather than being largely reactive, since in general reactive-turn fire is inferior to active-turn fire. 20-30% chance of success does not light my world on fire, especially not against 40-50% odds in a face-to-face. That all having been said, I don't think the combination of the decent Father-Knight and the mediocre Missile Launcher makes for a garbage unit. It's definitely usable, and I think that Daboarder's use case of "durable long-range sniper" is a reasonable, if rather expensive one. I think it has a fairly decent chance to drain more orders from your opponent than most other ARO pieces, and I would love to see a proper HI with an MSR at some point. Like most things in Infinity, it's going to depend on what the rest of the list is doing. A list like this, I think, uses the Father-Knight to surprisingly good effect: Military Orders ────────────────────────────────────────────────── GROUP 110 ORDER SERGEANT Heavy Rocket Launcher / Assault Pistol, Knife. (1.5 | 15) ORDER SERGEANT Paramedic (MediKit) Combi Rifle / Pistol, Knife. (0 | 15) ORDER SERGEANT Combi Rifle / Pistol, Knife. (0 | 13) ORDER SERGEANT Combi Rifle / Pistol, Knife. (0 | 13) ORDER SERGEANT Combi Rifle / Pistol, Knife. (0 | 13) SPEC. SERGEANT (CH: TO Camouflage, Infiltration, Forward Observer) Combi Rifle, Antipersonnel Mines / Pistol, Knife. (0 | 27) SPEC. SERGEANT (CH: TO Camouflage, Infiltration, Forward Observer) Combi Rifle, Antipersonnel Mines / Pistol, Knife. (0 | 27) SPEC. SERGEANT Combi Rifle + AUXBOT_1 / Pistol, Knife. (0 | 17) AUXBOT_1 Heavy Flamethrower / Electric Pulse. (- | 4) KNIGHT OF MONTESA Lieutenant Spitfire, Chain-colt / Breaker Pistol, Shock CCW. (2 | 50) KNIGHT OF MONTESA Combi Rifle + Light Grenade Launcher, Chain-colt / Breaker Pistol, Shock CCW. (1 | 48) GROUP 22 FATHER-KNIGHT Missile Launcher / Breaker Pistol, DA CCW. (1.5 | 49) FUSILIER (Forward Observer, Deployable Repeater) Combi Rifle / Pistol, Knife. (0 | 12) 6 SWC | 299 Points Open in Infinity Army The threat saturation in this list is huge, and it's easy to set up overlapping AROs between the Father-Knight and the Order Sergeant link. You put your opponent in a really unfortunate position of having to pick between four extremely dangerous targets in Turn 1, and it's very, very unlikely they'll be able to remove them all. A similar spin on the idea: Military Orders ────────────────────────────────────────────────── GROUP 110 4 MAGISTER KNIGHT Missile Launcher / Pistol, DA CCW. (2 | 32) MAGISTER KNIGHT Panzerfaust, Light Shotgun / Pistol, AP CCW. (0 | 22) MAGISTER KNIGHT Panzerfaust, Light Shotgun / Pistol, AP CCW. (0 | 22) MAGISTER KNIGHT Missile Launcher / Pistol, DA CCW. (2 | 32) KNIGHT HOSPITALLER Doctor (MediKit) Combi Rifle / Pistol, DA CCW. (0 | 37) FATHER-KNIGHT Missile Launcher / Breaker Pistol, DA CCW. (1.5 | 49) SPEC. SERGEANT (CH: TO Camouflage, Infiltration, Forward Observer) Combi Rifle, Antipersonnel Mines / Pistol, Knife. (0 | 27) SPEC. SERGEANT (CH: TO Camouflage, Infiltration, Forward Observer) Combi Rifle, Antipersonnel Mines / Pistol, Knife. (0 | 27) SPEC. SERGEANT Combi Rifle + AUXBOT_1 / Pistol, Knife. (0 | 17) AUXBOT_1 Heavy Flamethrower / Electric Pulse. (- | 4) TRAUMA-DOC (Father-Doctor) Combi Rifle / Pistol, Knife. (0 | 14) GROUP 21 SPEC. SERGEANT Hacker (Hacking Device) Combi Rifle / Pistol, Knife. (0.5 | 21) 6 SWC | 300 Points Open in Infinity Army You're tripling down on Missile Launchers here, and the ARO threat saturation here is insane. You can very feasibly put all four Magisters in ARO positions as well as the Father-Knight and make your opponent's turn utter misery, then have plenty of maneuvering room and specialist positioning to be effective in your own Active Turn. The Father-Knight is relegated to a second- or third-tier threat in this list, but quite frankly if you've forced your opponent to put a BS14 missile launcher on a 2W platform into the second or third tier of threat evaluation, you're doing pretty well.
  8. Another vote for this one. One of the things that bugs me about a lot of minis games (read: especially 40k) is that I never get any sense of what life is like outside of the battlefield, other than possibly "it sucks". I love this bit of Infinity art (and the other, similar one with a bunch of Moderators looking out over Bakunin) because it gives me a sense of life in the setting, and it's a positive, interesting, compelling one. It helps me understand what my troops are fighting for, and what they do in their time off. It lends context and meaning to the battles that yet another "badass fight scene" shot doesn't. I like the cool fight scene shots, but they don't draw me into the setting. In the neon, cyberpunk future of Infinity, there's more than only war. There's a life worth living.
  9. Yeah, very much this. It's very self-aware. Snow Crash is an insane ride, almost pulp-cyberpunk but written with a bunch more layers and commentary than pulp generally is. If you prefer, try Diamond Age. Lots of the same themes, more thoughtful than action-y.
  10. I agree with A, not necessarily with B. I think KHDs should be vulnerable to something else, but I don't think other hackers should be more survivable against it. WHDs severely punishing KHDs would be a good choice, but giving all HDs better AROs is not, in my opinion. It would be interesting if WHDs could treat other HDs as Repeaters, as a protective measure, though. They wouldn't be able to necessarily protect other hackers but could certainly attacking them a liability. Simply have a program that is "copy the Hacking Attack used by the target". I feel like, ideally, a fully-rounded infowar suite would include one of every type of hacking device.
  11. Yeah, exactly. I'd prefer to make the AHD better at causing those status effects and having a broader suite of targets.
  12. I don't think making AHDs better able to defend against KHDs is a solution that changes much other than muddying the waters as far as what the differences between each type of hacking device are. Giving each kind of hacking device a very clear role and unique function (through the addition of new programs) helps define each one nicely. Otherwise, why not just have a single kind of Hacking Device with a universal set of programs? It worked for basic HDs and KHDs, no reason it can't work for AHDs and D/WHDs
  13. I don't think adding new stuff comes with an increased price tag for AHDs in this case, though. What AHDs need is the 1-2 good things that make them really shine-- they're kind of lacking that at the moment, whereas (most) other hacking devices have a niche that they fill.
  14. Hacking Devices across the board used to be repeaters before N3. It made boardwide hacking coverage pretty trivial for several factions (Nomads, ALEPH) and so punishing that many opposing factions opted out of hacking entirely as much as possible. For hidden deployment and similar, using the Repeater functionality would simply reveal the user. AHDs becoming repeaters is precisely the kind of buff that I think would cause problems, since all you'd need is another KHD on the board somewhere and your AHD is suddenly nigh-invulnerable in the reactive turn, and doesn't do much to make AHDs specifically better, just more usable. I like the more interesting hacking byplay in N3, since hacking is a lot more localized in general. I still stand by my original suggestion of a Flash ammo hit on any unit from the AHD. I'd definitely use AHDs to harass my opponent and set up nasty tricks-- it would make AHDs specifically fairly good against linkteams (blind them from out of LOF, then shoot them), killing two birds (linkteam solutions, AHD underwhelmingness) with one stone.
  15. I'm sort of opposed to making KHDs LESS good and would rather make other HDs (especially the AHD) BETTER, as a general rule. Part of this is probably due to having spent time in N2 being frustrated that I had cool hackers and never used them for anything but pushing buttons, but that's a situation I'd like to avoid returning to. I honestly think the bigger problem is the ability to opt out of hacking by taking no hackers/REMs/HI/TAGs without losing anything. The AHD would be the perfect place to bump that up, since it could use the boost.