It took me quite some time to decide if I should comment or not on this new development. The imposition of Tactical Window as the standard is clearly a contentious issue & there are extreme points of view on both sides of the argument. Some maintain that larger lists & what could be called "spam" are a part of faction design & playstyle, especially for certain sectorials, perhaps even to the extent that this new change may degrade the effectiveness of those factions. Others hold that larger armies of perhaps 20+ orders have such a large advantage over smaller, more elite lists the smaller lists are hamstrung & winning a game with, say a LI list is far harder than perhaps it should be. I'd like to make just a few, rather broad points: Any game involving dice or any other random factor is going to produce situations that will on occasion beggar belief. Sometimes your elite HI will miss every shot on an impetuous WB in the open, possibly for multiple orders in a row. Sometimes your high WP specialist will not be able to activate that damn console despite rolling on an effective 18. However........the more dice you roll, the more likely your luck will even out overall (yeah, sure there will still be those games where nothing goes right despite seeming to have rolled about a thousand times). That's a big draw for larger forces. A powerful argument for more models on the table. A 30 point specialist may be "better" than a 15 point one. It may have skills etc....that provide an advantage but may not be much more survivable. I can take 2 of the 15 point guys however, so that may influence my decision greatly. Similar arguments can be made for more combat oriented units. 60-70 point HI with an HMG & a raft of skills & high stats or perhaps 4-5 LI/WB plus something a little heavier? Yeah, OK the HI has (very likely) 2 wounds & better ARM/BTS but are 5 or 6 less impressive troopers the more optimal choice? This is where we have been for much of N3 I believe. In many metas anyway. Spam has become more popular because, often if not always, when bad dice happen it's less of a big deal. Your 5-6pt guy died to a lucky crit? Who cares? There are at least half a dozen more. TAG or HI about to go on a rampage? Your WB may well be able to do something about that with smoke dodges or by engaging it. Sure again you may well lose some, but if you're tying up 60+ points having lost only a few Morlocks/Monks/Galwegians etc.... it's very likely a good trade, even if the enemy is still standing (a TAG maybe) it could well be problematic for your opponent to free it. There have of course been other factors too. Crits in N3 have meant wounds were lost automatically with no save possible. Less problematic to have a 5 point WB or even a 10 point LI go down than something more expensive. I'm getting to my point (at last I hear you say). Personally I'd like to be able to use the high-points units. I love TAGS, though they can be a pain in the backside to use, have so many vulnerabilities, are so expensive & need a list built almost entirely around them they are......cool. At least in my opinion. More or less ditto for HI. I feel rather sad considering those troops many players always avoid. Brigada, Jannisaries etc..... I feel even more sad when I consider the possibility that a LI list with some high cost premium units backed by specialists & pehaps some TA/Counterintelligence/Strategos shenanigans to get a few extra orders will just get eaten alive the vast majority of the time by 20+ order lists full of disposable WB options. This said I also do not want to see factions/sectorials that have cheaper troop choices in general unduly penalised & reduced in effectiveness. Some such as CHA have often used piece trading as a major strategy. Losing a Galwegian or Volunteer to take out something that cost more than twice as many points (perhaps quite a lot more) works very well indeed & if players genuinely have no other good options to gain the advantage removing this will be frustrating (though I confess I'm not convinced it is the only viable strategy). Ultimately the new edition will have brought a lot of changes. Crits, dodging, shotgun templates, ammo types, MSV, impetuous moves.......that's half a dozen just off the top of my head. I hope that, when combined, these changes will improve game balance for everyone & I hope the 15 troop limit will be a positive part of that. I'll say finally in my own (admittedly very limited) experience, facing order spam & lists up to even 3 combat groups is not much fun. When it's impossible to move without provoking multiple AROs unless your troops are in total cover actually doing anything at all towards completing objectives or even taking out a single enemy can be very difficult & reduce the game to an incredibly frustrating experience rather than an enjoyable use of leisure time. It can quickly become apparent that no matter your approach you will not be able to score enough points even to force a draw, simply because you cannot ignore so many AROs & with an LI list you just don't have the orders to complete the mission. Many thanks for reading if you made it this far. I didn't intent on rambling on quite so much.
I've seen multiple people refer to the 15 order limit of Tactical Window as "artificial". I don't really think that description applies here. It's certainly no more artificial than the fact that combat groups are limited to 10 orders each in the first place. None of this has any basis in nature in the first place - it's all CB trying to design a rules system that supports their conception of what the game should be. That being said, I think the real problem between "spam" and "elite" lists is that the value of individual orders is underestimated. My preferred solution to spammy lists would have been to apply a flat cost increase of, say, 5 points to every single unit in the game. No scaling based on original cost, so a Fusilier would go from 10 points to 15 (50% cost increase) while the Avatar would go from 137 points to 142 (4% cost increase). Either way, I'm happy to see a greater focus on unit quality over quantity, and look forward to lower unit count games in N4.
It's artificial in the sense that it's not part of the core game rules, it's a modifier that applies outside of it, same as the attempts to buff MI with bravery etc. Rather than trying to naturally fix the problem by fixing the underlying issues within the game it's an artificial move that will only come into effect if you play at an event (or in a local group) that chooses to use it. It's entirely possible that some metas choose to ignore it, personally I'm leaning towards not implementing it at this stage in events that I run until further changes are made because it will exclude people in my local meta from playing and that to me is a more important factor.
I don't understand. It's a new N4 rule that limits armies to 15 troopers. I think all the folks complaining that CB is wrecking their playstyle bc they have no better options are missing the point of the change. CB is trying to make all armies more viable at 15 troopers. In effect, they are admitting that some armies struggled in N3 outside of spam strategies. That's not what they want for your factions and it's not what they want for their game. I'm hopeful that all the improvements to the rules we will see and some of these new units that are being rolled out will make a new competitive landscape where everyone has great potential for success with up to 15 troopers on the table. It will mean a lot of us will have to rethink how we build our lists - I'm sure my Ikari lists are going to have to change - but I'm hopeful we are getting something better in the end.
No, it's an ITS rule. It could revert next season for all you know, and it's optional. Not every event will use it. It is the default but I remind you that ITS events around the world utilise different modifiers all the time, even Interplanetario uses non default modifiers not present in the satellite events the players won to qualify for a spot in Spain. The default last several seasons was effectively an uncapped unit count, but what like a 3rd of events ran Limited Insertion I believe (Including either 2018 or 2017 IP, I forget which one but it also used additional merc choices for armies)? Who knows, the stats may reverse this time around. Either way it's unlikely that every single event chooses to use these rules.
Well, just as several of what grew into ITS missions were featured in the N3 book, I would imagine the core of ITS will be in the N4 book, with this shift to a recommended/endorsed size in there as well, likely in multiple places.
From a personal and hugely subjective perspective, I am extremely pleased about the drop to 15 in ITS. What attracted me to this game was the fact that it was supposed to be a few elite units doing covert ops. If 7-8 dudes could make a 300 pt game work without getting stomped, I would so be there. Yet, for almost every game now, my friend and primary opponent fields a screaming gang of 3-4 morlocks, chimaera + pupniks, a pupmaster with three puppetbots plus a liberto and a warcor. It puts like 14 models on the table for about 100 points. Then I get an intruder shooting through WB smoke with another 10 orders. It has become a dull grind to play against and yet is obnoxiously effective. I don't begrudge my friend - he plays it because it's effective - but man is it draining (and drains the fun from the game).
So the problem is the game engine can't support 7-8 guys lists without them getting stomped even when the game it's supposed to be about 7-8 guys running black Ops? Mind you, this is a problem that has been at the core of the rules since the start along with the "Rambo/cheerleader" effect, and after all this time the only solution is forcing you to play less miniatures? Is it a bug of the system or a feature?
I really dont mind the Tac window default for tournaments - and tbh i really hope omitting it doesnt become popular. The game has to grow and change, i think this type of change is healthy for an exciting meta
I don't personally think it's a huge deal. I play a bunch of factions so I got a mix of playstyle based on faction and two my factions, NCA and USA, can consistently make absolutely killer lists in the 17-18 range. Hell I've played a 28 unit grunt spam list before in the game that was an absolute nightmare for my opponent. I think a common thing with those lists I would run is that I dont think my opponents ever found those games fun. Now I don't believe that I'm ultimately responsible for whether or not my opponent has fun or not but I can see how the game company would pay attention to stuff like that and want to make it so the most instances of both players having fun happens. I know personally in tournaments I dont enjoy playing against high order count lists because it usually means 1 of us wont get the full 3 turns which feels bad.
TBH I personally feel that if you are unable to effectively and swiftly pilot your high order count list, you shouldn't bring one out of courtesy to everyone else involved. If you want to bring one it's on you to practice with it enough before hand that you don't bog the game down with slow play. That's just basic wargaming etiquette for any game system, don't slow down tournaments with lists and armies you can't play at a decent pace.
And also, it just happens that those cheap warbands often have chain rifles which are much more reliable than rolling dice to shoot, smoke that is very powerful and has a limited set of expensive counters. Just look at a chain rifle: a weapon that absolutely ignores all bad stats that a WB might have (and is cheap because of the lack of stats), ignores cover, forces an opponent to make a choice of taking a guaranteed hit and (usually) rolling his dice in response to shoot back at a model, taking a gamble, or dodging for safety with yet another roll and no consequence to the attacker who spent one of his numerous orders. The problem are the points. Artificial order limit is just that, artificial, and understandably many players are not happy. I, personally welcome the change from the "quality of life" perspective, but definitely can't deny the fact it's a bandaid over a much bigger problem.
Definitely agree with ya there and that's the mindset I've used. Though unfortunately not everyone follows that same philosophy. I've found at tournaments for me it was usually newer players who ran high order spam lists. I assume because to them they easily understand that more bodies means more aros and more orders to do things with. Unfortunately their deployment takes forever and they constantly gotta look up what some of their rules and equipment do.
Don't forget that it ignores ARM bonus from Cover as well. Templates ignoring cover is like an extra 3 damage against prepared positions compared to normal weapons, it astounds me so many of them are so cheap when a Red Fury gets a better 0-range, Shock ammo, halved SWC costs and a 1pt discount compared to a Spitfire... which has +1 damage.
Has anybody ever taken a weapon other than the Chain Rifle in their warbands? That's a problem there and I don't know if they are addressing that in N4, maybe make templates a FtF anyway
I am fascinated, because I find this discussion much more interesting than the point of the discussion. Throughout this thread and others, I see people making references to "deeper problems with the game engine", without specifying what they mean by that. I believe it would be useful here to separate the terms game "engine" and game "variables". You can think of it as the engine being an equation that you input different variables into to achieve certain results The engine is the framework by which the game is played. It is the order generation sequence, the order expenditure sequence, the way random events are resolved (face to face and unopposed), general rules for movement and determining line of sight and other procedures used to play the game. So far in this thread I have not seen anyone raise a single point relating the underlying way that the game models these factors. What I see is points raised against the soundness of certain variables that are used in that model, which produce certain outcomes. These variables are mostly expressed as stats of models, but they should also be understood to include other limits in the game, such as the size of order groups, the size of a ZoC, the number of orders generated by each model etc. Basically, anything in the game that can be described as a numerical value would fall into this category. Some posters have posited that placing a limit of 15 troopers on list building is an "artificial" limit, but I would argue that within the framework of the game engine, any variable should be viewed as equally arbitrary, because they are all just factors to be tweaked to achieve the desired outcome. Let me give some examples: There is an arbitrary limit placed on BS in order to achieve the desired dynamic of firefights. There is an arbitrary limit placed on ARM in order to do the same. There is an arbitrary limit on MOV values because MOV 48-12 would make the game unrecognisable. Of course, everyone knows this. One interesting point raised in this discussion, however, is if there are other variables that could be tweaked to better change the dynamic between elite and "spam" lists. What would happen to the game if combat groups where reduced in size to 5 models, and every model got the equivalent of Tactical Awareness? What would happen if the cost of models was increased so that no army could ever afford more than 15 troopers, but the limit on combat group size was removed? These are interesting discussions to have, and I think they would be easier to have if we could establish a coherent terminology. My point (the TL:DR) is that the discussion would be helped by making a distinction between issues with the "engine" and issues stemming from the "variables". Additionally, there are variables that could be tweaked that are not part of a unit's statline. Also, I think these discussions would be easier to have if we could all be a bit more civil to each other... Please?
I'm sad to see they won't be addressing the deeper issues in the game, things that are in essence "sticking out" of their game engine so much that they can't be properly costed. Template weapons and smoke jump to mind.
Could you elaborate on why smoke and template weapons cannot be costed properly? I myself do not see a problem inherent in these two mechanics. I do think that smoke is too prevalent on low cost troopers. In CHA, for example, I think smoke is a near perfect fit on my Highlander Greys, while it feels like too much of a bargain on my Galwegians. Likewise, adding a direct template to a high cost troop does not feel like an exploit in the same way as plonking it on to a BS 10 model with a low base cost.
I took a BSG on a Ghazi Muttawi'ah a few times. Worked pretty great. However, it meant doubling the cost of the model. Who, unless the terrain was right, was still effectively a warband suffering high attrition rate. I have never-ever tried that with Yuan Yuan, because they are so lousy shots (BS 9 - isn't that the lowest BS in the game among troops equipped with BS weapons...?), while it also increased their cost significantly. My Corregidor Jaguars do employ a mix of Chain Rifles, Light Shotguns and (if I can squeeze these in) Panzerfaust loadouts on a regular basis. I think I can guess what you're looking for. And what I'm going to say here is, please note, just an opinion based on how I feel the situation, I make no claim at it being a fact, or even being right. Warbands with chainrifles are usually cheap, sometimes to the extreme. This allows them to be used as massed throwaway troops (made even simpler by their Irregular Impetous nature - that's two Orders they have for spending on themselves, and that can not be spent on more expensive troops). Especially given a CR allows you to take on a group of targets, and (both an advantage and a disadvantage) not to worry about winning a Face-to-Face roll. I think it is part of the problem. If you make a Ghazi Muttawi'ah cost, say, 10 points as standard - they suddently start to compete in the Ghulam price range, while not providing Regular Order for the Order Pool. Now the question becomes whether using them can be justified at that price point. On the other hand, I don't see a similar problem with troops like Corregidor Jaguars, who cost 10pts with a Chainrifle and 13pts with a LSG (or ADHL & Panzerfaust). But those guys are Regular & Frenzy, so they still contribute to the Order Pool, and don't rush headlong into the fray unless they've actually caused a wound already (and with their short-ranged weapons, this usually means there's someone to kill close by).Well, and contrary to Ghazi and Yan Yuan, they are a credible threat in Close Combat, too. I feel that if Warbands were modelled more after what Jaguars are, than what Ghazi Muttawi'ah are, it could help mitigate the problem of hordes of Chainrifle-wielding, Smoke-throwing, very cheap Warbands.
