They also need to fix the "moving through terrain" rules so they don't hose x-2 movement into oblivion.
So you don’t like jammers because they’re cost-inefficient to remove? I’ll admit, I usually only see them in Varuna or Haqqislam, so I haven’t had much opportunity to play vs other units with jammers. (In nomads for example). They are absolutely harder to deal with when I see them in Varuna, but I’ve attributed that, (in my own experiences), to the way they compliment the Kamau Sniper. They make those games a tight battle over control of chokepoints more than some other games, I’ll admit. When I play Haqq, I’m wary, but not overly concerned. They rarely bring a single threat that pairs with the ghazi to sit down something quite like the Kamau. (Not really close imo). Games against them I see as more of a dismantling type. A few pieces at a time. EDIT: because I don’t think I was clear; that’s a real question and I’m curious what further thoughts you have. (Especially on the Varuna jammers, as I find them more difficult to deal with).
Basically, yes, combined with being effective at what they do. I feel that units should be cost-inefficient to remove when approached with tools that aren't meant to do it; in theory, my Malignos with a combi rifle within 16" of a TAG would win the FtF roll against most TAGs pretty frequently, but it's still a cost-ineffective piece to do so with because it can't actually hurt it. Much better to use, say, a Unidron K1 Combi, a unit that is actually order-efficient at taking out heavily armored targets. The problem is that there's nothing that efficiently removes a 5-point Ghazi. I think specifically combined with minelayers and other infiltrators it can be a giant pain the ass. When they're camped in someplace inaccessible but near an objective, where they can isolate your specialists but can't be attacked at long range, you kind of have to hope the controlling player makes mistakes elsewhere because it's going to be ridiculously costly to remove these guys.
Well, besides that most of the 4-2 units have Terrain skills to ignore it, there has to be some drawback to terrain, no? Simply mandating that a table should have around, for example, 1/10 covered by terrain rules area should be enough. That's not bad enough to completely neuter non-Terrain units like how the ITS missions with table-covering zones do. (And I feel no compassion for 6-2 units since the points you pay for MOV seems to be the total MOV with no regard for that the first MOV value is insanely more valuable than the first)
I'd argue that there are (Veteran and mine dispenser come to mind), it's just that the fact that many armies do not have them that's the problem. I've been thinking about it, and one solution that I reckon might work is to change the way that jammers actually apply isolated. Instead of applying the isolated state, jammers could give a new state called "jammed" (with the same effects as isolated), with the tradeoff that the model with the jammer enters a state called "jamming". The jamming state would work the same as supressive fire, that is if the model doing the jamming declares any action (including jamming someone else) they stop affecting the model that they're currently jamming - this is to better reflect the idea that jamming someone's comms is a complicated affair that requires constant attention to keep working. This would mean that jammers would retain their effectiveness as an anti-rambo tool, but they would be much easier to disrupt - simply thowing a cheap chain rifler or spec firing with an LGL would force the jammer to decide between risking the damage to keep jamming or stopping jamming to defend themselves - it also makes being jammed in the event of bad dice a much less painful situation to be in.
Spec-Fire is not very effective on BS11 or 12, even in +3 range (effective BS 8 or 9 if you're not in a link team). It's marginally effective on BS13 Wu Ming. It's only really effective if you get a decent BS LGL in a link team. Which means that Vanilla armies struggle to use that tactic. So, what happens when you're playing a list that rewards a single combat group? You're hurting for ARO presence then. Or, [ edit ] like me,[/ edit ] you personally just cannot manage two combat groups after killing too many brain cells in too many liberty ports and college parties? Requires taking one specific model in several factions, or paying extra SWC in lots of sectorials. PanO must take Bolts or a Krakot. YJ does not have a single troop with the Veteran L1 rule natively, so they must take a Krakot. Ariadna is pretty well-off, I think, with Frontoviks and Vet Kazaks (or Krakot). Haqq has Govads, Zahyedan, Druze, and Al-Badass (or Krakots), so they're best off. Nomads only have Securitate. Nothing in Combined aside from Morats. Even Aleph only has Yadu (and Shakti). Tohaa has Sukeul, who have their own issues. Only the Druze (and Arslan) in DBS. Nothing in JSA, and they don't have access to Krakot with paying extra SWC they don't have for access to Soldiers of Fortune. Ikari has Druze and Al-badass. Nothing in Starco, and they also don't have access to Krakot. Nothing in Spiral Corps, and they also don't have access to Krakot. Foreign Company has both Bolts and Securitate. Dashat has Al-Badass. O12 has nothing, and they also don't have access to Krakot. Exactly. Veteran L1 the skill (NOT troops classed as Veteran) is very unevenly distributed at present. Might not be a bad idea, though I'm not sure Full Auto L2 needs any help. Exactly. IF you take a Wu Ming Core in Imperial SS, you can get up to 13s to-hit. And that's not a particularly popular option. This. So much this! Terrain rules need to be dramatically re-done (mostly in terms of how much terrain of what types you should be putting on the table). This too. Edited to make it clear I was talking about myself as having killed too many brain cells.
Full auto level 2 doesn't stack with supression though - level 1 is only usuable in the active turn and level 2 doesn't work if you're in a state which imposes negative MODs on the enemy (it specifically mentions supressive fire in fact).
But FA2 is functionally already in Suppressive fire without the range band penalty. I was referring to myself, actually, so I'm sorry you felt insulted.
I'm slightly confused, sorry if I'm being obtuse here. FA2 doesn't let you fire at any more than burst one in reactive, it just mimics the -3 MOD, so suppressive fire is still much better than FA2 in reactive (at least within 24 inches). I also still don't see why buffing supressive fire to go through smoke would "help" FA2 like you mention in the comment I was replying to - I think I may have misunderstood what you meant.
Get yourself together. "You" in the way he's putting it doesn't refer to you, as in @Doom , but a hypothetical you.
It is also a conscious decision for players not to use them, there is nothing stopping anyone from putting in some trees as a park on an urban table or the like. This is more on the player than the rules. If everything could move through them as if they weren't there then whats the point? It is your decision whether or not to go through them as opposed to around. also is only the really obnoxious stuff like Zero-G and water that restrict you 1 move at your second value per order, other types aren't nearly as difficult to move through.
Well more the idea is the vast gulf in ability to navigate terrain that 4-4 and X-2 troopers have in this game. If it were up to me I'd reverse the effects of Very Difficult and Difficult terrain, so that everyone feels some kind of sting in Difficult terrain, and V. Difficult remains the wet blanket it's supposed to be.
I was assuming that if throwing so much lead downrange that everyone in your front arc is at -3 gets to shoot through Smoke in one instance, it should do so in all instances. Since FA2 imposes a -3BS to everyone shooting at me, it should get to shoot through smoke just like Suppressive fire.
May I cordially suggest that you give your fellow forumites the benefit of the doubt, and first seek to clarify whether offense was meant before taking it? If we extend some good will and assume the best of of our friends here, it will go far toward making this place friendlier and more productive. Cheers,
Good god I step away for just a day and everything catches fire! I wasn't intending to mock you, your comment just came across as very aggressive. There was no need to get defensive about it. This is how I meant it. When arguing about spec fire, using the army with the second strongest spec fire in the game to get *even very minimal odds* doesn't feel honest to me (as an *argument*, because we can differentiate between *people*, and the *arguments* they make) because it's not representative of what 90% of the game has access to. Dude, I can understand someone getting into an argument with me. Like, I get it, I frequently come across as abrasive, I struggle with interpreting tone, and I often argue to win rather than to find the right or best answer. I do my best, and it's something I'm aware of (which is why my current extended break from the game might be a good thing, tbh). But @Section9 is one of the most consistently well-natured and quality commenters here. Like, of all the people to decide to pick a fight with, that's a really poor choice. I think maybe you are acting defensively because you are new to the forums and haven't had a chance to get acquainted with a lot of the more frequent posters' personalities. I would recommend slowing down a bit before jumping to conclusions or getting defensive, reading a bit more, and spending some time learning how some of the posters write. This would help immensely in avoiding misunderstandings.
There are some folks in the last couple pages showing a level of patience that speaks very highly of them.
