Another one: perhaps it's worth it to get rid of redundancy. Fireteams would be a good example. Basically, these days everyone uses Army or its alternatives, and Army threats ability to form Fireteams as a special rule, even including it in profiles together with other special rules like Mimetism or whatever really. But on top of that we have things like list of Fireteams, status of a Sectorial Army or "Army that specifically allows use of Fireteams", and also rules (Infinity Fireteams, common requirements section) that tell me that I can only form Fireteams when something allows me to form Fireteams, listing possible sources of said permission that happen to heavily overlap like it was pointed out above. I don't know about you, but IMO it only opens up a venue for conflicting interpretation when you create a new rule that allows you to do X, but then we get to argue about that because said rule is obviously not mentioned in another rule that says "You can do X if... (list)". All the while making it more taxing for rule writers. It is very convenient for us when things are written in "everything you need to know about X in one place" style, but I'd rather see that in the form of official articles/examples rather than them having rule status, simply to remove risk of creating contradictions. Oh, and again, I don't think it's healthy when examples are the only sources of rules on how to handle certain interactions. I'd prefer them to be "examples" more literally.
They are priced in accordance with the points system, but that BTS value is not as useful as Veteran or BS and that CC values is in no way shape or form even remotely useful enough to cost more than a tiny fraction of a point, yet it does due to rounding. Hence, in a comparison, Securitate is getting a lot better deal for those 3 points.
The value of Veteran is hotly debated. I think it's great, some people hate it. BS 12 is absolutely better than BS 11 and +1 CC though I'll give you that.
Yeah, it's on topic of the thread :p BS is clearly better than all 3 other stat increases involved, yet all 4 results in a single point increase each. Could debate the value of Veteran, but honestly I think it's maligned mostly because people think it's more expensive than it is.
I still think there's some rounding lurking in the Fusilier-v-Zanshi comparison, but yeah. Value of BTS depends on how many weapons attack it in your local meta. I suspect the increase of Breaker weapons is to make BTS more valuable.
Personally id rate veteran on line troops that are rarely fighting over bs+1 which is easily eclipsed by weapon load out and range bands in what makes a unit a good combat troop.
Well, to be fair, cheerleader core with HMG (which tend to be cheap in SWC on them) is perfectly fine troubleshooter in some armies, and then there are defensive snipers who can sometimes be more than just a body to be eaten. Then again, "in some armies" is the relevant part because some of them aren't exactly starved for active pieces and/or have good active inclusions in those cores. But yeah, vet on Securitate is actually pretty good for contextual reasons. While they aren't exactly pushers who could benefit from resulting isolation immunity, it's still on cheap-ish cheerleader, meaning you can actually make a reserve of Regular orders without paying through the nose for it. At the same time they aren't in an army where every damn one is a vet, making them rather valuable (although they still would be, seeing how Tunguska isn't exactly spoiled for cheap orders... OTOH AVA 2+2 of 8 pts REMs is better than in some other armies).
Well, this is way off-topic, but yeah there has been some art and science both... For the record a final version will be uploaded early next week, made available at CB's site in due course, and a current extract is available here: https://watchwolf.net/japanese-translations/ Spoiler: Off-topic: JP Quick Start Rules Project Apart from broadening the appeal of the game, my longer term goal with organising a translation to Japanese was to help people compete politely without also having to speak one another's language. I came to think Japanese gamers were polite to the point of watching something they don't understand, don't agree with or might actually feel cheated by without saying anything at all - just nodding and carrying on with their own game. I tested this by doing things like completely breaking rules to see what our main translator would do, and I was amazed to see that despite being a senior manager at a major telecom (ie. confident, and well respected) he would make no comment whatsoever at such misplays. This is extremely problematic, because what I want to know is whether or not the rules are being understood, and a demonstration of that would be if the lead translator would say "I think you've made a mistake there" or similar, but Japanese players seem disinclined to doing this. Anyway, I feel the basic building block is be to establish reserved words whose phonemes are used internationally, and my suggestion was that we could start with unit profile attribute names, such as BS' ('Be Ess'); CC ('Sea Sea') etc. so that players can describe their moves eg. "BS 12 [plus] 3 [for] Spitfire Range; [minus] 3 [for your] Cover; minus 3 for your Camo, etc. but CB currently lack any such standardisation. If there's an art involved, it'll be persuading them of the value of that! I'm always interested in remarks by @xagroth and similarly multilingual others about niceties in the difference between rules translations. It may be that we need a sub forum here for translators to be assisted by others with similar problems, and multi-lingual players. If others involved or interested in translations read this, maybe they could get in touch and we can at least maintain a shared Conversation, thanks!
@Wolf it's interesting to me that you went with loan words for as much as you have. What prompted you to use "オーダー" instead of "命令" for example? Do you expect players to not know the kanji or term? (granted I've seen a lot of military and scifi shows, but it would never have occurred to me to not use the existing terms, even if they were jargon-heavy)
Back to specific rules, there's an Idea I've seen somewhere on these boards (I don't remember who brought it up at that time, sorry) that supposedly would buff not exactly expendable dedicated ARO pieces, something that feels a bit weak ATM, aside from few specific cases. Add a clause to descriptions of healing abilities (Doctor, Medikit, Medjector, Regeneration, Automedikit, whatever else could be missing) that would allow successfully revived troopers to stand up from Prone state if they so wish. I'd say that adding more value to those abilities isn't really a bad idea these days (what's with universal 3 turn limit, proliferation of Shock, high bursts on the offensive etc.). On the other hand, I'm not sure if further buffing roofs with LoF-blocking "railings" is a good one. Also, some factions will be left out with such a change despite having somewhat expensive pieces they would love to use in ARO sometimes, which is also a concern.
Thanks. I'm keen to discuss the project and the decisions we've been making, but it's way off-topic here; somewhere else?
I don't feel qualified to remark on whether units are correctly costed for Army points, but I'm puzzled that almost all points comparisons I read seem to be made as direct one-for-one comparisons which seems maybe a little simplistic to me; isn't it very important to consider the army they're in? For example, surely a (Yu Jing) Tiger Soldier (which unit I've spent a disproportionate amount of time envying ) isn't directly comparable to a (Pan O) Crusader or to a (Combined) Rasyat, because each troop exists in the context of its army, and is supported and so priced by the weapons, skills and equipment of the rest of the army. Not to mention that you actually can't take the alternative unit in reality anyway.... Dunno.
Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on POV) not, it's pretty clear that weapons cost specific and consistent values across armies (an HMG is always 8 points more expensive than a combi), as do skills like Doctor, Engineer, Forward Observer, Minelayer etc. and equipment like Medkits etc. What does seem to change is things like CH:TO, which appears more expensive as BS goes up, but still consistent(ish) from army to army. It's pretty much a falsifiable GW fallacy that synergy within an army should be taken into account with points ('cus they're too lazy/inept/greedy to balance their games). Just consider how many different play styles each army can accommodate and it's clear that stats/skills/equipment/weapons have to be consistent.
@Wolf that's a surefire way to immediately ending up with far too much data to analyse. To put it bluntly, however, Infinity factions are sufficiently similar with sufficiently low synergy that slotting a Tiger statline into CA wouldn't make the analysis any different except for direct comparisons to Suryat. There's a few exceptions, of course. Garuda is better in Aleph than in ISS simply because ISS don't have any repeater coverage as an example of actual synergy. While the synergy is important to consider, when discussing on forums you'll also note it's usually discussions on optimization and efficiency. And exposure to competing profiles.
I'd be willing to contribute, I'm reading throuhh the quickstart translation and I see a few things that can be cleaned up.
