• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Time Online

    363d 4h 49m 34s

Community Reputation

118 Excellent

About Barrogh

  • Rank
  1. I wonder if one can put an alternative head from this set onto LE model? Would be a decent variant of her, perhaps. Talk about investing into character lol.
  2. Something we probably won't see until N4, but I would really like some improvements on general rule writing. Apparently CB has improved considerably in this department since initial releases and even N2, but I wish they would give someone with some very basic knowledge of programming (and some Infinity experience ofc) a position of a proof-reader, if not a writer.
  3. Damn, that worked I have no idea why did I go for that character, but indeed.
  4. Hoo boy, mono used to leave a trace of mono stuff on the ground and were in TR bots' loadouts? Wow. And apparently there was swimming. I'm not exactly surprised that Ghazi used to be... different.
  5. Other Janissaries, hassassins, halqas, kaplans and irregular plebs don't have cubes indeed. That's a lot of units, but others have them. And indeed, Azrails and Fasids are among them.
  6. What were the old Impetuous rules?
  7. Is that... An Azrail / Fasid link?.. Camo thing sounds like some sort of creative rule reading, tbh And CA was on blast at the time, it seems. One thing I would like to point out is that one of the main reasons for this thread was the fact that many things are often mentioned, but rarely explained. I really wonder how exactly those things used to work
  8. From time to time gaming communities tend to spawn these threads where vets recall ye days of the olde. How the game was before all the changes these kids don't even remember. How it was fun to play that game with all those broken things around. Occasionally I hear tales about Caskuda, old camo and who knows what else. But I was nowhere around at the time. And hearing references to the old days or how something is a holdover from N2 makes me curious. So, what are the most memorable things from older version of Infinity you remember? What gives you feeling of nostalgia? To what you would say "good riddance"? Share some stories, dear vets
  9. Reading this thread I feel I absolutely suck at mass media But damn that guitar player was brilliant. Anyway, this is mine. The character is a bit obscure and to many the work said character is from is not really memorable, so I'll give a hint that the work in question was released in 2010 (damn, how fast the time flies; I was sure it's 2015 or so until I verified it). Hopefully I am not leaving out some characteristic details. Anyway. Regular, Non-Impetuous, No Cube MOV CC BS PH WIP ARM BTS W S 4-4 15 12 12 15 0 0 1 2 Basic Impersonation, I-Kohl L1, Specialist Operative; Pistol, Improvised grenade launcher (Stun+Smoke)
  10. That hair though... ...wait, you aren't talking about pilot, are you?..
  11. Well, technically an elevated piece of terrain that leaves your legs exposed could still be able to "conceal and equivalent of one-third of the base" depending ion how we understand "equivalent". Some of those possible meanings may be simply redundant - if you read this as equivalent volume, for example, because with base being a part of silhouette, anything that conceals 1/3 of the silhouette also conceals a volume of 1/3 of said silhouette's part. If it's a shape/projection equivalent, then it's a separate requirement that may or may not be fulfilled even if 1/3 of your silhouette is concealed (imagine a grate with thin beams and spaces between them twice as wide as beams' thickness; well, and a 3x3mm hole there somewhere so you could claim a LoF). Of course, we have received an answer on intention. But I feel that wording is a bit weird.
  12. @Spleen Perhaps. I personally think that Face-to-Face roll is rather specific term with an entire chapter describing when you have to do when something is calling for said F2F roll. So while it's possible that writers had something else in mind, I kind of doubt that whey would use the term if they didn't mean it. After all, the more intuitive thing to write, providing they intended what you have described, was something along the lines "respond with an ARO ignoring these normal requirements if that specific situation occurs" instead of mentioning specific thing that you aren't even *declaring* per se. Another thing that makes me feel that F2F was actually the intention is that anything that turns enemy roll into F2F is a defensive action, and this is usually associated with uncanny reactions in fluff. Of course, we have to ask actual writers what they meant. So far I think that playing this rule literally (in that you must do something that generates F2F) makes certain sense.
  13. Rules clearly state that he is only referred to if you want to make a roll. It is not the same as Skill declaration, it's just a part of the instruction on how to resolve particular declaration. Basically, rules say that G:S trooper can <do Doctor/Engineer stuff>, but while using that skill, it's its linked specialist who does the roll. That's the wording, btw. But implication is, it's still G:S who uses the Skill, granting ARO, fulfilling requirements (like being in b2b) etc. And both troopers activate as a result. They must conform to specific Skill declaration rules, but they declare separate (even if same) Skills nevertheless. ------------- What if the wording was: "Trooper with G:Servant allows its linked trooper possessing Doctor or Engineer Skills to use them ignoring a requirement to be in B2B with the target as long as this G:S trooper is in B2B with said target. All other requirements must be still met. When doing so, G:S trooper generates AROs as if it was him using those skills, although Doctor/Engineer and its linked G:S trooper still only generate a single ARO per Order".
  14. Please, those are my security specialists first and foremost.