I don't see a lot of questions. Mostly statements of absolute fact and definitive solutions. The current design objective quite clearly seems to be that objectives should be the primary concern (in certain missions). Not fighting. Retreat achieves that, somewhet inelegantly. If you think the design objective needs to change, it needs some pretty good backing as to why. Since we already know removing retreat functionally fails at achieving that objective. But I think this line of discussion should go to another thread if you do intend to provide that thesis and I'll be happy to discuss there. This thread probably has had enough retreat discussion.
FTFY. That is what Retreat does, discourage total massacre. The win/lose conditions are known from the start. In chess it's kill the king, don't kill everyone else ignoring the objective (maybe lonely enemy king kills yours because you lost focus). I don't know, maybe missions should count shots, and after a given number deduct points for lack of stealth (stealth weapons become more useful). Or retreat could trigger a barrage of random mortar fire in the non-retreating half ("mission is lost, destroy everything!!!" because if it can not be from one side, it will for neither, and if a retreating unit is caught, "friendly fire"). Maybe Retreat should become a separate thread, like CC one.
Nah, it's worth talking about, because it would be a big change in N4. But in chess, it's always good to whittle down the number of pieces your enemy has. It's never the thought of "Man, better not take out too many pieces before I checkmate him." Instead, the more enemy pieces are removed, the easier checkmate becomes. The win/lose conditions are known from the start, sure, but we're saying that they should be different, because it makes no sense that when you turn the battlefield into a quiet parking lot you can't just go up and push whatever button you're gunning for.
Russians let the full crew of Kursk die instead of accepting help to rescue them, to avoid tech leaking. That parking lot gets carpet bombed to denny you any more objetives, maybe costing the 25% still alive; similar deal. After every model gets auto Dam15 EXP, see who can push more buttons; and next turn end, another barrage, repeat until game ends. Well, it's clear some take Infinity as squad combat with flexible units (AVA1 vs "you take multiples of 5 of these, 1 NCO + 3 normal + 1 heavy; or none"), instead of spy actions. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Retreat is another forum-bingo topic. I just don't think we learn anything new each time it crops up, unless you are a newer player, in which case it's like watching a show for the first time and enjoying it even though the episodes happen to be broadcasted as re-runs.
Eh, I don't think CB's going to read it regardless. Then why don't you get bombed when you win without putting your opponent in retreat? If the lives of the troops involved were already expendable...
To the topic of reatreat, as far as I know its perfectly legal to bring a 80 point list score a few vicotry points with suicide rush and then do a coordinate order jump to get into retreat and win the game. or even just start in retreat with a 60 point list. Nobody uses this exploit because we are here to primarily play and only secondary win but it would be legal. https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threads/minimum-points-for-a-list-and-retreat.34220/ Or you could take some expensive units get to 300 points but with one coordinate order suicide jump get into retreat.
It's only legal of you don't get defaulted first. Good luck convincing a TO you're totally within the rules doing this
Then why do you try so hard? You argue so fervently I thought it would be some greater cause than just trying to be right all the time.
There are no rules against it ;) and as I said I don't know anyone who would even try it. Sure the TO can houserule that its not allowed but officially it is legal.
There aren't really a solid set of rules saying you'd start in retreat either. It requires a certain reading. So you need to convince to TO of your point.
Oh, the rules are pretty damned solid in terms of starting in Retreat if you bring a list with only 0 to 75 points to a 300 point fight. Retreat triggers during order count and that's the first thing that'll happen during your turn. I'm fully with @ChoTimberwolf on this one, it requires TO intervention to prevent intentional Retreat lists, and I can find no way to interpret the rules so that the rules prevent it. It is a theoretical issue, though, I honestly don't think there's more than the odd player willing to play like that
What "certain reading?" It sounds like you're just saying its unsportsmanlike and shouldn't be allowed by the TO. Like putting Jammers in Fireteams, I guess. Not sure exactly. But it's pretty clear that CB mostly pays attention to the WarCor forums.
I might suggest for those avocating for taking out the "retreat-game end" rule, to ask some warcor to make a tournament with that house rule. You will see that the game changes to "kill, force retreat and do mission in an unnoposed turn". After some games, that is boring and people leaves. I've seen it before, but you don't have to believe a mediocre guy that has been playing this game since the beta. Just try it and think about an entire season with that in mind and from the fluf point of view. Maybe the wiped out enemy might have a backup plan that is a general shutdown that could make imposible the retrieval of the data in the timeframe, for example, or the HVT retreating too. about the retreat rule. In english and spanish are different. In spanish you have to be under the 75% of your total army, not the avaiable one. This has to be addressed by CB, because the spanish one haven't changed over the years (only the %), so seems a translation mistake.
Yeah just taking the retreat out of the missions wouldn't be the solution, the missions would need to be adjusted accordingly. Honestly after thinking about it and reading here I don't mind retreat in certain missions, I just prefer missions without the retreat rule and would like to see more missions like that. The idea that the objectives help with the fight seems pretty cool to me, the person that controls the objectives can decide which zone is hostile environment or something like that. or the objective is a mountable Hyper Rapid Magnetic cannon, etc
Not only that, but you just made your opponent expose his sensor + sniffer bots cheerleaders for you to easily kills, while also wasting half their order pool to get in position (because of needing smoke etc to deal with the linked vet kazak, spetsnaz sniper/hmg, etc...) Yeah....sensor totally counters camo and it's purely and L2P issue...sure. See above.
Thank you for AROing with TAK's #1 target and heaviest hitter, yup I definitely get what you're saying!
You mean the vet kazak with SSL2, mimetism, BS 16 before rangebands, effective 2 wounds with shock immunity, good armor and cover? Glad we're on the same page! Or are you saying Ariadna players shouldn't use ARO pieces? Or discounting the mines, decoy camo markers and the use of most of your first turn's orders to discover (read: not kill enemy or complete mission) models, while offering your own order pool up on a silver platter?
I slain many VKazaks before, and believe me they are not THAT scary on their reactive turns. No need to be defensive about your faction, mate. Also, did I mentioned I play Yu Jing? Lemme give you something I really like; its called Minelayer sniffer. Thanks.
