yoink101

Sniper Nest?

45 posts in this topic

I've heard a few different people mention using sniper nests in the last couple of weeks. What I mean by that, is a tall building or perch, if not the tallest, near a deployment zone where you can fit that nasty hmg, TO/Camo sniper, or some other dangerous long range piece.

I have tended to stay away from sniper nests because it means putting an expensive piece in a relatively inaccessible place in my deployment zone. I've also avoided them because depending on the layout of the table, it can be very difficult to draw LoF to only your target from such an exposed position.

I have tended to keep big pieces with big guns close to the ground and used them to protect lanes to objectives, if I leave them out to ARO at all. Basically, I think that putting an expensive piece in a sniper's nest just gives my opponent more options when trying to engage my big piece. Even if I have it in total cover during my opponent's turn.

I can see a good argument being made for putting a TO sniper or missile launcher in a perch so that you can get that clutch ARO when you really need it. I can also see a good argument for putting something like a Yan Huo in a perch where it can go prone for total cover because it will force your opponent to be much more conservative with his or her AROs.

Total reaction bots are the same for me. They are great pieces to use to cover an objective at the middle of the table, but I always try to place them away from sniper nests because if they can see my opponent's deployment zone, then my opponent's TO snipers can see my TR bot.

How do you use sniper nests? For decoys? For snipers? For linked missile launchers? For other and creative things?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it's too tall, not at all. If anything can see you you are hoping they didn't bring something that can deal with your guy. Buildings with balconies, or near taller buildings, can allow you to take cover on high ground covering part of the board but blocked off to most.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I usually put my sniper up on the roof, but at least half of that is because our tables tend to be very dense at ground level.  HMGs or Spitfires (or Yan Huo) tend to be down on ground level.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tower snipers have the advantage of LoS but the weakness of being very difficult to reposition, which makes them easier to avoid or engage in an advantageous position.

Consequently, TO Camo snipers are very powerful because your opponent cannot avoid what he cannot easily detect the position of.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I usually go for the sniper nest if i go first and can promptly hunt most (if not all) of my opponent's long range attack pieces. Note that it's also precisely why a sniper nest can be very valuable in certain situations: if you leave a guy on ground level, it's way "easier" for your opponent to go after him, whereas if he is prone on a rooftop*...

 

I just had a tournament today, and i think my first game was a good example of this (@Ayadan can confirm): ASA vs ISS, my linked celestial guard sniper on his rooftop basically dominated the board once the montesa spitfire was dead, and his montesa combi/LGL was prone on top of a tower near the middle of the board. Even though my sniper was pinning him down, he was mostly out of reach. Finally, he sent a naga to kill my sniper which took him a bunch of orders, but once he was dead his montesa climbed down and won the game for him.

Long story short, some games are won and lost on rooftops. There are pros (wider board coverage, safety) and cons (decreased mobility, possible multiple ARO/Active turn threat) that you should keep in mind when deploying.

 

*Note that an expensive active turn bully (like a Yan-huo, or a spetsnaz) prone in a sniper nest can make a good bait, since your opponent might try to pin it down with multiple ARO. It can also lock a bunch of defensive spot (for links or guys in supressive) if your bully/sniper can see them just by standing up.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It really depends on the terrain type and what you're using the Sniper for.  I was in the "No Sniper" camp, but learned to use them efectively as ARO pieces.  I rarely play without a Djanbazan Sniper; but I always have bigger, more intimidating threats (Azrail with HMG, my Odalisques Link Team with 2 Spitfires, an Iguana TAG, etc.)  This allows me to perch my Sniper in a Nest and ARO to my heart's content.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it all depends on your opponent and the sniper. If you have a TO sniper against an Ariadna army, that sniper will dominate firefights due to the TO camo and the lack of countering that Ariadna has for it. The sniper is also not an active turn piece unless using suprise short, or shooting through smoke. It is also important to have more than just the one ARO piece. If your Sniper is the only piece doing ARO's its not going to work out. I often have a Ghulam Missle Launcher, a Djan Sniper, and a TR HMG bot, this makes multiple aro threats.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Parking 2 TO Snipers next to each other in HD against Adriadna has been fun.

First one wastes 3 Orders and goes prone - opponent starts moving - 2nd guy reveals - priceless. Solo ARO pieces are predictable, layering several responses with Hidden deployment is where it's at. Baiting a HI Link team with a TR Bot and revealing a Swiss ML behind it for instance. Stuff like that won me games in a single ARO. TO MSRs are amazing, but a Noctifier waiting patiently until an entire Link walks through his LOF is a whole different story.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I avoid placing sniper towers on boards because they're boring false-choice bad design.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, DerBrizon said:

I avoid placing sniper towers on boards because they're boring false-choice bad design.

Drives me nuts to walk into a tournament and see a bunch of boards with obvious, well protected sniper nests at opposite corners. 

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DerBrizon said:

I avoid placing sniper towers on boards because they're boring false-choice bad design.

I am inclined to disagree, but I'm curious as to why you consider them "false-choice bad design."

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes, place the sniper nest just outside the deployment zone. Or place the crenellation just outside the deployment zone, you know just to screw the snipers out of their partial cover. Or place a billboard right in front of it so the model standing in the sniper nest will have a deceptively small field of fire :) 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are explicitly supposed to set up a sniper nest in both deployment zones.  This helps keep the value of expensive units high, and cheap units (warbands) low.

20170515_150231.png

You are also recommended to put a couple big buildings across the middle to break up the visibility of the sniper nests.

http://infinitythewiki.com/en/Setting_up_the_Gaming_Table

7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As above, terrain height is an important factor in getting long range firefights to occur whilst allowing players to try and avoid them if they prefer. At the same time height in dz shouldnt have full board vision imo.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Dasaan said:

You are explicitly supposed to set up a sniper nest in both deployment zones.  This helps keep the value of expensive units high, and cheap units (warbands) low.

20170515_150231.png

You are also recommended to put a couple big buildings across the middle to break up the visibility of the sniper nests.

http://infinitythewiki.com/en/Setting_up_the_Gaming_Table

Thanks for posting this Dassan I'm going to pay more attention in map making for this. How units are balanced makes assumptions that there will be certain features on the map. Add a low vis zone, a peice of terrain and usable buildings and suddenly you are taking guys for MSV1, Multiterrain or Climbing Plus. Makes it so interesting!

 

This picture is an exellent example. On the bottom picture, see that building on the right? That's a good building for a sniper ARO. Buildings that require you to be prone can cause problems, mainly with seeing too much at once.

 

A sniper tower doesn't have to be the tallest thing on the map. But elevated and with cover allowing you to restrict how much of the board you can see. That makes it good for the sniper.

I understand it can look arcadey because of that, but it doesn't have to. Here's some primo sniper buildings from Warsenal just off the front page.

Spoiler

6_bcadb343-65d4-40a4-85f0-6226d18e1ced_1

Spoiler

4_1a552918-9996-4f4f-ada4-296aa876b97d_1

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Dasaan said:

You are explicitly supposed to set up a sniper nest in both deployment zones.  This helps keep the value of expensive units high, and cheap units (warbands) low.

I'd argue the yellow box explicitly advises against having sniper nests in both deployment zones.

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Spleen said:

I'd argue the yellow box explicitly advises against having sniper nests in both deployment zones.

Fair enough, but you're not supposed to have no sniper nests.

To answer the OP's question, yes, put them in.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Page 186 shows tall buildings in deployment zones that can only see <=50% of the board's major movement paths. The relative size of those buildings isnt any different than the usual crates and 4x8 boxes on many tables.

What page 186 is showing is a canopy of layered terrain, and a table that provides options to go around that sniper's nest. Any sniper on those tall buildings is going to have to move to seek shots or AROs on other 'lanes.'

Unless im operating on a different assumption of what a 'snipers nest' entails, I'm pretty sure CB is just providing the very most basic and short sighted recommendation that any player can understand. There are many other ways to make deployment zones a valuable choice over turn order. If the 186 image is what a "sniper's nest" is, then yeah: Sniper's nests are fine.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Spleen said:

I'd argue the yellow box explicitly advises against having sniper nests in both deployment zones.

The yellow box was specifically talking about Asymmetric Deployment zones (as in, how to make the choice given to the winner of the initiative roll more nuanced), so I wouldn't count it as an overall endorsement of only having one sniper's nest.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I'm designing and building my Infinity scenery I deliberately design sub-optimal sniper positions. The spots with good cover have restricted lines of fire, and the areas with good lines of fire will have lousy cover.

I'm on my phone so no photos tonight but I'll try and get some added to this thread tomorrow.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, you don't want to make taking snipers bad. If you make sure there's no ideal deployment for a sniper you should think the same way for WB positive terrain.

If you are having a sniper dominating meta definitely tone it down. But it seems like most metas are leaning WB right now.

Not saying anyone in particular is doing this but be careful about balancing sniper nests to uselessness, especially if you don't use them yourself. If someone takes a good sniper and you don't have something to counter it you should be punished.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Sabin76 said:

The yellow box was specifically talking about Asymmetric Deployment zones (as in, how to make the choice given to the winner of the initiative roll more nuanced), so I wouldn't count it as an overall endorsement of only having one sniper's nest.

I understand that, but it's also written as to implicitly suggest there are no sniper nests until you make your table Asymmetric.

Also I think every board should inherently be Asymmetric and anything endorsed for that should be an overall endorsement.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I definitely think a lot of players over-terrain the board when playing Infinity. 

Should be able to clearly cover some firelanes and force the opponent to deal with things rather than just relying on rifles, chain rifles and evading the enemy's range.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017-5-15 at 11:37 PM, KestrelM1 said:

I am inclined to disagree, but I'm curious as to why you consider them "false-choice bad design."

Well some factions have no "plan B" if they long range sniper/HMG/ML just ate a crit from opposing sniper/ML/HMG. Walking around map with almost every single order getting sniper ARO is not fun. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eciu said:

Well some factions have no "plan B" if they long range sniper/HMG/ML just ate a crit from opposing sniper/ML/HMG. 

Like who?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now