You are right, that does make alot more sense and it allows them to adjust units each season to hone them in right to where they want them to be. I was looking at some of what MO is rumored to receive and I saw that of all the units CB could have chosen for one of their articles promoting the 3rd Offensive they chose a Sogarat and a Magister Knight to put up, maybe, indicates equally impressive changes to MAF as MO. I'm hoping the Morat rule comes to Morats for no cost at all in lieu of a marker state. This will allow cheap and or mediocre units to be cheaper granting a saving grace for being fielded and hopefully give some upgrades in various places now that they could
Sorry, mate, but this is highly unrealistic. As much as marker state is a benefit, models pay points for it. A model doesn't just have Camo or Holoprojector or Impersonation, it costs, and in many cases costs quite a lot. While I do agree some models need to go down in cost (Vanguards, Kurgats and Yaogats, mostly), it is unrealistic to think the Morat rule shouldn't have a cost. It is a powerful rule. The fact it is so expensive is a problem, but making it cheap would make MAF quite broken. (Seriously, if Vanguards were 10 points, which is what they'd cost without the Morat rule, they'd be the best cheerleaders in the game by simple virtue of always providing their orders to the pool no matter what)
Actually, they'd cost about 12 pts. They get +2 PH over most other basic infantry. Zhanshi cost 11 pts for the same exact statline, sans that 2 PH.
yeah and I would be surprised if their profile without Morat rule cost around 13 pts, because I don't think + 2PH cost only 1 point. Unfortunately the most of the Morat units pays for increased stats and CC weapons that they cannot effectively use or these stats aren't as important as other stats and that make them feel too expensive.
As Sti and Mel just said, it would be about 12 points. When estimated the Morat rules cost, that's about what it was for most units and some we're a bit more, like the Sogarat and Raicho we're about 5 points for the Morat rule. So I wouldn't say it's unrealistic to get a rule that is only sometimes useful for free if you are never allowed to use a rule that is not only always useful but is the most useful...
Really? I could have sworn she has an entry in the N3 book. I've definitely read stuff about her before and I don't own Paradiso. I'm probably imagining it! EDIT: I checked now I'm home and you are indeed correct. Must have been hallucinating whatever it is I thought I'd read.
This also means, that PH 10 Vanguards would cost about 12 pts as well. Do you think it's a fair cost? I think it is. Which means that the real culprit isn't the Morat rule, but that PH stat, which rarely comes up in gameplay. All this is the problem only for units like basic infantry, because their low cost and lack of additional skills and equipment makes every adjustment - especially cost - more visible. I happen to think that Vanguards are ok, though I'd love to see them getting a Haris option and Grenades to take advantage of that high PH, and allowing for forming a cheap strike link, possibly led by Anyat. Additionally, MAF is about to undergo some changes. We don't know their full scope yet. Hopefully we'll have more information to base on tomorrow.
I find the positivity here quite uplifting, even though a bit surprising. I would expect, that we have seen all significant changes (Suryat profile, fire teams, Raktorak, lost Bit) and not much more will change.. pleeeease prove me wrong ;)
You do have a point about PH being over costed. I regret not having thought about it deeper when I wrote CB 2 years ago but now I understand better and can help more after taking such a long break. Looking at the attribute itself in a vacuum, it does very little in game and is wholey dependent upon what else is available. You could say BS depends on weapon available but outshooting your opponent vs dodging being shot and the majority of ranged weapons are B2 or better it's clear not all attributes are created equally. Several things I can see that it maybe should have been tied to and others it should have been geared toward pairing with universally through out the game. So the clear advantages for players is understood and will help CB balance their game better. This goes back to my conversation about optimization. Maybe the more a weapon, attribute, skill or other piece of equipment is depended upon by other weapons, attributes skills and equipment their should be a tax. That way maybe everything can be costed cheaper and and the tax can be exponential based on what the unit is capable of doing. Let's take Vanguard for instance. Higher PH but the only things it grants are 5% bump in Dodge and medikit. Not glamorous by any means but. But on a Rasyat for example it's higher PH is used to exemplary means. It's PH assists in AD, CC damage, throwing Eclipse Grenades, Dodging and Medikit use. With the Vanguard or any other unit with just higher than average PH could apply no additional cost aside from one point per bumped attribute... But with the Rasyat you could apply the individual cost of each of it's component Attributes, Weapons, Equipment and Skills and then say add 1 point per each that compliments each other. One might assume this would make the Rasyat far more expensive than it already is but if we lower the cost of everything in the game in a vacuum and then pay the "Compliment Tax" then the game would truly become fair. So instead of 2 or more points Cost per every higher point in BS or CC etc etc what the Rasyat would pay more points for would be these relationships between everything it has. I don't know the true cost of all this so I will fudge the numbers just to show the example. Base PH in game is 11, CC is 13 (I think for some attributes it's only half a point in Cost to bump the attribute) NBW 2PTS Eclipse grenade 2 pts, DAccw 1 point, AD 8 points? based off of AD inferior 6 pts in spec ops. So, pay 1 point to get PH13, pay 4 points to bump CC to 21. Now we can do multiplication or addition to add tax and it can be different depending on the relationships between things like BS with a Combi gets a cheaper tax than BS with a Spitfire so the true value troops in the game comes forth. For simplicity, I'm just gonna say addition, 1 point more for the relationship between CC and CCW, 1 point more for the relationship between CCW and PH, 2 pts for PH/AD, 1 pt for PH/Eclipse grenades, 1 pt for CC/NBW, etc etc, CB can do this in fractions as well as exponentially greater tax based on the level of each of it's complimenting components resulting in a range from mediocre to exceptional relationship. It could be no tax for BS with the base weapon of a Combi rifle. But the tax on BS 12 with a Boarding shotgun could be x1.2 while BS12 with a Spitfire could be x1.6... Some will say oh that's too complicated. I say it wouldn't be any arithmatic that any player sees, but they will feel it. The game will feel 100% fair. That's the goal and it's something CB can do on their own with no input from players because once they put a value on all the relationships they can apply it to all current and future units with no problems. They could do all the math over the next year and implement it with ITS 11.
Stiopia, I know we talked some in the past about how to fix the game but I do believe now, I finally did crack the code.
You don't... dodge? Ever? Having a guaranteed fallback on a 60% success rate ARO is actually pretty good. Especially when dealing with derpy visual mods and long range attacks. I'll admit, I'm gonna be pretty miffed if the changes don't release tonight (Australia time zone 26/11).
I don't know if it'll be today (or tomorrow, for those of us not living in the future), but I believe the Army update is slated to drop this week.
Yeah, already disappointed. A local Warcor told me they'd been advised 27th in Spain... So that'll be Wednesday for me this week -_-;
I've said rarely, not never. I think high PH is useful. Hell, I even think Vanguards are usable, if pricy, unit. I'd just like to see more applications for their high PH.
