If the blast template is used drop zones are quite predictable, easily as much as AD2. With that requirement and an Entire Order Skill I believe a no-roll AD3+ would be just fine. Maybe a little punishing for low-model-count lists, but what isn't at this point.
Does it though? Generally speaking these troops aren't "AD murder machines". Most of them are regular medium infantry with fairly Milquetoast attributes. BS 13 with Mimetism on an ARM 2 W 1 model is generally held as the strongest of them and typically for most boards the amount of spaces where you can fit a template without bumping into scenery is fairly low and generally speaking the more murder-y AD troops are shorter range and regarded as worse due to the necessary RNG management. The new rules that forgoes the template has made AD troopers more powerful - but only if they land where intended - I'm challenging that this is not necessarily good design. On a good day you have 75% chance of putting that mediocre murderer where you want it (limited of course to where there isn't a crappy or better murderer waiting for you to land) and on a bad day your chance to land drops by about 5 percent units per enemy hacker or 15 percent units if you don't/can't spend an order to get landing assist. Should you fail the roll, you'll typically get to place the unit where it gets multiple decent shots to the face or along your back line where it'll be an unlinkable member of your force and probably far from the best murderer in that section of the backline. I mean, it's good when I roll within that typical 70% chance to land a almost-but-not-quite-Zuyong near an enemy using only two orders provided I can find a spot that won't kill him before he gets a chance to shoot back, but far too often the almost-but-not-quite-Zuyong finds itself overshadowed by actual Zuyong in IA thanks to them being in a fireteam - or a Daofei in vanilla that can accomplish a similar feat using fewer orders and no rolls (Move-Move or Move-Shoot and recamo as necessary). Same goes for Tigers as well as the AD troops in O-12 So far too often I just take the 100% chance of positioning them close to where I need them using AD2. Thus I am suggesting that maybe the restriction on landing zones isn't what was keeping the AD3+ troopers back - essentially what I'm saying is that I'd prefer to make tactical decisions rather than manage RNG.
One of the issues with AD3+ is the risk, or opportunity risk at least, that you assume in case you fail that 70% chance roll. It's not as if you could just retry with the following order... when you fail, that troop is either screwed or becomes a point sink without added value. That's why I suggested landing being a short order, because at least you "recover" a bit of usefulness or safety. I'd like your suggestion too, but maybe it's a bit OTT... how about making them closer to infiltrators, allowing free dropping up to middle ground?
That isn't a bad idea, either. Anything where I can get somewhat increased value over AD2 that doesn't put huge importance on a single roll without direct gain would be appreciated. AD3+ often feels like a sidegrade in practice at best to AD2.
Adding to my previous post: I was unaware that the current ITS rules have given MI a Forward Deployment buff and the buff to AD3-5 that is being discussed. I will echo other comments that these (at least seem like) good ideas for the majority of troops they affect (not so sure about Yadu or some other 4-4- MI but I haven't played against them yet) and will address a lot of issues with units like Moira. With regards the current AD discussion: I agree with the premise that Combat Jump is often too high a risk relative to the strength of the troops if they miss and any factors that can make it more reliable would be welcome as it has plenty of indirect counterplay (cheerleaders on suppression fire, mines, Crazy Koalas, hacking etc.). I should have been more clear. As others have pointed out, it is currently overcosted relative to it's effectiveness, especially on the Aquilla Guard. As I stated, I do not believe it is a good thing that if it were to go back to it's N2 state. Buffs could just as much be a reduction in points cost which could allow those points to be used to buy Aquila's skills like NCO or Advanced Command (that seems to be popular, thematic suggestions from PanO players) and make the Asura and Charontied a bit less hyper expensive.
Would giving MSV3 triangulated fire be enough? Or would it be too powerful? It would improve all the MSV3 profiles.
One thing not discussed yet is how much less effective Explode LX would be. Right now, any squishy, high-value targets not inside buildings are put in great danger vs Liu Xing. If they had to land where a template fits, that would make them far easier to defend against.
Just pointing out that not everyone plays with the ITS extras all the time, and as written in the rule book, that's exactly how Explode LX works.
True. Perhaps I was projecting what I thought would happen to the various ITS rules that have been around for several seasons in terms of being folded into the rules in general.
I feel that both the MI and AD changes are bandaids not core changes. MI in particular (note, I can't remember the last new 4-2 MI introduced to the game so there's certainly something up with CB's thinking on MI). But, I wouldn't be surprised if the AD change stays: it's been largely well received. TAGs with Pilots, FAT1 and Tactical Awareness feel more likely to stay around.
All of O-12's MI, excluding Cuervo "Screw Your Design Guidelines" Goldstein, are the standard 4-2. I believe CB actually use ARM as the primary indicator of unit types judging from half of the Defiance characters, not speed, because they still seem to massively over-value that stat.
Yeah. I forgot about O-12. Everything else seems to be 4-4. Hawkwood and his ilk. Either way, a lot of the design rules feel like they've been thrown out.
Thinking about this if you did it. I'd just remove AD:5 and give Hellcats Free Agent instead. Free Agent for AD is a great skill. So it would still make Hellcats feel unique and 'elite' as AD.
On combat jump, for AD4 to be desirable over AD2 you need to make it less random, but allowing AD4 to drop anywhere without risk is definitely too strong. Then what about introducing new options to fiabilize drops? Maybe add something like a special "secured landing zone" modifier: if the unit attempts a landing within ZoC/LoF of an ally unit, and outside ZoC/LoF of any ennemy unit, it gets an additionnal +3 to it's drop attempt. It could create an interesting dynamic, with player using their troops to establish a beachhead and have their combat jump reinforce them.
I think that more restriction on AD2 would help. I'd start with allowing to choose the entry sector at the moment of deploying the trooper, but forcing all further ones to enter via the same sector. Similar to Parachutist, but without the need to choose the sector during Deployment Phase.
Not exactly. Those abilities are table-wide. I was thinking within ZOC of the bearer / deployed counter only, so more positional. I was exploring the ‘beachhead’ concept in @Sedral s post, but simpler than LOF/ZOC of everyone, because it could be a fun dynamic to call in airborne support. I understand that your point is that the EVO ability likely represents a homing beacon, so how about this being a flare, or coloured smoke? Just spitballing. To me AD is fine with the ITS change.
I don't think this will make much difference. Most lists with AD only have one AD. All it really does is penalise any list making use of multiple AD. I doubt that's something anyone thinks is necessary.
