• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

757 Excellent


About TheDiceAbide

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

950 profile views
  1. I've added an article for the Semper Fi-curious who would like to start playing USAriadna: USAriadna: Starting on the Path to FREEDOM! @theycallhimben - I wrote this for you!
  2. I just realized I haven't posted here in a while! Here's my second 112 in progress.
  3. Blackjacks are awesome, but you will get more bang for your buck out of a box of Grunts and Marauders after the starter. If you are thinking blister packs then Van Zant is almost a must, 112 are quite nice, as is getting another foxtrot (like the shotgun).
  4. Probably my biggest change has been in Devil Dogs, I love them! I never really disliked any of the units, but I rarely made room for the dogs until recently. Actually thinking about it, the only profile I really really don’t care for is the Urugan armed Traktor Mul.
  5. You mean never enough Devil Dogs and Van Zants!
  6. This year I’m off to a happy start with my USAriadna. The Blackjack is finally out, so now I can play the entirety of the sectorial without any proxies (woohoo!). Over the last year I’ve written a lot of articles about USAriadna, or tactics which they are known to employ. Instead of having to scour through my blog posts, I’ve consolidated them all here for your enjoyment. I’ll do my best to keep this post updated as I create more content, so bookmark/favorite, or maybe we can pin it, it if you’d like to be kept up to date with my latest USAriadna musings. Tactics Articles USAriadna: Starting on the Path to FREEDOM! USAriadna List Building USARF, the 0.5 SWC Sectorial Stepping up with USAriadna USAriadna: The Airborne Ranger Tango Infinity Tactics 101: Using Stealth and Silent Infinity Tactics 101: Using Template Weapons Infinity Tactics 101: Using Camouflage Unit Analysis Light Infantry 112, Emergency Service 6th Airborne Rangers Dozers, Field Engineers Roger Van Zant, Captain of the 6th Airborne Ranger Regiment The Unknown Ranger Warcors, War Correspondents Wardrivers, Mercenary Hackers Medium Infantry Marauders, 5307th Ranger Unit Mavericks, 9th Motorized Recon Battalion Grunts, Line Rangers Regiments Heavy Infantry 5th Minutemen ‘Ohio’ Blackjacks, 10th Heavy Rangers Battalion Remotes Traktor Mul, Artillery and Support Regiment Skirmishers 7th Foxtrot Rangers ‘Newport’ Hardcases, 2nd Irregular Frontiersmen Battalion Warbands Desperadoes Devil Dogs, 2nd Assault Battalion of the USAMC Battle Reports 2016 Adepticon Recap, Part 1 2016 Adepticon Recap, Part 2 These battle reports were not written by me, but one of my favorite local opponents, @WiseKensai. He does a great job of writing a battle report of every game he’s played, so here are the ones I found that feature him going against my USAriadna: We’re Oscar Mike! There was a FIREFIGHT! Speed Infinity, SHAKE AND BAKE Warcry in July Battle Report All battle reports featuring USARF
  7. Not sure I'd call your calling for breaking the logical venn diagram of the rules as presented as "standard" but I'm glad @PsychoticStorm was able to chime in and put the issue to rest.
  8. Thank you for chiming in! FWIW, I was in favor STR troops treat it as normal ammo for all purposes (and was telling my local group to continue playing that way). But when a bunch of my friends, who are long time veterans of Infinity (much longer time than me, that's for sure) are confused by it, I thought it appropriate to bring it to the attention of the community so that it can be clarified.
  9. Why do you feel the need to treat it as Normal in any instance other than in the instance that they explicitly tell you to?
  10. Except that's precisely what it is telling you to do in it's current structure. The red box is outlining the entire effects of the rule. The blue boxes are individual effects. The arrow shows a relationship we are told to follow, and the green boxes are the effects we are told to apply in that relationship. The problem is the ambiguity presented by that last green box, which has implications far larger than the context we are told to apply it to, which is what is causing the problem. Again, I am NOT saying that STR troops are having their NWI/Dogged stopped by Shock, but I am saying the way it's worded/structured makes it unclear. This discussion would have looked very similar if anyone argued that the IMPORTANT! rule applied to W2 models before this FAQ, despite that being the actual intention (and from what I now hear, how it was actually played in the Spanish meta).
  11. Except it isn’t... the last main bullet of shock ammo tells you when to ignore the straight to dead clause, and in that it contains text which has broad implications. We are stuck with a situation where the rules give a finite application to an infinitely worded rule. That’s the whole issue here. If that rule about STR rules was meant to apply all the time, it is incredibly confusing to many players to put it in an area of the rule with a super narrow scope. What other people on this thread seem to not be able to get through their heads is that nobody is advocating for shock to positively work against STR models, only that it is ambiguously worded. When you are speaking in reference to going straight to dead, there is no argument. If you don’t find an broadly worded clause written under a narrowly worded application confusing, then horray for you. Stop treating this like some personal crusade of circular reasoning, where you need to keep reminding people how other rules are worded, or even cherry pick the universal clause out of the restricted context it is presented in and start implying that people who don’t do the same are ignorant. I’m really disappointed in how unconstructive some of my fellow warcors have been in this thread. That it’s poorly written and tells you a specific situation where you only apply the Normal ammunition rules? How about, maybe following a heading telling you when you ignore the straight to death part of shock? Before this FAQ people would have been called an idiot for arguing that shock ignores Dogged/NWI on W2 models. Nobody really knows. As it is written the part telling you when to treat Shock ammo as Normal (a very broad statement) comes under a clause telling you when to ignore the rule of going straight to dead (a very narrow statement). To borrow from the euphemism, we are trying to fit 10 pounds of rule in a 5 pound bag.
  12. You walk into a candy store, the man says you can have anything you want, and you're arguing that you can have his car parked outside. The rule about STR models treating Shock as Normal is written to apply in one specific context, yet you're demanding that it applies to every aspect of the rule. I agree with you that the way it's worded, is done in a way that makes a global statement, but they wrote it under the context of a very specific application of the rule. I'm not arguing one way or another, all i'm arguing is that the rule is written unclearly, in a way that can easily, and logically be interpreted either way, so needs an official ruling to make clear. Maybe @IJW Wartrader can ask for some insight.
  13. I think what you're saying is exactly the problem. The rules tell you that you only apply certain conditions to a very specific rule, but in that very specific rule they give you a very general thing... it doesn't make sense like you say, which is the problem. Nobody is debating that, so it's irrelevant, thank you for playing, circular logic is circular.
  14. It only "straight up tells you" that in a section which starts with "This specific special effect does not apply to:", while "This specific effect" is in reference to going straight to dead. This is why the Important text applies to W2 models, despite them ignoring that specific special effect, and the reason why people are confused, and even many of Warcors don't know or agree on what we're supposed to do about it. It's not constructive or helpful to say "it doesn't get any clearer." The bit mentioning STR models is written in a super broad manner, but is written in the context of a section that only applies to one specific part of the rule itself... that's not clear at all.
  15. The unclear part is that for STR Shock = Normal appears in the part of the text that specifically only applies to skipping unconscious.