Some may be well off enough think loosing the use of $20 figure is not a big deal. But to some, $20 is a lot of money. I started playing Infinity because, unlike GW games, it was not "he who makes the most money wins". GW literally priced me out of the game. Especially when they made half of my armies unusable.
*losing the use of a $20 in the original use. Anyone who *has* Bit & KISS specifically for MAF or SEF can still use her, either as a proxy in those forces, or in OCF or CA itself. The only way she becomes unusable is if someone makes the active decision not to take advantage of the other options available. Is it ideal? No, it's not, but she still has use, if a player doesn't deliberately decide to reject those uses.
Or proxy, or avail themselves of one of the ways to continue using the mini. It's not useless unless you actively decide it is. And continuing to rail and wail as if grievously wronged after folks point out official ways to continue using the mini despite the change? I could imagine folks asking for quiet after that, yes.
It's not even faction, it's a sub faction. I get some people might mainline a faction (which isn't common around here). But to mainline only a single sectorial would be surprising. There might be people that do it, and 20 might be a lot to them for similar reasons. And that sucks, but they would certainly be a small subsection of the player base. I think. The suggestions by @Skjarr are on point, and a little bit of change log or something would be good. It doesn't have to be much because I know people will use whatever is given to argue fiercely but it's still important.
Be surprised then. I play MAF. On a very rare occasion I have played vanilla MAF plus an Avatar (I would estimate less than 10 games, including local tournaments). I dabble with vanilla Haqq but have played a whopping two games with them in a couple of years of owning them. The original Avatar and the HVT are the only non-MAF CA models I have purchased. Buying a model to collect doesn't bother me. If Bit & Kiss had never been available in MAF I would never have bought them.
I really don't understand your reasoning. I bought B&K to put on the tabletop to represent a character in MAF while I play Infinity. She's no longer available in MAF thus I can't use her for the intended purpose. CB sells miniatures to represent their characters during game play. Or is CB selling their miniatures for the joy of modelling only and not for use on the table? If so, I guess I made a mistake. Suggesting other ways to use her, lemonade out of lemons and all that, doesn't change the fact I bought a lemon. And CB can be sure I'll remember the person who sold me that lemon. Exactly. I didn't buy B&K to display her. Nor for the joy of modelling and painting itself. I bought her to use on the tabletop and I only play MAF.
eww, flea bitten monkeys have infested the Shasvastii thread. I came here to see how many people are expecting the Noctifers or Malignos to get a Killer Hacking Device so that Onyx will have yet another option for a KHD!
@Alphz a *lot* of people play one sectorial in particular, and I think MAF was probably pretty overrepresented in this way. For my part I faction-hopped rather than buying into more sectorials in the same faction because it gave me more variety both in terms of aesthetics and playstyles.
She's cheaper and offers superior repeater coverage to Kerr-Nau if you're packing a heavy hacking game otherwise and don't want to overdo it. I have her and a Charontid HD+ as the hacking presence in a few of my lists and her lower cost still nets me a great repeater network and EIKHD backup in case anyone comes after the big guy through my network while allowing a few extra gribblies on the side.
I believe Mao's point is that you can continue using Bit and Kiss as models within MAF if you so desire. For example: Ikadron & Hacker (vanguards, Yaogat and Zerat all seem reasonable) Oznat & Synched Preta. Which would be a model representing a unit within MAF while playing Infinity, its stated purpose.
@TheRedZealot it's a bad point tho. People want to buy models that represent what they're actually playing, otherwise people would just proxy everything. Moreover, they removed pitchers from Morats for no good reason I could see. Seems more of a removal on the basis of "no fun" rather than a balance issue.
Fine, you can remember who sold you that lemon. However, continuing to harp on the same loss, rather than looking to the approved and proved ways to ameliorate that loss, suggests at least part of the problem lies with you, as well as with CB. The game will change. Things will be lost and things will be gained. Is it ideal? No, it’s not. However, has CB specifically provided ways that miniature can be used on the table, so that your “investment” isn’t entirely lost. Obstinately refusing to recognize there are ways to continue using the models lies with you, not the company. And, considering the way CB has structured the ITS rules, in part to allow minis to continue be using with profile and army changes, if you chose not to use Bit & KISS in any way, that’s on you, not CB.
Ah, yes. But you'd be rooting for CB if they were caught blowing up an orphanage on live TV. So @Razi I wouldn't suggest taking this guy super seriously.
Many people, I would guess the majority, have no issue with using models that aren't quite right. And many people that prefer using models that are right have less of an issue with it when it involves mitigating an otherwise lost model. As for pitchers that's irrelevant to my part of the conversation. I'm not here to make judgement over whether its the right or wrong thing for balance. I just thought I would try and clarify the point being made as I saw it. I thought perhaps there would be something of interest to me as a Shasvastii player but unfortunately I didn't find anything interesting :)
Could you (or anyone) maybe point me in the direction of where that plan is stated? I started out with MAF (mostly because the miniatures are dope) like 2 months ago and before i never really followed Combined Army news. Now that i have a foot in the door i am actually also interested in Shas but the sectorial feels 'old' to me right now (models as well). Thus, i would love to know more about what the future holds for Shas.
I think @psychoticstorm was referring to CBs stated intention to have an evolving game. I'm not sure there is a single announcement as such but it is something that has been eluded to a lot. As for Shasvaasti they ARE old. Most of their models are up for resculpting (Noctifiers and the Sphinx are the notable exceptions I think) and most of their core tricks and rules don't work anymore. The whole sectorial is being revamped and will be released some time next year.
Have they confirmed next year 100%? I believe so far it just looks very likely from our end. CB has talked about revamping Shasvastii for a few years. The process was slowed because they had some trouble figuring them out. We also know next year is supposed to "The Year of the Alien". They have talked about in the past that the Umbra were initially shasvastii redesigns that they decided to shunt into a new alien race. And we know the Cadmus will likely get the Decoy rule from the rules example. So it seems pretty darn likely but I'm loath to confirm anything that we have concrete recent information on.
