Is the 15 unit limit a good design choice?

The change won't really affect me.
I've never played more than 15 orders in an ITS and don't normally play more than 15 orders normally.
But that's because I don't play any of the faction options where I have to (because I don't like the models for those faction options - and if I don't like the models, I'm usually not going to use the "units" anyway - and it's the models that got me into this game, not the units or rules.)

 

It is an ITS change, if it doesn't work it only lasts one season.

Suck it up and adapt. Yes there are underlying cost issues in N3 and we haven't any hints that that is changing, so let's work with what we've got and give N4 and the new ITS format a chance.

 

"Sex work is real work" says the sticker outside my GP surgery.
Why are you slutshaming by stating whores are in poor taste?

 

Well, I guess we should just accept your opinion, since you "saved" SAA, CHA & QK from their deserved N4 scrapheap. But you're wrong.

Who died and made you the Infinity police?
Here's a free suggestion; stop being an arsehole. Stop crutching on autism as a justification for shit behaviour.

 

I hear what you're saying, but I looked at my lists, and they usually averaged around 16 models in USARF - so going down to 15 isn't a huge deal.

 

Addressing threadcraps IS staying on topic.

Yes, it is a good thing.
I've been involved in Infinity since 2006. I still have my N1 rulebook. This statement is not an attempt to build my credibility. It's to frame my perspective.
The growth in high order count cheap troop (& particularly linkable warband) heavy armies has been a negative for the play style and black ops raid conceit espoused in the early editions of Infinity. In N1 a second combat group was rare; the game was effectively LI without any imposed rule.
It's nice, from my pov, to see the game swing back in that direction.
15 orders is a good compromise; a single combat group is too restrictive in a game state where factions and skills are designed with the ability to swap combat groups.

 

In my opinion, for most factions this will bring no-change, so ok. The problem? the factions that will be affected by this are not the top tier ones. That might change with N4, so I will leave my opinion (if it is ok or not) for later. We need to know how the ruleset and profiles changes affect to those few fations affected by this change. If CB solved their problems with this before the change, then it would be an OK thing, but if they didn't, then this would be just another kick to those.

 

Because "whore" is a slur that's intended to degrade the person on the receiving end and the profession it refers to? This isn't rocket surgery, we all learn to recognise what are meant to be insults at a fairly young age.

 

I don't know, Dahshat is the single highest-performing faction in the game and I know it can run higher than 15 easily. Same with Tohaa.

My suspicion about this is that they're shifting the design to favour mid-to-elite armies a bit more than before, and this ITS rule is meant to enforce it to kick people out of their comfort zones as well as prevent any overly-effective skew builds they accidentally left in, especially if they're only making a translation update to OOP Sectorials. I might never play my NCA above 15 orders, but I know it certainly can be, and MRRF can barely fit a 300pt list into Limited Insertion.

 

one thing is if they can run "easily" over 15, other is if they can below 15 (and I think Dashat can without much problems) and other is if they need to run high numers (as some ariadnan sectorial). If the high tier factions are unnafected by this change, but some other in not so good possition are limited without a previous fix, the ones ahead will get comparativelly stronger (because the weak ones get more limited in options). Not all the factions were dessigned in the same way for their numbers-vs-elite options. Even between elite factions, some have it easier to get numbers than others (OSS has it easier to get over 15 orders than TJC for example, and I would argue than TJC is better than OSS at the moment)

also, remember that this is no an ITS rule, but the new "base rule". Seems to me that the decission was made because it was the most used extra during this last ITS, but it was also the new one, so a lot of people would use it. The good thing is that the old "no limit" is an ITS extra now, so in the end, if any TO wants to run a non-limited tournament, he can

 

I do agree, it's why I think CB must be re-examining these lower-cost forces. Ariadna does have a lot of Warband diversity, almost as much as Nomad MI diversity. It's ideal if every faction gets fixed, but it might actually be okay if every Ariadna force brings along a Vet Kazak or three every game and diversifies at the lower end of the cost bracket since nearly every mid-tech or better force brings along 2 of those damned Flash Pulse bots to every game and we haven't got sick of Infinity yet.

 

The no limit extra will not be the same as regular N3 because the armies and sectorials will be already redesigned to 15 orders so the damage will be already done.

 

If all factions are redesigned to 15 orders, then that extra will become a real option for those factions that needed numbers in n3. I prefeer "having options" than "having needs". But we will see

 

So don’t use warbands, simple.

 

Wow, the skill to be so obstinate and play dumb like that. Or are you possibly not playing?

Here's another suggestion for you.

 

Uhh.... what?

I can spot an insult and should therefore not use warbands? Are you high? And I really don't mean that as an insult, just that there might be better ways of enjoying a high than this...

 

It's the typical 'don't want to be insulted, don't "ask" for it' kind of inept "defense". Because, you know, you simply deserved the slur and insult, how dare you play a warband.

 

I don't know if people actually played any Tac Window games this season but warbands ARE STILL VERY GOOD in that mode so "no point in taking them anymore" posts are baffling to me.

You cant fill the second group with monks or morlocks to the top but a single Muttawiah or Morlock can trade way up if you take care and not deploy it under 69 AROs

Baggage bot is a reg order but a warband can tie up a Jotum in CC

 

The problem is not, and has never been the costs of individual units, those are quite tightly balanced. The issue is the missions they are required to perform and the scoring conditions in those missions.
I'm guessing there is quite extensive data that CB have crunched from ITS showing disproportionate performance between army sizes, with an excessive positive correlation between number of orders and winning. I'd even go so far as to say there may have been resets in that performance/correlation as each new ITS season was launched, but then a steady creep back up as time went by. For all we know the churn of missions yearly in ITS has been in part to address this very issue.
What can I discern from this new limit?

The most egregious instances of skewed results were from 16+ order lists.
CB believes 5-6 order differential between lists is manageable and the variance in outcome is more tied to player skill than list design within this band.
We're unlikely to see major changes in ITS missions (no additional VP/OP for inflicting casualties to punish high order lists etc.)

All in all, I like this attempt to rebalance a widely known and exploited issue.

Also, once again I made the mistake of pressing "show ignored content" and just like the Infinity Forum Bingo card says, yes I regretted it.​