• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

11 Good


About Baelspar

  • Rank
  1. The nature of this thread, and a large part of my argument, is the relative power levels of Sectorial versus Vanilla. All in all, I think that they are very nearly balanced overall. I think allowing Link Teams to remain intact after using a long order moves the balance slider toward Sectorial being more powerful. As what is optimal seems to be germane to the discussion it does not seem out of line to "call" on this. If this were a fluff thread or "I like the look of these models" thread, then the question would be irrelevant. Someone that puts that much time into arguing a point that Sectorial armies are not competitive with the ruling as it stands might have an interesting opinion on why such a change it unthinkable. I can infer a number of reasons why, but I would like to hear it. Granted, I'm hoping for more than, "It's the army I have painted" or "I've always liked the Hassassin Bahram, and don't want to change."
  2. We can assess things without having used them. A chainsaw will take a tree down faster than an axe. I don't need to be a lumberjack to see that. The ability to take information without having to directly experience it while coming to a sound conclusion is a hallmark of good leadership. There are many things that all of us have solid opinions on that we have never put to use that were formed by our ability to assess a situation. When a new piece for your army comes out, do you have to buy and try to fit in every configuration to figure out if you will be able to get good use out of it? Do you have to play every other army so that you can understand their strengths and weaknesses? If not, then you are failing to practice what you preach. We can all understand. The rules have sub-optimized a play style that you prefer, and you feel that it was unfair. Others disagree, including those who make the rules. If Link Teams were so disadvantaged, then how did Tohaa and ISS do so well at the LVO? It's too small a sample to be anywhere near conclusive, but it does start setting up an argument. I would seriously like to know; if Sectorials are so disadvantaged, then why are you not playing vanilla?
  3. 1. In general, I think someone that is looking to be seriously competitive is making the best choice by going Sectorial. Not all Sectorials are equal in power, but the ones that are powerful need to be balanced against vanilla. This has the unfortunate effect of sometimes making a less-powerful Sectorial player decide whether it is better to use a Long Order, or keep the Link Team at full membership. I don't think the downside of troop selection is really that limiting. It's a balance state. You lose access to all the bells and whistles, but your whistles are amazingly better than everyone else's. 2. I haven't fielded a Link Team, but I have seen other Link Teams rampage all over the table. While I feel that the ruling does harm to some Sectorials in particular, creating a rule system that allows for those teams to stay intact while other teams have to make a choice feels like a way to make the rules more complicated than the path that CB seems to be following. 3. Access to different range bands. Especially if they can be gotten with Link Team bonusses? If this becomes something that Link Teams can do, then I'm selling all my vanilla stuff and porting over to a Sectorial. "Have you read a bunch of opinions that failed to move your thinking the first time you saw them? Have you gone back to reread them? Have you listened to the CD and read the booklet we sent you in the mail to convince you that you are wrong, and allowing Link Teams to use Long Orders is the path to salvation? We have a brand name soft-drink..." When I read them, there was no moment where I felt that the need for Link Teams to have access to long orders was something that needed to happen. You disagree with me. That's fine. I disagree with you. That is just as well. If you want to convince me, then show me how all Sectorials suffer equally under this rule. I think that some do, but others don't in numbers sufficient to consider it balanced. Why am I so stalwart for this opinion? When I first started playing, it felt that this game would allow a player with sound strategic thinking to take models that the player enjoyed and still be somewhat competitive. Then, as all the rules for N3 started filtering in, some army composition choices are forced in (dealing with Camo, Hacking, etc.). The more that I have to counter other play styles, the more I see that I have to design lists to directly counter situations. This is where it becomes the list, not the player. Yes, the player still can lose with the best list; but two equally matched players will win by list design. A great way to make it so that new players just find that one killer list is to make it apparent that such lists exist. There's nothing like going to an event and seeing the same army at every table.
  4. I think that the advantages that link teams get are not outweighed by this limitation, nor are the limited troops available detrimental to most sectorials. Let's be reasonable about this, only the model that wants to perform the long action leaves the team. The rest of the team is still there. Hudson's typing away at his hacking device while the rest of the team is laying down fire as need be. Sure, it isn't covering fire, but it is burst two in ARO, which is just about the same thing. Voted for Other, because the poll wouldn't take my vote unless I voted on both issues. Might need to add a "Non of the Above" selection for those of us that think link teams are fine/too good.
  5. The part of me that is a jerk is going to respond with, "It's never really about the list. If you play [insert Game System Here] long enough, then you will learn that this is the truth." (I've read some form of that statement on just about every game's website or forum, this one included.) Most systems get really caught up in getting to the "playing the game as it is meant to be played" level without making sure that a new or even experienced player is ready for a full game. Chess has the best version of training in various parts of the game. There are openings, which could be likened to the deployment phase, that chess players study and practice to see how they can affect the game from the first couple of moves. Books and articles are published with Chess problems. These represent a mid game point where thinking about tactics can come in. For Infinity, that might be thinking about how to kill the most cheerleaders or using orders efficiently to get a specialist safely to where they need to be. Set a table up with game in mid process with the forces marked out. Replay looking for optimal experience. Finally, the endgame. Playing victory conditions might be especially helpful for new players. In many of their first games, they are not going to get to practice meeting win conditions. I have seen players in various other systems not have what they need to do in mind to win the game lose from inexperience. It doesn't make for exciting game play, but it can help establish solid play habits.
  6. Okay, so we have established that I am new to Infinity. I am not new to tabletop miniature games or math. From those perspectives, Link Teams look like the obvious choice for play. Assuming that good tactical placement and moving is in place by both players, it seriously appears that Sectoral player has the advantage. In the Warmachine community, there's the idea that I want to beat someone based on solid player rather than tricks. Teaching new players about how they might get blind-sided is how you get people who have joined your community to stay and help make it better. When new players are competent enough to bring a challenge, then your own game will improve to keep up. Thanks for the advice. Especially, thanks for the mode of practice. Chess has a long tradition of setting up problems to teach certain tactics. Susan Polgar's "Chess Tactics for Champions" is an excellent example of this type of exercise. I do things like this for a number of games I play. It's good to have an example of how to practice in Infinity. Thanks for some of the suggestions here. It can be difficult to see the weakness of an army build when you only look at how good it is when it is working in a vacuum. Your post provides a good list of things to look for in breaking a link team. I also like that you articulate what a Sectoral player gives up aside from selection of model; the more important access to skills. As Larry Wilmore might say, "You're keeping it 100, Ursun." Admitting that it is an extremely viable tactic can be reassuring to your fellow players. One prominent Warmachine player's tagline is, "I play broken stuff." There is something refreshing about knowing that your opponent is openly playing something that he feels is ostensibly better than anything else. Right now, I play Pan-O. The Pan-O vanilla, according to Ben Lehman, doesn't have quite the advantage over Sectoral Pan-O. At least that's what I took from his post and my reading of things. I'll see how things look when I get my Yu Jing together.
  7. Here's how I see things: It takes 1 Order Token to activate a Fire Team. A Coordinated Order team requires an Order Token and a limited resource Command Token. Fire Teams can have 5 members. Coordinated Order teams only 4. Fire Teams get +1 Burst in the reactive and the leader having that bonus in the active. Coordinated Order teams are reduced to 1 Burst, unless they're the Spearhead trooper who has their Burst reduced by half. Fire Teams of 5 members gives their leader +3 BS in the active which the whole team gets in the reactive. So far, I'm not seeing the big advantage to vanilla forces. It might also be noted that Sectorals get use of Coordinated Orders as well. The only things I can see that they lose is: -Fire Teams have to be made up from a proscribed list of troops. -Models that use a non-movement full order are taken out of a Fire Team, which they can rejoin with the use of a Command Token. -The overall Sectoral army lacks access to all the models in the larger faction. Having order efficiency allows a player to leverage more use out of his army than a less efficient army. Without using Command Tokens, it takes up to 5 times as many orders to gain similar board position for a vanilla army as its sectoral counterpart. The bonuses granted in the reactive easily help a Fire Team to work at even against such things as Suppressing Fire. There has been some mention that Fire Teams have weaknesses. At present, I don't see them, and I would greatly appreciate any insight into what they might be. If there is something in my comparison of the two possibilities which is incorrect, then let me know.
  8. I haven't gotten to the place that Cosworth has gotten to. As a new player that plays vanilla, Fire Teams seem to be something that you would be cognitively challenged not to take. They're super order efficient without having to manage Command Token. In the reactive, they are extremely viable. If the Fire Team player so wishes, then a spec model can take part in a coordinated order if my reading of the rules is correct. There has been discussion that they have a weakness, but my inexperience is preventing me from seeing it at the moment. I have chosen not to vote due to not having enough experience to vote in an informed manner. I would vote that the new ruling makes sense. Maybe it would help if the weaknesses of Fire Teams was discussed more explicitly rather than the implication that the truth is out there.
  9. There is the obvious advantage to playing vanilla lists in that there is a larger selection of models to choose from. For some, this is advantage enough. However, it seems that playing sectorials for the link team rules is the better option. In the two games that I have played with my opponent fielding link teams, the link teams tore up the field. Not just in my opponent's turn, but in mine as well. A five man link team gets +1 B and +3 BS in the active turn. This is fine. It is that these bonuses apply in ARO as well that does not seem equitable to someone playing a vanilla list that can't post the same numbers. At least, that is how I see things as a new player. If coordinated orders provided a similar advantage, then that might prove balancing. What am I missing that makes taking a vanilla list just as viable?
  10. Thanks for putting this together. It's really helpful.
  11. Just to look at this from another perspective, I'm just envisioning what must be going on in the non-English/non-Spanish forums. I got to read rules in my native language over the holiday, when I had time to do it. Sure, it would be nice if the ISS force I was building to 300 points was usable with N3 pdf's. One of the nice things about having a smaller list of units to choose from (to stay purely N3) means that there are fewer units I have to learn as a newer player. When I'm playing games on a competitive level, there's nothing I like hearing more than, "What does that model do? For the time being, I don't have a large list to learn. I'm kind of happy about that.
  12. In Warmachine, many of the units in the game don't have more than 1 wound, and the cards still get used. Some of us like having printed sheets. Others like mobile apps. As long as the preferred method makes game play more focused on what on the table, there shouldn't be an issue. I looked at Card Maker. The program looks to be beyond my kenning for something that I'm not really wanting to do, but it looks like it might have the functionality to make something that would work for someone that would like to use cards.
  13. I don't think that Corvus Belli needs to provide cards. We get rules and stats for free. That said, I can see how some people might like to have them. They're not just useful for keeping track of damage, but they can be helpful in keeping track of what's in an army as well as constructing lists. If someone can point out an application for making them so that players who would like them, then that might be really helpful.
  14. Thank you, everyone at Corvus Belli. We have the new rules, and you're working hard to get all the information updated. It's been a great holiday for most of us. Keep up the great work.
  15. Thanks for the responses. Also, thanks for the conversation about how the results of a Command Token compares with Valor 1: Courage and Religious Troop. The take-away seems that we played it correctly. Though my opponent's troops were not affected by Retreat, the Retreat state had not been cancelled.