yoink101

Sniper Nest?

45 posts in this topic

On 5/15/2017 at 10:34 PM, Loricus said:

If someone takes a good sniper and you don't have something to counter it you should be punished.

Noooooooooo. That's just a shitty compositional dice game.

If someone brings a good sniper, it's on them to use it well. The costing is based on potential. It is not an automatic gimme just because your brought it and someone else didn't. In a well made board, every single army is equipped to deal with snipers: spend orders going the long way.

1 hour ago, BaleWolf said:

Like who?

On a poorly made board most factions are susceptible to being completely lost when their SWC gets kills. Smoke can help mitigate bad boards in a reeeaallly big way.  In general, smoke wont save you from the worst tables.

0

Share this post


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

Noooooooooo. That's just a shitty compositional dice game.

If someone brings a good sniper, it's on them to use it well. The costing is based on potential. It is not an automatic gimme just because your brought it and someone else didn't. In a well made board, every single army is equipped to deal with snipers: spend orders going the long way.

On a poorly made board most factions are susceptible to being completely lost when their SWC gets kills. Smoke can help mitigate bad boards in a reeeaallly big way.  In general, smoke wont save you from the worst tables.

If you don't put any sniper counters in your army, you're doing it wrong. If you're not building in any redundancy, such as a back-up HMG, you're doing it wrong. If you've lost all of your swc weapons (and don't have any AD/Infiltrators/Impersonators), you've probably already lost, and it's not just due to the sniper.

 

There is no faction in this game that doesn't have anything to take out a sniper. There is no faction in this game that doesn't have the ability to take a back-up option to take out a sniper.

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, BaleWolf said:

If you don't put any sniper counters in your army, you're doing it wrong. If you're not building in any redundancy, such as a back-up HMG, you're doing it wrong. If you've lost all of your swc weapons (and don't have any AD/Infiltrators/Impersonators), you've probably already lost, and it's not just due to the sniper.

 

There is no faction in this game that doesn't have anything to take out a sniper. There is no faction in this game that doesn't have the ability to take a back-up option to take out a sniper.

You are aware of difference between additional 1-2 SWC invested in HMG (which can easily be autranged if the sniper nest is high enough) being well... extremaly more expensive than usual smoke.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Eciu said:

You are aware of difference between additional 1-2 SWC invested in HMG (which can easily be autranged if the sniper nest is high enough) being well... extremaly more expensive than usual smoke.

I'm very well aware of the cost of HMGs and other weapons. I'm addressing your comment  "some factions have no "plan B" if they long range sniper/HMG/ML just ate a crit from opposing sniper/ML/HMG." which is incorrect. It doesn't matter what kind of terrain is present if your only long range sniper/HMG/ML goes down and you don't have any redundancy, because that's just bad play. If you're saying that smoke is plan B, then you're correct, as not all factions have smoke and it wouldn't help anyway if that sniper has MSV2, that's why redundancy should be plan B. 

Yes, there should be some good, large sight blockers in the middle of the board. Yes, snipers should only have a few good long sight lines, not the whole board. Sniper nests in the DZ are fine as long as those other two things are true.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, BaleWolf said:

Yes, there should be some good, large sight blockers in the middle of the board. Yes, snipers should only have a few good long sight lines, not the whole board. Sniper nests in the DZ are fine as long as those other two things are true.

Yeah, the tabletop is really a separate issue.

When it comes to what an unopposed unit can do, such a sniper with nothing in range of it, I'm with @Loricus and @BaleWolf. If a player didn't bring a way or enough ways to deal with a threat they should be punished. Does it suck when you only bring one counter and it gets crit off the table... yes, but that's Infinity. If the table has one great sniper nest and you can't deal with that possibility, you better win initiative and choose accordingly.

I also believe every faction has more than one model to deal with a sniper. If a player finds they don't have enough ways to deal with a problem I assume they've over specialized/gambled (spent too many points or deployed) heavily in one area. That's part of the fun when building a list in Infinity to me. Where do i cut corners, what can i get away with, where do i need backup, what can i leverage, etc.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BaleWolf said:

It doesn't matter what kind of terrain is present if your only long range sniper/HMG/ML goes down and you don't have any redundancy, because that's just bad play.

But it does actually matter. Yours is a pure compositional argument; the position that a player should win because they made decisions before the board was ever built and they didnt eat crits is the opposite of why infinity has such detailed terrain requirements. The terrain rules in infinity are meant to MITIGATE the risks of eating crits. To soften the result of taking unexpected losses, and give a second (albeit maybe costlier) chance. Coordinated orders, and/or "the long way" is the universal second chance all armies get.

Terrain is the thing that makes this game function. Without careful considerations of giving options and tools in the form of terrain - decisionmaking in the moment of the game that overcomes the opponent's  decisions - the game becomes rockpaperscissor. That simple game is as boring as infinity can possibly get.

The  towering snipernest represents the most boiled-down, easy to recognize, and boring false-choice variant on this.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've gone back and forth. When I started I always used them, but then I found I wanted to move my sniper later and it wasn't efficient to do so, so I started putting them on the ground. After that I started just having HMGs as my long range weapon. Then I started deciding that sniper ranges are useful because HMGs can't outrange HMGs. Where I am in how I play now is if I want a strong ARO presence, I'm going to put a lot of stuff out there to claim AROs, with crossing lanes of fire if possible. And the moment I put them up there they are dead to me.

If your table has sort of a second level with a lot of ramps its a little different, it's easier to put them up high and plan on moving them that way.

Also if your table has a second level with a lot of ramps, don't forget that you want AROs on the ground too because there may be a lot of view blocks along the path going from one level to the next, if that makes sense.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying it should be an autowin, but you shouldn't balance snipers out of the game so you don't have to deal with them.

If you don't bring anything stronger than a Spitfire you get punished if they bring a TAG. The solution to this isn't to rebalance the map until TAGs aren't useful.

If a map is poor there is no reason to take a sniper over an HMG.

2 hours ago, DerBrizon said:

In a well made board, every single army is equipped to deal with snipers: spend orders going the long way.

That's what punished means! You misunderstood, I never meant "you should win."

But in a well made board you can set a sniper up so there isn't always a clear path for any SK or WB to just waltz under their range.

For example I've killed an MSR and a TR bot on turn one with a Bandit before. If the opponent says "damn I shouldn't have put them there" that's fine, it's a mistake. But if there was nowhere to put them that I couldn't manage that with orders to spare the map was bad.

 

The absolute solution to "the map shouldn't affect composition" ends up with maps that favor WB, SK and spam.

2

Share this post


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

But it does actually matter. Yours is a pure compositional argument; the position that a player should win because they made decisions before the board was ever built and they didnt eat crits is the opposite of why infinity has such detailed terrain requirements. The terrain rules in infinity are meant to MITIGATE the risks of eating crits. To soften the result of taking unexpected losses, and give a second (albeit maybe costlier) chance. Coordinated orders, and/or "the long way" is the universal second chance all armies get.

Terrain is the thing that makes this game function. Without careful considerations of giving options and tools in the form of terrain - decisionmaking in the moment of the game that overcomes the opponent's  decisions - the game becomes rockpaperscissor. That simple fame is as boring as infinity can possibly get.

The  towering snipernest represents the most boiled-down, easy to recognize, and boring false-choice variant on this.

You seem to have miss understood me, as I'm saying that even on well set terrain (as well set terrain boards shouldn't allow the opponent to walk up the board completely uncontested), or terribly set terrain, if you're relying on one model to handle enemy ARO pieces, you're failing. All I was addressing was Eciu's comment about certain factions not having a plan B, as every faction has plan Bs. You should not have one lynch pin unit to try to take out a sniper. If that lynch pin goes down, the sniper should rule where it can see, if not, why bring snipers? As Jujoji is saying, it's a separate discussion to the terrain density/sniper conversation, and we can bring it to a different thread if you want to discuss it further.

 

Yes, terrain should have a good mix of high density and low density with all sorts of shot blockers, and that sniper shouldn't be able to see everything. But at the end of the day, if you only have one one model that can reach the opponents deployment zone to remove ARO pieces (which can be Infiltrators, AD, Impersonators or anything else) and no alternative options, even on the best/optimal/amazing board, you're setting yourself up for failure.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you only have one counter sniper you're sprinting it back and forth to deal with every Panzerfaust they have. Regardless of terrain you need to think about that. Unless the terrain is so dense you can't stop people with an ARO at range.

It's possible but you better be a faction with smoke and/or have more guys with a form of advanced deployment. Like Bakunin can use Prowler Spitfire or Bran. My Corregidor has drop Climbing+ and drop SWC guns.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/17/2017 at 4:39 AM, 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. Walking around map with almost every single order getting sniper ARO is not fun. 

I would argue if the board is set up such that all objectives are denied and there is no way to counter a long range aro, its a very poorly set up board

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hehe.  Last tuesday I had my two snipers obliterated by a Missile Launcher at the same time.  Mine were a Djanbazan Sniper and a Husam Spec-Op with Viral Sniper Rifle (Hafza variant) in a Full Core Link Team; my opponent's was a PanO Fusilier in a full Core Link Team.

After a bad ftf rolls and abysmal ARM saves, both my Snipers became just a memory.  My plan B did survive long enough to position herself favorably (Azrail with HMG) but was taken out by a Swiss Guard with AHD. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17/5/2017 at 7:15 PM, Loricus said:

The absolute solution to "the map shouldn't affect composition" ends up with maps that favor WB, SK and spam.

This really isn't a problem - in a tournament context anyway.

The best tournaments I've attended had a huge variation in table setup, some tables were planet bowling ball, some were dense slums, some were jungle and others less extreme. Not being in control of the nature of the table and what missions to play where, really forces you to make choices - like taking a list not optimized for a particular mission in order to deal with the challenges of the table.

 

0

Share this post


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

This really isn't a problem - in a tournament context anyway.

The best tournaments I've attended had a huge variation in table setup, some tables were planet bowling ball, some were dense slums, some were jungle and others less extreme. Not being in control of the nature of the table and what missions to play where, really forces you to make choices - like taking a list not optimized for a particular mission in order to deal with the challenges of the table.

 

It's a problem when a local meta always favors the same units.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Regelridderen said:

This really isn't a problem - in a tournament context anyway.

The best tournaments I've attended had a huge variation in table setup, some tables were planet bowling ball, some were dense slums, some were jungle and others less extreme. Not being in control of the nature of the table and what missions to play where, really forces you to make choices - like taking a list not optimized for a particular mission in order to deal with the challenges of the table.

Isn't tournament context exactly where that's a problem?

One player makes a generic list to handle all possibilities. Another player specializes in long range snipers. Assuming both players are of equal quality, the tables drawn play a huge roll in the outcome of matches.

What you're describing exchanges one meta for another. Players either list build, where sniper effectiveness is based on local meta table layout or based on a random table meta.

What's the point of terrain skills in a random table meta? Anything but multi-terrain is a crap shoot. The same applies to snipers. If table layout is random, avoiding specialized units like snipers makes sense the same way avoiding Zero-G does. Building lists with average medium range bands handles more table layouts one might encounter. That one random table a specialized unit may love does not make specialized units more viable, it makes them less viable.

Infinity has enough elements where luck is a factor. I don't want table layout to be another. Personally, I want to have some idea what type of table i'll be playing on from game/tournament to game/tournament before i make my lists. Allowing a second list helps but Infinity is complex and two lists is still a crap shoot. It feels much more satisfying, fair, and fun to know I'll be boarding a space ship, facility, or dense area before I show up with a list full of aquatic troops and snipers.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Jujoji I wouldn't say, that it is a problem. It just ups the demands to your lists. 

And sure you may have little use of 0-G, unless you arrange a 0-G game specifically. On the other hand, how many 0-G or jungle tables, do you actually see?

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Regelridderen said:

@Jujoji I wouldn't say, that it is a problem. It just ups the demands to your lists. 

And sure you may have little use of 0-G, unless you arrange a 0-G game specifically. On the other hand, how many 0-G or jungle tables, do you actually see?

True, it's not really a problem, more a play style. It's just one I don't enjoy, especially for tournaments.

If players knew their table/terrain type ahead of time i think you'd see more variety in tables. I'm not going to build my own zero-G/sniper table when the only possible way a player will be able to take advantage of it is when the stars align and they select that special troop AND draw that table. We'd end up with extremes. For every player that lucks out, the opponent has a terrible experience. If both knew in advance, there can be no complaints. And when both players have that information you can add plot twists to a game without screwing over one player... you screw over both players equally. Now that's fun.

I think CB echos this a bit as they've chosen settings/missions that have specific table/terrain requirements. I just hope they take it a step further and require organizers apply it to their tournaments someday. But i understand the game isn't popular enough and multiple tables fitting a similar theme are not readily available. So placing those kinds of limits on everyone hurts growth and access to infinity. So while I must accept the current state of Infinity, if i had time and money to run a tournament, I'd do so as I've described.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not, that I disagree with you @Jujoji

In general, the best of tables offer a mix of dense terrain where shotguns rule, sniper corridors and everything in between - along with something, that makes it a choice between deployment/initiative. But there is nothing like, when you end up on an unconventional table, that forces you to improvise and make the most of it. It's those exceptions and surprises, that can swing a tournament, when you can't rely on your default tactics.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Regelridderen said:

But there is nothing like, when you end up on an unconventional table, that forces you to improvise and make the most of it. It's those exceptions and surprises, that can swing a tournament, when you can't rely on your default tactics.

But you can have those exceptions and surprises without swinging the tournament in someones favor largely because of dumb luck. Missions are typically not randomly assigned during tournaments for a reason. Do you want to find out you'll be playing a mission where TAGs are essential after you've made your list with no TAGs? The more you let outside influences affect the outcome of Infinity matches, the more cookie cutter list building will become. 

Imagine three different tables to play on all giving advantages to different lists. One player builds a generic list. The other builds a list suited for one of the three tables. In a one off game if the right table comes up the other player has the advantage. Over the course of three matches on all the tables, the generic list has the advantage. Odds are in favor of the generic list in both scenarios however.

So why would players build anything but generic lists? That's dull and repetitive. If you want variety or challenges play games in wildly different situations. This includes table top terrain, missions, rules etc. They key is creating an equal playing field. I don't want to play a game where my opponents sniper heavy list auto wins because i got stuck with a wide open table. That is the opposite of fun. However if we both made a list for a boarding action and the thematic scenario results in both of us crashing to a desert planet. We can both improvise with our shotguns or whatever we have on an open field.

If players know the table or setting before making a list... there are no advantages and everything is again, equal. There is nothing wrong with playing some games where the terrain will be completely unknown to a player. But those situations should not be the norm.

Table tops can't have everything to accommodate every troopers special talents either. To do so creates another repetitive game situation and would quite frankly be disgusting from a thematic point of view.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least in terms of a Zero Gee list, well, I can make a list that is going to own in Zero Gee and still be a good generalist list:

logo_502.png Jurisdictional Command of Corregidor
──────────────────────────────────────────────────

orden_regular.png10  
logo_23.pngCARLOTA KOWALSKY Combi Rifle + Light Flamethrower, Adhesive Launcher, D-Charges + Moriarty / Pistol, Knife. (0 | 34)
 sep.giflogo_23.pngMORIARTY Electric Pulse. (4)
logo_2.pngTOMCAT Doctor (MediKit) Combi Rifle + Light Flamethrower + 1 Zondcat / Pistol, Knife. (0 | 26)
 sep.giflogo_2.pngZONDCAT Electric Pulse. (4)
logo_4.pngHELLCAT Lieutenant Combi Rifle / Pistol, Knife. (1 | 22)
logo_3.pngWILDCAT (Number 2) Combi Rifle + Light Flamethrower, D-Charges / Pistol, Knife. (0 | 20)
logo_3.pngWILDCAT Hacker (Assault Hacking Device) Combi Rifle + Light Flamethrower, D-Charges / Pistol, Knife. (0.5 | 25)
logo_3.pngWILDCAT Spitfire / Pistol, Knife. (1.5 | 24)
logo_3.pngWILDCAT Heavy Rocket Launcher / Assault Pistol, Knife. (2 | 20)
logo_3.pngWILDCAT Boarding Shotgun, Stun Grenades, Deployable Repeater / Pistol, Knife. (0 | 17)
logo_8.pngGECKO 2 Combi Rifles, Chain-colt, Panzerfaust / . (0 | 53)
 sep.giflogo_8.pngGECKO PILOT 2 Assault Pistols, Knife. ()
logo_8.pngGECKO Mk12, Chain-colt, Blitzen / . (0.5 | 54)
 sep.giflogo_8.pngGECKO PILOT 2 Assault Pistols, Knife. ()

5.5 SWC | 295 Points

Open in Infinity Army

 

0

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