Don´t get me wrong, i agree with both of you. I´d love to see some thoughts behind changes. And if it´s just "we saw units XY appearing irregulary often in almost every list with access to it, so we just made it more expensive" But I experiences (always as a consumer, never as the producer) that other genres worked with very detailed thoughts to patches and there was no difference at all, more: the people did not just only rage against the patchnotes but also the explenation of it (and yes, i know, you will always meet this special individuals that will always find a reason to sh*ttalk. luckily, nothing we ever encountered here in this lovely forum of ours) As said: constructive criticism and explain buff/nerfs is always great. That peak preformance costumer exchange. I´d realy welcome that.
It is optional in your house games for now. As an ITS extra, we still don't know if it will be an option or if both players will be forced to use it, and if it's forced for both, those unwilling to play with reinforcements for whatever reason will have no recourse but to avoid the tournaments with such extra, which is not a good thing for the community. From the top of my head, there are several options: A) force you to deploy the reinforcements marker during the initial deployment. As such, you can add a Commlink (decoy 1) & Commlink (Decoy 2) profiles, for example, allowing the player to deploy extra dop pods markers and, when the reinforcements arrive, remove all but one. This makes important to secure the reinforcements deployment zone, and gives elite armies an option that does not involve eating a gazillion AROs if they activate any reinforcement troop in a minefield. B) Make the reinforcements groups private information, but allow their deployment only from the sides of their half of the table, up to 5cm or so from the border. C) let Reinforcement Tags enter from the DZ but integrated in a preexisting group so they have orders to do something, instead of just 3-4... Other units give extra SWC to the list, or are equipped with powerful weapons with an SWC discount too (or points). Depends on how obvious the Lt is, and the balance on Lt's order is that pesky little problem called Loss of Lt... to be fair, Steel Phalanx can use unlimited Fireteam Core (topped at 4men for "balance) but are unable to fit more than 2, maybe 3 if going with full cheapo options (remember AVA limits myrms & thoras to 6 each), and it has been like that since the beginning... It was fine when only QK had Haris, but then Haris was given to everybody, and nowadays some sectorials have 2 haris + core (I'mlooking at Morat, for example...) so... Limited insertion meant that you could play those 10 orders while also going first, without losing 2 to a Command Token. The lack of such protection spelled the end of the single group lists aside for particular exceptions, and seeing how Reinforcements are biased towards the second player, you are constrained in that 1 group only box, also being forced to bring extra orders or Counterintelligence like it or not (and that's considering its availability...) It would be better to leave the option for 250, 300, 350 and 400 points, with a % of said points as extra for reinforcements, or a scaling... like 75 for 250pts, 100 for 300, etc..., or even leave the extra size in the hands of the TOs, so crazy options like 250 standard and 200pts reinforcements can be a thing. Activation of reinforcements arrival could also be a Lt test, autodeployment with 1 command token, or automatically at turn 3 as it is. And for how much casualties, instead of suffering as much as the reinforcement group's costs, make it conditional to other options.
Here is a lengthy interview of a game designer who used to work for GW. He explains, among other things, that : - Balancing a game, except when it's gross and painfully evident misstake is not easy and a lengthy process, which would require a lot of human resources (which is expensive). - There is no evidence that a perfectly balance game will sell more (compared to good and wide communication, hype building, distribution, cost management etc) - Even is VERY big company like GW this playtesting process will be 20 or 30 games by not so great player during lunch time. I would personally add that company that craved for community feedbacks and take it into account like the one behind warmachine/ horde or the one behind Guildball haven't have great result in the last years. Imo CB staff could do a little more to balance some stuff that is definitely and very wildly identified as an issue (Bear need to be more expensive or dog warrior need berzerk, ranger has to be 10 pts more expensive or loose tactical awareness at least, Chimera could work like antipode handler or be more expensive, Moran would need a nerf, like be déploiement +20. They did it nice with muttawia and post human in N3). But it definitely has not incent to deploy huge energy into game balance on a regular basis.
Well, to be honest, these are the same small minded people with a lost grip to reality that threatened Billy Dee Williams for betraying Han Solo. Please be able to seperate reality and fiction, or true talk and sarcastic "in charakter"-talk. Exactly what I mean and hurtfully miss. Would love for Limited insertion become a useful way to play again.
I gave a small contextual history reminder and got words I never said put in my mouth, case point. What the community wants, already existed, and it stopped because of how hostile the interaction was. But to take a recent example, why bulleteers cost changed? because we found the program we use to calculate the units cost in this instance produced wrong results and we fixed it. Frankly the responses to the honest explanation were worse than what it was said before an explanation was given.
What do you think if I open a new thread, in rules section, with a proper title , and you use it to share your feedback about Reinforcements, what do you like about it, what you find weird, what you propose to change or your feelings when playing? I think we can make a fresh start with this, so let me close this thread and let's start again :) Please go here: https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threads/reinforcements-feedback-thread.42398/ Thank you!
