Sabin76

Members
  • Content count

    249
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Time Online

    474d 22h 51m 5s

Community Reputation

137 Excellent

About Sabin76

  • Rank
    Mayanaut
  1. Definitely the mane. I guess I could see a case for cables on the Suryat. I always figured those were beard dreds/braids, though.
  2. I've only brought out my Xeodrons in a Haris, but I've certainly thought about bringing only one. The only thing that stops me is the fact that the Overdron seems to just be a better toolkit. You get Albedo, Deflector, and templates (burst 3 fire template... yum) for fewer points than a Xeodron. That said, SWC and superjump are things that keep getting me to return to the idea (also Damage 15 Blitzen and heavy pistol now...). I imagine it'd be decent in an area control mission: advance with superjump and put it into suppressive. I don't think I'd take the K1 profile as a lone wolf unless I was sure I would be facing very heavy armor (Fatality doesn't work on K1, right?), so it would likely be up to SWC allowance. RF provides one more burst for +0.5 SWC, but the Multi has AP for the same damage.
  3. Then how about the fact that it's just plain ridiculous to have an unconscious model try to escape a "danger zone" by moving? Note that wounds are applied in step 8 (Effects) before Guts Rolls are made, so no trying to reason it as "well, you just fell back before you actually fell unconscious."
  4. I get the implications just fine. Perhaps you misunderstood my point, which was that it's not gaining an advantage (which is what a person who has information that only an experienced player can ascertain when playing against someone inexperienced); it is getting rid of a disadvantage (that a newer/less experienced player usually has by not knowing these things off-hand). If you have a single model in camo, HD or AD, then you should be perfectly OK with your opponent knowing exactly what that is (no matter who they are), because any experienced player will be able to tell without looking through the army builder. The information is private, yes, and that is clearly defined in the game (as something you do not need to tell your opponent), but it's not "hidden" unless you've made a list that hides it. If you haven't done that, then how could you complain when someone tries to figure it out? Sure, if you like winning because they are inexperienced. I mean, they are already at a disadvantage because of inexperience with the rules, so their tactical decisions will likely be quite sub-optimal. This is what I'm talking about. I think we all agree that if they are stalling the game, or being an ass about it, then you have grounds to be upset. But it seems to me that people have fun when they play the game together. I dunno, maybe its because I am relatively new and I play with a group that are all quite new as well...
  5. What advantage, though? It's the person with the "hidden information" that has the advantage, but only against those that don't have the experience, and/or aren't very good at memorizing point values. A person who builds your list in Army is using a tool that cannot, in any way, be said to be cheating... unless there is some unspoken rule about using an app instead of a rulebook and a piece of paper. I'll ask again. What if the rule about point values of your models being private information was just the easiest way to hide those few cases where even someone with extensive knowledge of the game could be fooled? What if it was fully intended that someone could look at my DZ and tell that there is only one model that could possibly be my LT? That someone could see the hole in your list and make some educated guesses about what it could be? To be sure, I don't do this. I think I'd learn faster if I didn't. And someone spending large amounts of play time doing this is creating a NPE. So why make them spend that time when you could just tell them and save both of you some grief? Wouldn't you rather beat them based on how you play your list, instead of simply having your list? At the very least, in casual games? Except that it's absolutely not. Crack open the rulebook and see for yourself. All you've done is made the game take a bit longer by not answering information that is freely available at any point in the game. Now, of course you could argue that the other player was the one delaying, and I'd simply say that you are both partially at fault.
  6. It's an option for the Unidron link, but not the Rodocks. One or the other.
  7. Isn't it easier, though, to classify all unit costs as private to protect those that it really affects (several have been listed already in addition to Holos), even if that means anyone could tease out a lot of that information anyway? I mean, what's the alternative? All unit costs on the table are public? Then those profiles that change in point costs due to skills that are private information no longer have skills that are private information. I guess the only other alternative would be to make those specific units that have point values change due to private skills hide their cost, but that creates a consistency problem.
  8. It seems to me that Unidrons were probably bioengineered based on the Nexus race. We've known about this since the dossier came out though, as it was pretty clear then that the similarities were large in number.
  9. But you are targeting the ground anyway, so the enemy model wouldn't benefit from partial cover.
  10. I'll try to answer best I can: 1. From what you've quoted, it's the phase that no longer exists due to Retreat! That means even Morats lose their impetuous movement because the impetuous phase no longer happens (and impetuous orders cannot be spent). 2a. I believe so, yes. 2b. It's not explicitly called out, I guess, but I would argue that CH: Mimitism would also not apply. It doesn't matter how well you are able to mimic your surroundings, that grenade is going off. 2c. This does seem oddly worded, but it is suggesting you place the template so that it is in full view of the enemy model that is behind partial cover to you. Not sure why that would matter, though, since you don't get partial cover mods against template weapons anyway and we're talking about partial cover, not total. 3. Future Proofing is the best answer I've heard on this. 4. Perhaps this is lost in translation? I know you only make one dodge roll against any number of templates you are under, but I'm pretty sure you take a number of hits = to the number of shots. On the other hand, I seem to recall a match recently where someone was arguing that the burst on a template simply gave you a better chance to make that one hit. I'll defer to others on this.
  11. Definitely can! This state is automatically cancelled if the Controller of this trooper recovers from the state which caused the activation of the Disconnected state. If this state has been caused by breaking Coherency with the Controller, then it will be automatically cancelled at the end of an Order in which the Disconnected trooper is again in Coherency with its Controller. If this state has been caused by an Attack, a piece of scenery, or a Special Scenario Rule applied to this trooper, then it is automatically cancelled if a trooper with the Special Skill Engineer (or an equivalent Skill) spends one Short Skill of an Order while in base contact with the affected trooper and passes a Normal WIP Roll (or the Roll specified by the Special Skill or Scenario that caused the state).
  12. The only way an enemy can ARO on your second short skill is if they couldn't ARO on the first one, or there was some condition that allowed them to delay their ARO (marker state or Sixth Sense in Zone of Control). So, if your first move kept you out of sight of the enemy, and then your second move brought you into LoF, they would get to ARO and you could do nothing about it. If you move and an enemy could see, but chooses not to ARO, they lose the ability to ARO for the rest of your order, no matter what your second short skill is. You can never ARO an ARO. If your active model isn't rolling dice against enemy AROs, then the enemy will get normal rolls. And, just in case this was about to come up, remember that an ARO can only ever be against an activated model.
  13. Well, actually, the main problem was that I didn't have a courtesy list for him. That would have answered the question at hand, but I also had two HD models. Giving the more general (and easily obtained) answer leveled the strategic playing-field. Like I implied, I'd rather have a game decided on tactics than strategy.
  14. Not going to judge what other people do, and I probably would be less forthcoming in a tournament setting (it also helps that the majority of our meta is quite new to the game, myself included), but I generally freely give up information to a player that they would be able to ascertain if they had more knowledge of the metagame. Essentially, I head the app off before they would get a chance to use it. Strategic information is open to anyone before a game and so I don't mind giving someone a bit more of an even playing field in that regard. I also don't mind if someone doesn't want to extend that same courtesy, as I understand that others consider that a learned skill. For example, I play Onyx and sometimes a newer player will ask me which models on the table have smoke. Instead of telling them that none of the models on the table currently have smoke, I'll simply say that my faction doesn't have access to it. I'll also often point out which model is my LT if that's the only model in my list that could be LT (I'll probably be using that order first turn anyway, if that's the case). Again, this is all information that could be gained by simply knowing more about my faction and studying it before the game. This has nothing to do with in-game choices and tactical decisions. That is the skill that I think is the heart of Infinity (one which I still need to work on.... a lot :P).
  15. I think that was the point of #2, though (not sure). You could do 2 if they are closer than your full move horizontally.