n-sphere

Members
  • Content count

    345
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Time Online

    526d 19h 5m 33s

Community Reputation

627 Excellent

1 Follower

About n-sphere

  • Rank
    Mayanaut
  1. I appear to be too stupid to figure out how to sign up on the new forum. Can someone spoon feed me on how to do it?
  2. In terms of units/unit concepts, I'd really like to see REMs get a fresh look. Especially since I don't feel like they've really plumbed the depths all the rules and combinations of rules they've already got. There is the default set of REMs almost everyone has, and are what they are. There are the non-default combat REMs that PanO, YJ, and Nomads get. PanO and YJ REMs are really good for their cost and feel like a big deal option for playing those factions. Nomads sorta got screwed, as the huge over-valuation of ARM saddled them with REMs that are a giant steaming pile of usable but unexciting mediocrity. Which kinda sucks because of those three factions Nomads always felt like they were billed as REMs being one of their focuses as a faction while PanO and YJ were billed as just having REM options due to them being tech factions. I'd really like to see Nomads get a fresh round of REMs that feel more points efficient. I especially wouldn't mind them looking at other S values. Like a S7 or S8 REM, or S4 or S5. Or generally try and add some "out of the box" REM options for Nomads. Maybe something weird for an S7/S8 REM so it isn't just a REM that acts just like a TAG. For example a drone carrier that is priced and has stats aimed at being an order tar pit that wobbles on the line where the other player isn't sure if they are going to waste more orders killing it or waste more orders playing around it. So maybe like 3 STR, Total Immunity, and high ARM, (maybe throw on a nano-screen?) but no serious direct offensive output? So possibly for weapons just nimbus plus grenades to allow it to make itself even more unappealing to spend more orders to shoot at (especially if the Nomad player is able to get a White Noise ARO off on it). Give it Koalas + Madtraps, then give it G-Synch with S1 micro drones that it can maybe re-launch with a deploy order, with maybe 3 profles to pick from that do annoying/utility things. Like junky WP FO drones, assault/berserk electric pulse drones (give them MSV2 so they can Engage against button pushers in smoke?), 360 visor total reaction stun pistol drones, or whatever. Stuff that is annoying, but nobody wants to spend orders to shoot at. Might make Spec Fire weapons like LGLs more interesting, as spec fire is a normal roll vs peremiter weapons, and REMs would be -6 on their dodge against a spec fire, as it might be efficient option for cleaning out the swarm. For the Nomad, it could do stuff like push mine fields, deploy drone swarms to guard buttons (deploy a swarm of MSV2 electric pulse G-Synch rems to spam discover and engage rolls against anything headed toward the button), or discourage dog warrior dives with deploying TR stun pistol drones, or whatever. Or just face tank some AROs to park its large S to block a fire lane. Or just maybe park itself and dasiy chain its swarm of G-Synch remotes + peremiter weapons across an area to block markers from from walking past, or block inferior infiltrators like those stupid USARF heavy flamers. Especially if Forward Deployment or Mech Deploy is involved and you could literally trap one or two of them. Or apply some other model types to the REM type. Maybe a S3 motorcycle REM with a pack of G-Synch S1 mini-motorcycle REMs (or motor-unicycles). Giving them a -6 dodge against LGL spec shots. I think if you gave the S1 G-Synch motorcycle rems a regular stat line, and then litterally made their dismounted statline into CrazyKoala with the perimeter skill, you could legeally have them dismount as CrazyKoalas without the deployment process (and its restrictions). Bike stat line has explode skill. Totally have a REM motorcycle with a Fast Panda deployable equipment as the rider profile, with 2x G-Synch REM Motorcycles with CrazyKoala deployable equipment rider profiles. Give them ODD, (maybe albedo too?), have the FastPanda with an assault pistol and CrazyKoalas with pistols. Bonus points if they include the S1 dismounted bike models and make the dismounted bike models proping up a metal panel so they count as ramps (dismounted motorcycles can count as scenery items and not tokens if you've got a based bike model. There was a brief window where in Army Builder Penny didn't have Impetuous on her rider profile, RAW you could have her dismount and the use model of her bike as scenery to get cover). Those are both ridiculous, but really: Nomads. Even getting out of the box but to a much lesser degree while looking at REMs to get Nomads would be nice.
  3. I'd really like them to take a second look at boarding/heavy shotguns. The big issue is that a lot of Haqq profiles with boarding shotguns don't make hardly any sense unless there is another piece of gear differentiating the profiles, because a rifle + light shotgun is almost always a much better option than a boarding shotgun. Why would you ever take a Ragik with boarding shotgun when you could have a rifle + light shotgun? You would have to REALLY want that one point in cost difference. I think the big culprit is how lackluster AP rounds are. ARM is by far the least useful and over priced stat in this game, and then you have a weapon with a blast profile that ignores the ARM bonus from cover and put it against the AP bonus. Maybe give it a stun slug mode as well? It doesn't need a power jump per se, but a differentiation bump to keep it from having just horrible practical utility compared to a rifle + light shotgun. It is a very specific issue, but it is really annoying when it crops up since the boarding shotgun ragik has a nice model.
  4. Seems kinda like a two birds with one stone situation. The product seems really aimed directly at eSport types, Magic/Netrunner/L5R/etc players, and X-Wing/Heroclicks players. While also being a self contained and fully legit board game, that a big box store could put on their shelf and a board game purchaser could purchase without hardly knowing anything was amiss. Magic packs are an awkward item to stock at Walmart since you really have to know Magic to know what you are actually buying. The only thing with slight clunk for a boardgamer is the number of players supported out of the box. The 4x team expansions planned for next year kinda solve the board game player count issue in an equally clunky way if they explicity state on the box they up the player count, since board game players do understand what an expansion is. But I do think the expansions are REALLY aimed at the apparent primary demographic as product waves sold off the backs of organized 'Friday Night Magic' play. It is Overwatch or DotA the board game, not on IP but on game mechanics. That demographic is going to instantly understand exactly what hero additions are doing to the game, FAR more than board game players are going to inherently understand it. Especially since CB has all the tools to roll out a really strong DCI equivalent system using the ITS infrastructure. I'm surprised they don't have an insert directing people to get their A! pin and use the A! team builder right in the box.
  5. Having watched an entire game and leafed through the rules, I don't think it needs multiplayer rules... in that it seems natively multi-player rules wise. I think the only thing I can think of that might assume "two players" is who gets the underdog token (but once a player has possession of the Underdog token it would work as expected with 3+ players. Actually it is actually MORE useful in multi-player environment where more ties would happen). The scoring system doesn't actually make much sense with just two players, as giving each player one point for tying the zone is very nearly giving each player zero points since it can't actually change who is up since the other player gets that point too. With more than two players, that one point for tying can actually change the relative scores since one player might get zero points. I suspect it is listed as two players for "parts in the box" reasons. If your game that is playable by four players is shipped in a box with parts enough for two players to play with, that box says "two players". There are only enough cards/models/etc in the box for two players to play with, and you would need a second box to add a 3rd or 4th player. Notice how the board is a hexagon, and the player "UI boards" fit onto the corners in such a way that five of the UI boards could mount on the arena?
  6. It isn't nuanced. It is sophist bullshit artistry all the way down to people publishing papers in journals with made up math claiming that gravity is a social construct, and anyone holding a degree from a field full of it straight up got scammed. We can thank it for nonsense ranging from Intelligent Design to the Wage Gap. Like Warhol's soup cans, it entire legitimacy rests on people not saying the emperor has no clothes, and like any other scam, under no circumstances will it ever provide a falsifiable claim to legitimacy.
  7. You are polling people on an Infinity forum. Not sure you are getting an especially unbiased cross section of Infinity players.
  8. I know what it means. Modernist thinking is based on subjective interpretation of objective facts (followed by gathering objective observations to give credence to their interpretation via how predictive it proved to be). Postmodernists say that nobody really knows anything because nothing is actually provable, therefore things like logic, reason, the scientific method, or "facts" like 50% of the lists containing TAGs are all subjective. There isn't anything left but subjective interpretation of literally everything after that. People who argue about Marksmanship LX and refuse to accept math showing probabilities about how it works because there are cases where you can roll a die where you'd hit with LX and miss without LX and claim it to be subjective are examples of postmodernists thinkers.
  9. This is sort of a trick question. I essentially like how crits are determined. I think what crits actually do once you've determined there is a crit is a problem holding the game back. Any poll result I select would be misleading.
  10. I assume this is sarcastic, but taken at face value I think this touches on a not insignificant aspect of crits. Specifically that the current acceptability of postmodern thinking, where 'subjective truth' is often viewed as having equal or greater standing even in cases where objective facts are known, creates people who believe any negative internal experience is proof of an unfair and hostile external force directed towards them. A lot of people legit fundamentally don't believe in math these days. They don't actually accept that rolling a die is a universal mechanic the works the same every time and for everyone. Seriously, people actually argue about Marksmanship LX. It is batshit insane, but batshit insanity is in the public square now, so things need a pleasing narrative for acceptability that is disjoined from any objective measurements. Crits being a universal mechanic mathematically is insufficient to argue crits are universal, the mechanic has to actually be universal and also feel universal to someone who won't objectively think about them mechanic. Personally, I think the mechanics of getting a crit should stay, but the effects of a crit need to change to address the disproportionate devaluation of ARM and D and how crits pump up the value of high B and undermines the value of many low B weapons due to how crits on their ammo types are underwhelming compared to crits on the ammo types of high B weapons. Assuming that adjustment gets them to make a normal roll after a crit, then it should hopefully tone down the emotion of getting critted too.
  11. Does the game really need more single model offensive output than BS 14-15, damage 15, B 4-5 though? I personally don't think it does. Every general increase in raw damage output hurts TAGs, HI, and MI while playing directly into the hands of SK and LI. 5 member fireteams can produce more, but have a lot of huge practical negatives when it comes to mobility on the actual tabletop, and start degrading quickly. TAGs already kill SK and LI dead into the ground super hard in terms of raw firepower, and SK and LI feel like they win that exchange because of how much you over-paid to kill them (therefore draining your ability to do the mission) and they still got their chance to crit you for cheap. If TAGs get even more raw firepower and can erase HI and MI easily, then the person having their HI and MI erased will ask themselves: why buy MI and HI when I could buy LI and SK instead? I get more orders and a TAG will kill my HI and MI so dead that when I'm getting shot at there isn't any practical difference between HI, MI, LI, and SK other than losing LI and SK don't set me back as much per enemy order spent and force them to spend more orders they don't have to clean everything out. I'll agree that the Multi-HMG is seriously underwhelimg to pay for though, especially the active turn options. Feels like a more pronounced version of the sniper vs multi-sniper situation, where access to cost-efficient sniper rifles is often the thing making a profile more appealing than the default multi-sniper, and DA/AP vs Shock is a hell of a lot more compelling of an upgrade than AP/Shock vs normal. I'd be totally fine with the Multi-HMG getting a B4 option that went after BTS, as one of the ways cheap troops stay cheap is having crap BTS scores. So AP/Shock/Viral1 B4 profile (where Viral1 is a viral ammo type that generates only 1 damage die but works just like viral. Can we please get an ammo type consolidation please? We really don't need a separate name for each minor variation in the number of dice we roll or if it halves the stat.), so it can switch hit against ARM or BTS to punish targets trying to get over on the system by being cheap through not being well rounded, and justify the points of more expensive well rounded profiles. Maybe look at a profile with B ~3-4 with D 15 circular impact template with some sort of "flak" or "shockwave" ammo rule that doubles the target's ARM, so they are strictly equal or worse against spread out models with ARM 3+ and breach storming impetuous troops, but reach new levels of illegal under the Concilium Convention when applied to low ARM targets skulking in cover. Loads of weapons that specifically beat up on high ARM high W targets exist, turnabout is fair play, and having TAGs be a source of that fair play seems right without increasing its ability to hurt expensive profiles by very much. TAG suppression is a double edged sword. Part of the table being S7 friendly is that it means there are relevant places a TAG could do a meaingful suppression from without it being trivial for an HMG to get LOF and hammer it from outside 24 inches. TAG suppression is brutal when the table conditions allow it, but the S value can make it orders of magnitude harder to pull it off in practice, or forces your expensive HMG to move up towards the centerline, into bad HMG range bands and towards all those nasty hackers or other tricks. Gecko wouldn't make much sense if it didn't have S6, BTS6, and shaved stats to keep it a budget pick for a suppression bot, and didn't make much sense I'll agree that TAGs are out-gunned, but not because other single models are doing more, but because other single models do very nearly as much while being platforms that cost significantly less while being easier to use and harder to kill for practical instead of statistical reasons. The fragility isn't burning to death on a flamethrower hit, it is the practical fragility in the difficulty to find somewhere a S2 with a long range high burst weapon can't find LOF to you from more than 24 inches away and then use their large order pool to bury you under a barrage of face to face rolls where you are rolling 1 die vs 4-5 and they've got a 18-22% chance to crit at least once or cancel your crit on every order they spend, or an absurd 34% chance with Fatality. I still say the problem is the platform (and the core crit/order rules that disproportionately hate a platform the more expensive it gets), not the raw killing power of the gun on the platform (although I'm 100% with ways to boost the killing power of the gun against low end targets in a way that mostly leaves the high end killing power the same, but I don't think that is strictly enough to solve the platform problem).
  12. If crits auto-wound, then ARM is so severely undermined by high B weapons, that the addition of more ARM just doesn't do what it should, since critting works equally well right up through infinite ARM. If crits don't auto-wound, then it feels like it should be an optional state where you give something up to get something to avoid creating a situation that feels like a stat skew list building for a hard gotcha against a list that didn't bring the specific answers to the skew. Which is the danger that TAGs represent, if they screw that part of the equation up TAGs can easily become that problem. So maybe a rule that gives an ARO that puts the model into a 'hunkered' state, where it gives up something like LOF or the ability to make ranged attacks in exchange for a serious ARM bump the current attack and all future attacks while in the state against all weapons lacking anti-materiel (maybe let the Warning ARO allow the TAG to cancel the state to reward good multi-model defenses). Something that lets a player look at a list and say: you've got no reliable anti-materiel, I see a strategy where I want to move my TAG somewhere aggressive and if you try and shoot it I'll hunker and put you at severe risk of burning through all your orders and failing to kill it despite getting normal rolls against it, or you ignore it and I'll then hurt you if don't play to minimize its next turn potential. Since it gives up LOF or ranged attacks, the other player sees some new options open up once it hunkers in exchange for losing the option they wanted more. Of course it won't hunker unless the options for playing around it in that particular game have unappealing implications, so both players feel like decision making in game is still a major deciding factor. Where someone building a list that pays for reliable and more expensive ranged anti-materiel/EM/ADHL weapons feels like their points were justified since they can dictate that hunker is a bad move until such time as those weapons get removed from play.
  13. That is fine. No one thing is going to provide 100% coverage, and it really wouldn't need to. Daylami get a panzerfaust for 7 points too. Point of the example was to show something that would be a soft speed bump that potentially makes life a little more complicated and less obvious for the comfort zone of HMGs fed by rifle armed FO line infantry or infiltrating CH1/2 rifle armed FO skirmishers. Of course D/A CCW morlocks need to get there, and panzerfausts get two shots for half an SWC, while more expensive options get anti-material at range more reliably. Shock weapons are rather marginal by default, but enough doctor plus, dogged, and NWI exists that they feel points justified for countering those speed bumps, but not required to deal with those speed bumps. Trying to add soft speed bump rules to TAGs that are countered by rules the profiles that get taken a bit too much don't have seems like a way to slowly walk the game in a more rounded direction. Not that Morlocks and Daylami panzerfausts don't get taken, just that people are generally not complaining about them specifically as a class of troop that seems to show up more often than people feel like they should to create a specific type of order count focused list they think they see too often. As for terrain, some of the issue would be mitigated by better table setups with S7/8 in mind. I'd wager that most terrain pools that exist in the wild don't contain majority Infinity licensed terrain. I'm not the biggest tournament traveler, but I've seen enough tables where there is literally nowhere a TAG could be deployed in total cover to factor that into my view on TAGs. In addition, if buildings do uniformly provide total cover, then one of the major benefits of TAGs, which folks seem to think struggle mightily with relevance, is lost with their inability to have great places to vault. I use the moto.tronica terrain a lot, and I had to learn to lay out the buildings then go back and apply shipping containers to the roofs to create a second S7+ total cover layer and places where they can vault onto a roof and gain partial cover. I think it helps, especially for the cheaper TAGs where they are only getting mid to high 20s worth of list damage per crit, although with the base radius and the height, it is still orders of magnitude harder to keep a TAG from getting fatally attacked by high burst attack pieces compared to S2 or even anything that can prone. Bikes are similar, but their really low profile makes it less frustrating, and they are far fewer points in one basket when they get got.
  14. I think the problem with TAGs is that they very expensive active turn attacking pieces that generally can't hide, especially can't hide on the S7 hostile tables many TOs short on terrain setup, suck at defending themselves in the reactive turn against high burst crit-seeking weapons, often have no way to fail a guts roll and break contact, generate one order, and make the crit mechanic as valuable as possible. ARM is also the most over-costed stat in the game. TAGs also justify points spent on cooler weapons that tend to be wasted points vs cheap targets (although I don't think this is a problem, something should make those more expensive weapons pay off). None of those problems are related to the offensive firepower of the TAG. Although the Multi-HMG don't have especially great active shots, especially against budget troops, and their reactive shots will likely be buried under B 4-5 crit-seeking attacks from models a fraction of their cost. The TAGs that are fine seem to generally mitigate some of those issues in some way. Sphinx is TO so it can hide in hidden deployment to avoid getting murdered before it can even activate, can become a marker that might not be discoverable in later turns, isn't paying for super high ARM, isn't paying for a Multi-HMG, has a smaller S, plus climbing plus means it can fail a guts roll and scamper onto the side of a building to break off the attack via full cover if it really needs to. I think a big part of the issue is that crits are just too good and too equal against unequally costed models, and crit-seeking weapons are just too good at inflicting crits while at the same time defending themselves against crits, that if you can't hide from those weapons you are going to have a bad time and TAGs are the kings of being terrible at hiding. Maybe if auto-wounding was toned down to no cover ARM and if the weapon has a Damage value it is bumped by 5 for the crit damage roll. That reduces most line infantry to only saving a combi crit on a 18+ or 19+ (and sniper/HMG crits auto-wounding ARM 0 infantry), while still giving a combi-rifle crit a non-hopeless 40% chance to wound a Jotum in cover and 50% against the more common ARM 8 TAGs, and generally make ARM a bit less over-costed. If the bonus damage applied to all the initial damage rolls directly generated from the hit, more expensive weapons with lower B values would be able to benefit from crit in a more equal way. Feuerbachs can't seek crits but when they did crit it would crit hard, and Anti-Tank mode missile launcher crits would be colon clearing. I'm guessing a crit change of some sort is coming to go hand in hand with Fatality, because I suspect that spitfire will be beyond stupid with crits as written. I also suspect new players REALLY don't like auto-wounding crits that don't even let them roll a die after already having all their higher rolls invalidated, so a walk back of some sort for crits seems like a good new player retention move. If toning down crits didn't fix TAGs, then I'd think TAGs would need to start getting slowly loaded up with free rules that expensive rules counter especially well. Maybe add a rule where a TAG can't be removed from the table unless the attack that would remove it has the anti-materiel trait, forcing order spam lists to pay for some more expensive weapon, or figure out how to kill the engineer and then just accept that a specialist pilot hiding in an invulnerable cocoon is the price of no anti-materiel follow up options in the list. Maybe handing out MSV1 to most TAGs would push back against cheap CH spam models while making TAGs vulnerable to expensive rules like HD+, Albedo, or new anti-MSV rules added to more expensive profiles. Generally try to figure out some way to shit more heavily on budget troops with budget weapons and budget advantages, yet justify also the points of more expensive profiles that pay points for counters. I just don't see how Fatality or Full Auto would really help all that much. TAGs don't need help in the active turn, they need help getting to take an active turn. -3 for the attack if you fire back (because you will fire back since despite being really expensive you dodge like cheap line infantry) isn't nothing, but won't stop the crit-seeking. Doubling the chance to crit on defense with an explosive or stun round makes it better at ARO for sure, but a 10% chance to crit against 18% or 22% being thrown by a much cheaper model still feels fighting fire with hot air, and not at all enough if the game is going to have 34% crit-rate attacks in it.