Vaulsc

Members
  • Content count

    491
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Time Online

    5651d 12h 26m 20s

Community Reputation

491 Excellent

1 Follower

About Vaulsc

  • Rank
    Mayanaut
  • Birthday 06/03/1984

Converted

  • Location Auckland, New Zealand

Recent Profile Visitors

1,199 profile views
  1. I can't offer any evidence for this view, but my suspicion is that most people are sick of the campaign already. It's difficult to feel as though your contributions to the campaign actually matter, or go towards anything worthwhile, and after you've put a lot of effort into making a bunch of good reports, making more seems like a matter of diminishing returns. I know that sounds negative. But it might be the reality. Maybe campaigns like this should only go for a week or two? Sustaining that effort over a long period of time might not be most people's idea of fun. I can really empathize with anyone who is still enjoying Infinity in general though, this month's most recent release of miniatures is looking great.
  2. I'm really disappointed whenever I read the tone of his posts. Would be re-assuring if @PsychoticStorm could have a private word with him or something. It's not conducive to encouraging new players to participate in our forums.
  3. Good insights, I have been using the other programs sometimes but this data makes sense. I guess redrum is also better in reactive too.
  4. LJWartrader aka Ian showed up months ago to tell us that CB were just being slow about this and this haris you mentioned IS legit and takes preference. I've already run it in an ITS event despite army builder not mentioning it.
  5. Just play a normal mission of your own choice then!
  6. Hey, I was just reading through the thread again and saw this. Haven't even looked at the data but how did this turn out?
  7. Ease up man you be killin' it wit' these posts. That last one was a crit F2F.
  8. Hey guys, made a new custom mission called 'Tactical Window'. Download the PDF here - https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0BxyT2Z7parkCY0RKVXBsNXAwUkE Playtested it three times so far with @Hexa, @alphz, @Skalldur You can also see my detailed explanation of it here:
  9. An Umbra Samaritan declares his first short-skill move, bringing him into base contact with a lone Tohaa clipsos FO. This triggers an ARO from that clipsos, but also an ARO from a Gao-rael in triad link team nearby who is armed with a standard sniper rifle. The Clipsos and Gao-Rael both declare BS attack AROs against this Samaritan. The Samaritan's second short skill is to make a CC attack using Protheion lvl4, directed at the Clipsos. The Gao-rael will get normal rolls with his B2 sniper from the link. -------------------- If the Samaritan wins his F2F against the Clipsos (as he's likely to) but only inflicts ONE wound, while taking a hit from the Gao-rael and only suffering ONE wound, then my understanding is that we account for the net wounds added/suffered, and at the resolution step of the order, determine how many wounds the Samaritan goes into the next order with. In this particular case, he's right back where he started, and since the shock round from the sniper hasn't put him in unconscious state by the end of it, shock doesn't help the Gao-rael here. However. Let's suppose in the above example, the Gao-rael this time inflicts TWO wounds upon the Samaritan, while the Samaritan still only sucks up one protheion wound. We first put him on two wounds, then subtract two, therefore leaving him in an unconscious state, where he can't rely on NWI --because of shock. Shock doesn't work on models that have two wounds though. Let's look at a new example, where in the first fight, the Samaritan adds one wound while the Gao-rael subtracts zero. Then in the NEXT order, the Samaritan adds zero, while the Gao-rael subtracts two. Because the Samaritan started the order as a 2W model, shock doesn't work. But it WOULD have worked in the previous example order where the Samaritan did NOT start with two wounds. Is that correct? Is "gaining" shock immunity something that happens simultaneously, or do you have to set it up first?
  10. Looking at those pie-charts is a painful reminder of how this campaign barely departs from the system used by flamestrike. It would be good to get more assurance from CB/BOW that volume of posted wins doesn't matter.
  11. Great colours
  12. I've been trying to imagine a variation of this campaign that DIDN'T incentivize win-farming. The core mechanic is showing data about how much you win as some particular faction, so clearly the ideal way to do that is to either fake the reports or convince someone who doesn't mind losing to you over and over again, to play against you and agree to lodge the outcome on the theater that your buddies over in the faction-forum are gunning for. It feels a bit gross. Keen to read suggestions from the community about other ways that a 'campaign' could be designed.
  13. I'm heading towards that exact position to be honest Although the mechanics of drawing an outcome are hidden, we're still shown a map based on volume of reported wins only, and see a news post that says 'sygtir-1' has fallen, so presumably any IC roleplay is still going off of how many winning batreps get piled up. I just find it jarring. Cervantes' use of the word 'exhausting' was spot on, in my opinion. Having said that, some people have been posting some great table/army painting images. I keep coming back for that stuff!
  14. I think they are pretty good in the new missions that encourage tags to control zones/objectives.
  15. Red Fury. Sometimes it costs SWC, sometimes it doesn't. What?