I'm in favor of looking at extreme options to buff the reactive turn, especially round 1 turn 2. One idea I had was a kind of attention mechanic where reactive troops by default get full burst when shooting at the first target they declare a BS attack on and can continue to react with full burst against that target alone, or drop to burst 1 if they shoot at anyone else that turn. I think it would be a solid anti-Rambo mechanic that encourages less predictable teamwork and changing up amongst your operatives. A couple of things would have to change to make it fun, like an earlier suggestion I had about rolling dodge into move.
@the huanglong I was thinking that an alternative to taking orders out of the enemy pool with command tokens might be to make a coordinated order to go into suppressive fire or put down deployable weapons.
Swapping the cost of Paramedic and FO seems like a good start to me. Paramedic is useful in some armies though -- for example, in high-tech armies with standalone and expensivish doctors, sometimes the link-filler paramedic is enough.
Not a very good testing grounds IMO because said Medjector is found on a WIP 15 Doctor+ with BS 11. So unless you want to shoot that Medjector at that BS, you'll be using your healing on 18- instead. Not to mention it's a pretty niche unit even in its own sectorial.
If your going to make claims like that the bare minimum would be to provide a rules reference which clearly supports your claim. And do it in the relevant thread.
Funnily enough, I'd also rather play a game about rampaging Scotsmen depopulating the setting of Halo than roll Dungeons and Dragons skill checks behind a wall of Smoke. Maybe the way Objectives are scored needs a re-examination? I don't think much would be lost if the current system of Specialists and buttons got dropped in favour of something else; the Datatracker rule and its scenario role is a good example since it's basically representing a critical specialist required for the mission, but its success isn't dependant on luck, always factors into the scoring and has much less stringent listbuilding requirements than the current Specialist-only objectives (and ESPECIALLY Liason Officer). It also encourages fighting the opponent since knocking down the Datatracker affects the enemy ability to score.
Well, there's always going to be the segment of people who think Infinity should encourage interaction about as much as Agricola.
I brought it up to inform, but if you wish to discuss the intricasies of it the least you can do is inform yourself and provide any form of argument for your position. And preferably in a thread that's fit for purpose as it has gotten fairly long with posts like yours because the basic assumption that "affect" means "attack" is being challenged.
Actually, things like that have happened to me twice, but after the game and thinking about it, it was my fault: I could have spent orders in getting more consoles and do mission, instead of killing, and by doing that, the enemy would had not entenerd retreat, and even spending 2 or 3 more orders than he did, he could have not won those games because I had extra consoles. Mission first, killing later. If the enemy can do mission in retreat, is because you are not enough ahead (and you are not deffending the objectives) And even with all that, and saying I've seen, suffered and done it, the times retreat make the one initially ahead win were much more (but those times are easy to forget) than the times that the one behind can do a comeback.
@Armihaul in zone control missions (Quadrant Control in this case), there are no buttons to push. Blowing up your opponent's dudes who are in a scoring zone should never be punished; that's playing to the mission exactly. Again, this isn't Agricola. Complaining that your opponent shouldn't be able to attack your dudes that are scoring you points is a shitty attitude.
Yay, lets have the same discussions that've already happened and been spun off to their own thread again! https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threads/ends-on-retreat.34775/
well, if the mission is killing, usually the retreat rule is out, so there is no problem then. And where do I complain that my oponent should not attack my dudes? What I say is that if I ignore the mission and go killing when the mission is not killing, is ok for me to loose. If in a zone control mission I put all my dudes in the same square an leave the others with no people to deffend...is not my opponent fault.
Quadrant Control has retreat and no killing. And you're arguing that it's "playing the game wrong" to blow your opponent's dudes out of a scoring zone.
Saying the same things without ever considering other viewpoint is how to affect change. It is known. But can everyone go say the same things in the dedicated thread?
I've considered the opposing viewpoint and rejected it based on play experience. A game where the big-brain play is to not use NWI so your dudes die faster and this makes you win isn't working properly.
Perhaps you could say that in an existing thread dedicated to that discussion which was already spun off from this thread so other things could be discussed?
