What country do you play in? I live in the states and I have only ever seen terrain in missions where it is specified in the mission spec. It's more about what is efficient. An Oniwaban will always be more deadly in CC because of the ~35% chance to Monofilament crit and instantly delete anything. On the other hand, a boarding shotgun that hits 3 cheerleaders will have about the same impact altogether, but takes less orders to get in an effective range.
I don't think the jammer and isolate changes really fix the issue. Non-camo models are still pretty much going to get locked down by the jammer. Even if I spend the command token, since the isolate effect can happen again I'm basically stuck in the same situation of trying to move-reset out of range or get a camo guy to go trade with the mutt. I would make jammers Disposable(1) instead, they are still a threat but with only 1 shot you can brute force your way through it. The jammer is still good by the current pricing (like 0 points) since it drains 1 order from your opponent's turn to get around it and it still has the potential to shut down any model. If you want them to be more consistent in shutting out areas without being broken, Disposable (2) works fine, most people won't burn 2 orders to try and move through that but its still an option if your absolutely stuck. If your looking to make tags playable, the biggest change you could make would be to remove overlord and total control programs. Creating a 100 point swing is game ending and its usually bigger than that since you use it to take out your opponent's back line. There's no great defense against these programs; exorcism can only happen after the tag is taken and other hackers placed near the tag don't help since killer hackers exist. No one takes evo remotes for the reboot program as they are too expensive for a model that can only provide support programs. You could try to proactively hunt enemy hackers with a killer hacker but if they are in any kind of camo state it is really difficult to root them out. There are still a lot of other answers to tags and hackers can still stop them with other programs like gotcha and oblivion. I don't think infiltration needs a nerf. Rather, more models should have forward deployment instead of infiltration. I don't really like the marskmanship LX change on multi weapons, pushing it like that makes it rediculously strong, sacrificing dice to get an effective +9 is a little silly, especially since your adding it to things that are already burst 1 like the antimaterial modes so there's no tradeoff. I would probably always use it over my normal burst since its a near guaranteed hit as its going to put me over 20 and will probably win the FtF roll, and when I hit its like I hit with multiple shots since its DA or Exp. I plugged it into the dice calculator, and its a 4% increase to wound and my opponent has a 4% decrease to hit with two orcs facing off. That brings up the other question, is it meant to work in the reactive turn also? I get your looking to make it usable on active turn so maybe just a unique +3 or +6 without marksmanship lvl 2. That said, I think marksmanship LX + lvl2 is fine on the models that already have LX as I never really see them played or used.
Honestly this comes off as the basic myopic "my faction and playstyle are underpowered, buff it so I can win."
I mean I don't believe 6-2 should actually be upcosted. But it's the same logic. If MSV should go down in cost because people aren't using the terrain that helps it, 6-2 should go up because terrain that hurts isn't getting used. I proudly live in the USA, Oregon. However I wouldn't call our group typical. Low vis basically always makes an appearance after I demanded it and it vastly improved the experience. We haven't gotten regularly used movement terrain because of a lack of terrain owned, but with access to a 3d printer I'm working on it. edit: Just scheduled tipped barrels to make aquatic patches and vents to be printed actually.
That too of course :) I'll try to do a detailed answer to explain my feeling about your proposition. English is not my native tongue, so it's a bit hard for me to be precise enough to write what i think with english words. First, i apologise about the snipers, i missed the point that only a few of them would gain MMS L2. As for the ML, indeed they are untouched, but if you nerf some of their counters, they gain an overall buff. The nerf being the infiltration mechanism you suggest, which is a nerf in practice: most tables have a deployment zone of 30 cm / 12'. If you decide to go to the PH roll, you can hope to deploy 40 cm/16' from your DZ, that is, only 4 inches more than if you went without the PH roll - a short move ! There would be no point in taking Uxia, Kitsune, and other superior infiltrators if they can only do that much. And given the "bad" range of the ML is 0 to 60 cm, nerf infiltrators means limiting their possible positions, so nerfing their power vs that sort of weapon. For the marksmanship LX on EXP rounds. There is a big problem here, that is, MMSLX only works on B2+. So, either you didn't changed it at all, and it won't work on EXP rounds at all, or you change it to work on B1, and it will work on ARO. And each TAG i quoted would be a BIG pain in reactive on their own. BS 24 with -6 to hit ? Huge armor on cover ? MSV2 to ignore about everything and possibly behind smoke ? It's not about comparing it to 4 shots at BS18, it's for the reactive phase. A TAG in reactive is already something hard to deal with if you don't have the right tools, but you both suggest to buff it AND nerf said tools (except AHD). Well, my feelings about your suggestions is that you feel like shooting should be better than it already is, and alternates should be weaker. I don't feel this as a "balancing", but rather as a "shift". A shift toward more shooting and less tricks (yes i call ADHL a trick, since it's a short ranged non lethal B1 weapon, not comparable to a B4 murder machine) And i disagree with it. Most of these one shot you point are tricky to use. They are often short ranged, low burst, or disposable (blitzen, monomines ...) They are not universal tools that works on everything, unlike TAGs. They are very specifics tools dedicaced to stop big murder machines, and except the mono weapons, are non lethal. They can already be countered - good placement, support from other troops, engineers ... They don't need to be weaker. Plus, you seems to nerf high risk - high reward tactics like lieutenant hunting, by making loss of Lt state less damaging, and i don't think it's a good thing to do. You most probably spent some time working on it, and that's commendable. I agree with some of your suggestions, like increasing the damages for the K1 sniper, which is very weak compared to the MULTI sniper. But i think the global direction would not be good - just my opinion on it.
In many more ways than that. I'm not complaining that the game isn't balanced around the ways I choose to deviate.
MMS LX explicitly only works in Active Turn. It does not work for AROs. I am aware there is a mechanical Problem with Antimaterial Firemode having B1. This would require an extra clause (and I am not at a point where everything is perfectly streamlined yet). Camo troops/Infiltrators are more or less unconcerned about MLs. They move, the ML delays and then they either shoot or, more likely, move past the ML's firelane. The point for Infiltration is not to nerf it. Again it is to make Infiltration rolls less binary. Grunts, Daylamis, Shinobu, Uxia... doesn't matter. Whenever you pass the roll they are incredibly dangerous and hard to prepare for. Whenever you fail the roll, they turn next to useless. Not just because they lose Markerstate, but because they have to deployed on the edge of your Deployment Zone. Note that with the changes failing the Roll doesn't just give you another 4" deployment but also lets you use the entire Zone instead of just the edge. So yes successful Infiltration rolls get nerfed a bit, but failing an Infiltration roll is way less punishing now. Overall it should be more consistent with that. The problem I have with Mono, E/M and ADHL is not that they are too strong. It's that they are too binary and that they influence listbuilding. When you're running a tournament list you are forced to prepare for them regardless if your list wants to run an Engineer or not. Most things in the game have an alternative way to deal with them. E/M and ADHL are not anti TAG specific, they work just fine against regular troops, they're also pretty inexpensive, so they often find their way into a list as they are not limited to being a counter. Loss of Lt is one of the worst mechanics in the game. Especially since several Factions get an easy way out, while others are completely at the mercy of Lt hunting tactics. It still hurts, but should be punishing instead of game ending. Even the Factions with a buffer in place would benefit. It hardly ever happens to me tbh. PanO is actually one of the better Factions to hunt Lts with Tik/Seraph, I put people into LoL a lot. While it gets the job done it doesn't really feel great winning or losing a game that way. Rephrase that into "it's too easy to win with cheesy Tik rambo runs". I know you wouldn't think of hitting the things you use to prey on the local newbs with a nerfbat. Happy to nerf my own E/M Grenades, Mono CCWs and to hand out 50% C+ and Superjump to everyone. I'm using that stuff, it's great. That's why it is getting a nerf. Go figure why I'm trying to buff Combi+LSG. Pretty sure I'd currently not touch those troops with a stick. Go figure why I'd try ruin my already perfectly workable playstyle by including low tier troops into the list of viable stuff. I get it that you're not here to be constructive, you're here to figure out how to rain on someone else's parade (keep working on that, you might get there some day). Not interested in why, your miserable or happy life is yours to waste. If that is what gets you out of bed everyday be my guest, I'm happy to help!
This isn't a good basis for argument. Saying that everyone deviates from RAW in some way, therefore no one can comment on game balance is a great way to side step real discussion about any balance issues in the game.
If you can identify that the deviation from design is the cause of the balance issue it is not a reasonable complaint because you caused it and can fix it. If you think the logical conclusion of that is that you can't have any issues I don't know how to explain it differently, but you don't understand.
Without dredging up too much of the PAL/PBI argument, PBI isn't in the rulebook, but 90% of players and every ITS tournament uses PBI. Therefore every single order of every single game deviates from the design, no?
Wouldnt this mean literally any design complaint would be coming from people who aren't playing the game as it is "designed"?
I'm saying that people like you don't even understand what you're doing, and you're going to make the problem worse. We don't even have a coherent rules set, we can't really rebalance things until we know how the game is played.
Oh my, people like me who actually give a damn to run numbers? Care about the basic rules of stats and probability? Awesome, fresh and good looking? You gotta specify your insults better. Look man you might be stuck in your circlejerk of likeminded naysayers. But you can't escape the circle without trying. If you're here to be angry and unhelpful be my guest, just do it a bit less obious so we can at least pretend you're not just an overall obstacle in the way of any opinion that isn't yours. On the one hand one could ask you to find the decency to at least pretend arguing for your point. On the other hand throwing vague two liners in the room is a hard job and someone needs to do that too, so keep up the good work man.
Even returning to the original point, having mimetism in a low vis zone will be 90% as good against someone without a visor as something with a visor will be against someone without one. It's the difference of additional penalties on both sides. (In fact, I think there's a break point at which mimetism is actually better to have...)
