1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Symbiomupdate

Discussion in 'Tohaa' started by colbrook, Mar 21, 2019.

  1. OrderMonkey

    OrderMonkey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2018
    Messages:
    150
    Likes Received:
    233
    I can't get behind that analysis either. Assuming a unit is in cover (which should be the most common case), the new Mate will get him to 12 ARM, putting you on 4s vs HMGs and Sniper Rifles. I'm not good at maths, but last time I checked, that's far from 50% chance to take a wound.

    Thus, comparing its effectiveness to ODD seems odd, pun intended.

    Edit: spelling
     
    Hecaton, Teslarod and ChoTimberwolf like this.
  2. RobertShepherd

    RobertShepherd Antipodean midwit

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2018
    Messages:
    2,048
    Likes Received:
    4,191
    I assume the 50% effectiveness claim is relative to the old mates which were 100% effective (sans crits). But even then it's odd to me. Even running the numbers exclusively against Fatality HMGs shouldn't return that result.
     
  3. -Ghost-

    -Ghost- Shalashaska

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2017
    Messages:
    387
    Likes Received:
    375
    That makes sense, I like a small safety net for unforseen contingencies.
     
    RobertShepherd likes this.
  4. Abrilete

    Abrilete Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    2,490
    Likes Received:
    3,387
    Considering that now you can voluntary fail the Guts roll (awsome for the typical Gao-Rael Sniper), I do indeed consider the change a sidegrade.
     
    ChoTimberwolf and RobertShepherd like this.
  5. Vanderbane

    Vanderbane Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2018
    Messages:
    505
    Likes Received:
    726
    A couple things.

    Its simply changing the ARM roll. If we assume that cover still helps with the Mate (I think it probably will, but that’s an assumption) then a Gao-Rael goes from ARM 5 in cover to ARM 12 in cover. If he eats a linked HMG, then instead of 11s (50%) you need 4s (80%). So if he took 5 hits, the Old Style Mate saves 100% of 2.5 wounds on average. With the New Style Mate, I take 1 and protect 4, on average, which sounds great. But 2.5 of those 4 were already protected in the absence of either Mate. Which is to say where before I protected 2.5, I now protect 1.5, which is that ~half I specified (60% if we’re getting specific - this seems to be close to the actual benefit, but again, varies by model. The benefit is better on Nikouls/Rasails and worse on Ectroses/Taquels. And it changes depending on the weapon, too, of course, and whether cover helps, too, etc.).

    On the immunity front, it’s way more helpful. Let’s say that Gao-Rael eats a Panzerfaust. He needs to roll 11s again (ARM 5 reduced to ARM 4 by AP, against DAM 14). So the Old Style Mate is saving half a wound per roll, or 1.5 wounds. The New Style Mate is protecting against 2 wounds just by the total immunity effect straight off which if you rolled them you’d need 3s to save same as for the last one, which you save 85% of the time. So we’re looking at 15% of the time you take a single wound, which is to say I take .15 wounds and protect 2.85 (about 90% as effective, by my math). So the nerf here is trivial by the numbers, assuming no surprising vulnerabilities, etc.

    In our minds, we think of the Symbiomate as saving against things it never saved (it was spent without need). In the HMG case above, we think it saved 5 wounds - but it didn't, it saved 2.5. So a good Tohaa player knows that if your Gao-Rael takes a single combi hit from that fusilier while in cover, you probably don’t want to spend the Mate (based just on the math, in many game situations it may be correct to spend it). That’s because 5 ARM vs. 13 DAM means your need 9s, which is to say the Mate is saving you only 0.4 wounds if you burn it there. If instead, I got clipped by 2 shots out of an HMG, I’m probably going to burn my OldStyle SymbioMate. Even there, 1 time in 4, I didn’t need to, which is to say that particular SymbioMate saved zero wounds and was wasted, and in the average case it is only saving 1 wound. With the Obligatory mod, we no longer have these choices to let our ARM be our ARM and our Mate save what needs saving, so the value of the New Style Mate (in terms of wounds saved) is reduced, b/c you cannot choose when to get the best average performance out of the Mate anymore.

    Because of these facts, if I was playing against Tohaa, I’d try to clip them with whatever junk normal damage weapon gave me the best burst to scrape the New Style Mate off, and then plaster them with the special ammo weapon. That way I'm not wasting my Panzerfaust on the New Style Mate where it's Super Effective (pokemon joke, zing!). Others in this thread are already talking about Flashing and templates for removing Mates with exactly this intuited reason. So for all these roll-based and strategic play changes, I’m saying roughly half as good in terms of overall usefulness. Am I pessimist? Always, but I’m assuming my opponents will approach this the way I would. Which is to say, they’ll deal with New Style Mates differently than the Old Style Mates. So what percentage of the time will the Obligatory save a stray pistol shot? or a chain colt? or a Flash pulse? That pull the effectiveness number down, doesn't it?

    As far as the ODD comparison, it’s pretty simple here, too. My thinking is it behaves like the New Style Mate. It’s Obligatory, so the first time your Gao-Rael gets into a shoot out or other FtF where ODD is useable, it gets spent. Against an MSV2 model, it does jack. Same with templates. Against MSV1, it gives your opponent a -3. Most everything else, -6 for your opponent. And then it’s spent and the Mate is gone.

    In terms of wounds saved, on average, it’s pretty close to the New Style Mate. That’s my point - in terms of protecting you it gives you about the same rate of taking a wound (this isn’t exact, obviously, but it’s close). What changes is that it makes your model far more likely to give the opponent’s model a wound (when you would have just shrugged off the shot in the current New Style Mate, you instead win the FtF, which of course means your opponent is now rolling an ARM save).

    So why mention it? Well, seems to me that the one-time ODD would not have caused anyone to blink or complain the way people did about the Old Style Mates. We don’t complain much about ODD as being broken around here, and a single use ODD would be seen as pretty middling, I think. But it’s _way_ better than a one-time ARM roll boost, and I’d argue more on scale with the Old Style Mates, b/c even though it saves you from less, (about 50% less, by my above reckoning), it puts damage on your opponent’s trooper for a lot of that 50% you miss in defensive bonus.

    So my point is that 1) the new Mates are nerfed - not surprising result given that was the goal - to the tune of very roughly 50% once people learn how to play against them, and 2) SymbioMates have always gotten hate because of how they feel to play against due to their bad design, not how good they are.

    To be clear, this is not a defense of the Old Style Mates, they needed to go as a piece of crummy design (you don’t want your game to have bad play experiences, and retconning a victory for your opponent into a “but it was all a dream” is terrible). But they didn’t need to go because they were too good.
     
    borings likes this.
  6. Teslarod

    Teslarod when in doubt, Yeet

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    2,407
    Likes Received:
    4,864
    Hm the comparison to ODD seems very weird to me, mostly because ODD provides 0 defense against DTWs and indirect template hits. The old Mate was 100% effective against those and the new one is plenty resilient against them.
    Old Mate and new also don't help winning FTF rolls, a one off ODD would make a Rasail, Gorgos or Gao Rael pretty damn deadly.

    New Mate feels like an Infinity mechanic. You can't just walk happy go lucky through a Mine, Chainrifle and Perimeter weapon anymore while taking on something else in FTF. If you want to that is still viable but a calculated risk instead of an automatic success.
    Capable CC troops with high crit chance EXP CCWs were pretty good at demolishing Tohaa, Mates now usually mean you'll survive one CC Attack, where an EXP CCW Crit most likely oneshot your Symbio troop through any potential Mates. Taking out a Sukuel and Rasaiil in CC was very Order efficent now it takes at least 2 Orders most of the time. That's significant as it allows the other Triad members an extra Order to prepare and prevents a throwaway CC Warband (or anything below MA4) from simply getting lucky thanks to Total Immunity.
     
    #126 Teslarod, Mar 23, 2019
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2019
    East of Irem and Postmortem like this.
  7. Solar

    Solar Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2017
    Messages:
    3,006
    Likes Received:
    5,381
    The thing that makes it much better for me is that it rewards me trying to shoot guys with 'mates with HMGs while flanking them, and that sort of thing. Previously it didn't make a single bit of difference but now it does, and that's cool. It rewards tactical play. If I hit a Sukael with three HMG rounds while they're in the open, previously that would do fuck all. Now it's actually pretty likely to at least knock off that symbiote armour! I'll make the effort to move into a flanking position and land a clean few hits in that case, rather than it not really mattering what you shoot them with, or from where. Which was pretty adverse to the game's style, and also kind of dull, and the mechanic as a whole was just silly and a negative play experience. Whereas now it's... well I still think it's really strong but it's not as strong as it used to be.
     
    jimbo slice and Sedral like this.
  8. Vanderbane

    Vanderbane Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2018
    Messages:
    505
    Likes Received:
    726
    Yeah, this is why I kept the numbers at a very rough "half as good" across all situations. Strategies will obviously change, which changes the distribution of situations the rule faces. You have to assume throughout that your opponent is going to use the best options available, as will you. This means that we are no longer going to see that Rasail just wade into mines and koalas and gunfire, agreed. Which means the New Style Mate is never effective in that situation. But it's almost the same as the Old Mates at soaking a long range missile ARO to flank into a better position b/c of the immunity bonus. And its way less effective against a TR HMG.

    As for the ODD, my comparison was specific to shooty interactions because that's where ODD functions; as I specified, DTWs would be unaffected by it. My point is simply that a boost to a single FtF (or more accurately, a negative modifier to your opponent's FtF) is generally better than a one time use ARM bonus. I don't think that's a particularly controversial position, even if it means the Mate would behave differently in different situations. I think it'd shake out that a single-use-ODD Mate would be somewhere in value between the New Mates and the Old Mates, but closer to the Old Mates b/c of the offensive (FtF winning) improvements - what you term "pretty damn deadly" - on that first shot. But even if deadly, it would not piss people off the way the Old Mates did, b/c it seems fair b/c you lost the roll, instead of negating the roll you won. To use your excellent language, it would feel like an Infinity Mechanic. And we know this is the case, b/c when a bounty hunter draws a full-on ODD, no one packs up and goes home, even if it is way more deadly than it was before.

    As you pointed out on the CC front, the new Mates have some advantages vs. critical EXP CCWs. I'm not sure that makes up a statistically significant portion of my SymbioMate uses, but again the viability of strategies will change when a rule changes. If you were charging in with Saito before, chances are that's not quite as good as it was. I'm not sure it's enough to revise my very rough 50%.

    Absolutely, the common kind of gunfire are far more powerful against the new Mates. So lets say in your example you hit with those 3, and the Mate saves them all. You still feel pretty good about that, b/c the Mate is gone. But that's of course the same thing if you hit with 3 on the old Mate, but it feels terrible because you never got to see the rolls. The point is that it wasn't the strength of the effect, it was that it felt (as you aptly put it) silly and dull and negative.
     
    Solar likes this.
  9. Solar

    Solar Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2017
    Messages:
    3,006
    Likes Received:
    5,381
    Also you do have a reasonably decent chance to actually do a wound now as well. If I get my Intruder HMG in a position where he can surprise shot your Sukael ML out of cover, chance of landing 3-4 hits? Pretty high! Your opponent would need to be unlucky to fail two of those saves, but it's definitely possible, and that it is at least a chance makes me much keener on the idea of using those tactics. And sure they might all bounce, but at least I had a chance, which is the same as any regular roll.
     
    colbrook likes this.
  10. RobertShepherd

    RobertShepherd Antipodean midwit

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2018
    Messages:
    2,048
    Likes Received:
    4,191
    Some interesting thoughts here at the moment. I wonder if anything will change when we see the nuances of the rule next week.
     
    Vanderbane and DustGod like this.
  11. DustGod

    DustGod Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2018
    Messages:
    241
    Likes Received:
    241
    I never played Tohaa so for me it'll be a brand new experience so I don't have to lament over any changes that are being made because if I do get into Spiral Corps it'll be fresh you know what I mean?
    I won't have that "oh when I played Tohaa Symbiomates xyz" cause I never messed with them...
     
  12. RobertShepherd

    RobertShepherd Antipodean midwit

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2018
    Messages:
    2,048
    Likes Received:
    4,191
    Hey @Vanderbane , I've been mulling over your post and just wanted to post a few responses to points where I think a counterpoint would be valuable. Overall though I just wanted to say thanks for having so obviously put a lot of thought into the matter. Your perspective doesn't quite line up with mine, but it's still a very interesting read.

    Here in particular I wanted to address the idea of consciously not spending an OldSymbiomate in response to a hit. This a luxury only afforded to models with multiple symbioarmour wounds, like Rasails. In the example you give, if a Gao-Rael takes a rifle hit, to my mind it is absolutely correct to spend a symbiomate to cancel the hit. If you don't, you are accepting a 40% chance that the mate is wasted anyway, since you cannot spend a symbiomate once you enter an inactive symbioarmour state.

    I appreciate that there are a lot of elements that feed into this decision, including;
    • expected value (I save my mate now, I have a chance to spend it to better effect later);
    • game context (in any circumstance, in active but especially reactive, where a Gao-Rael takes a hit from a rifle, the most likely next hit it takes will also be from a rifle at the time you make the decision, since the immediate engagement was resolved favorably for your opponent - either they will repeat it if its their active turn, or you will repeat if if it was yours, in either case meaning the likelihood of being able to save the mate for a HMG round is materially lower in reality than in a vacuum); and
    • risk management (I'm generally willing to engage with risk aggressively in infinity, which is a habit I think is common to most players with a certain level of experience. However, there's a certain level of risk above which I become highly sensitive to, which I generally describe as any with a 'catastrophic failure state', i.e. any action that has a worst-case outcome that materially impacts my ability to subsequently win a game, or to put it another way any bad outcome that I can't subsequently mitigate with good play and the resources at my disposal. The actual in-game effect of a failed ARM roll when you could otherwise have elected to spend an OldSymbiomate isn't itself catastrophic, but it can feed into a subsequent downward spiral because a failed save produces compounded bad results, so it's close enough that I'd consider not spending the mate in this circumstance an unnecessary risk for uncertain future gains).
    Overall I think you're focusing too heavily on expected value and not on other elements that contribute to successful deployment and expenditure of OldSymbiomates.

    I get the impression that this SymbiODD idea is something you workshopped up in an armchair design session some time in the past and have been rolling around since? It's an interesting hypothetical to work with, but somewhat (ok, totally) ungermaine to the conversation about rules we actually had, and will soon actually have.

    Also, it's kind of awful to imagine having to spend a single-use ODD before a F2F roll where it might be relevant, especially if that F2F roll is with an enemy Warcor. Just generally, forcing any symbiomate of any kind to have to be declared before a F2F roll is made would be a massive nerf, since right now they aren't ever expended until after a F2F roll results in potential injury. I'm very glad nothing we've seen so far has suggested they might be changing that way.
     
    A Mão Esquerda and OrderMonkey like this.
  13. Vanderbane

    Vanderbane Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2018
    Messages:
    505
    Likes Received:
    726
    Hey @RobertShepherd , thanks to you as well for a very thoughtful response to my ramblings. I’m glad they created interesting reading for someone. In short, I think we agree on a lot, actually. I’ll dig in because it's fun and your comments deserve a similarly considered response.

    As a starting point, it’s worth noting that we’re not haggling over my rough 50% estimate comparing the New Mates are to the Old. I think we’re on to the much more interesting part of the question, which is what will they mean for play vs. what the Old Style Mates. That's still to be determined, but I think that the most common strategy for dealing with enemy models (shooting them) clearly works much better against these Mates than the Old ones.

    I appreciate your breakdown of EV, Game Context, and Risk Management. First, I focus on EV because it can be calculated. Everything else is hypotheticals, anecdotes, or play style. I tried to focus my estimate on the most likely/common types of interactions. That’s why I didn’t weight in things like the New Style Mates being better against Explosive CCW critical hits, which they pretty clearly are. I wanted to focus on the most common shooty interactions, b/c in my experience, those are the most common interactions in the game.

    And I didn’t pick particularly egregious examples of bad shooty stuff, either. For instance, look at @Solar ’s nice example of shooting a Sukeul out of cover with an intruder HMG that lands 4 HMG shots. For simplicity let’s assume he is shooting that Sukeul in the back from outside of ZoC. He points out that against an Old Style Mate, this seems like a bad trade. It’s not great - he would only have about a bit less than a 20% chance of landing a critical there, and otherwise, you’re just removing the Mate. This is compared to a ~80% chance to get at least one wound with the New Style Mates. I think we can agree in this case that the New Mate performs way worse than my rough estimate.

    Back to your comments. As for Game Context, sure. As I mentioned above, it’s often correct to use the Mate even when the EV is low as a matter of game state. You take risks sometimes as needed. Maybe that means you take less risks when you are ahead, and more when you are behind, or maybe it means the opposite? I mean, you can certainly “afford” more risks when you are ahead, but they are worth less to you then, too. Right? Regardless, it sounds like we might disagree a bit on where to draw the line on what constitutes an acceptable risk for a given reward (I suspect you’d favor caution in cases where I’d argue to take the risk to gain advantage).

    But boy, now we’re into all the edge hypotheticals that are hard to measure. Some cases it’ll be right to spend the mate, and others it will not. I’d argue that one of the best _general_ proxies available to us for estimating when to take a risk is… the EV. This isn’t really a point of argument - I think if you took two missiles, pretty much everyone would agree that you use a Mate to soak that, but if you took a single pistol round, it’s much more debatable. Given that this is just known probabilities, it ends up being a lot like betting in blackjack using Perfect Strategy. You might lose this hand (and therefore disadvantage yourself in this game) but across enough Orders and games it’s the right thing to do b/c you advantage yourself more often than not. And like in Perfect Strategy, you have various betting strategies that pair with it, with different risk/reward rates.

    At this stage, then, the biggest problem in terms of comparing the New and Old Mates is that, as I’ve mentioned before, a change in the rules necessarily results in a change in how the game is played. For instance, all of this interesting discussion about when you risk not using an Old Style Mate is now worthless with the new rule. So we have to look at the cases that the two Mate Styles share, and the cases it creates or closes. When you do, the shooty interactions make up the majority of the shared interactions, and in those cases New Mates are about half as good as the Old.

    Okay, onto my hobby horse about ODD Mates. Yeah, @RobertShepherd , you have it about right, but I don’t advocate the ODD Mate. The reason it comes up here is simply to make two points, and neither of those points are “I think Mates should provide ODD.” The points are 1) the Old Mates were not too powerful - they were poorly designed because they feel terrible to play against and 2) here’s a theoretical SymbioMate effect that would have defensive benefits similar to the New Style Mates but be about as powerful as the Old Mates, and no one would complain about it b/c it “feels” better to play against. Those are the only reasons I bring it up here. I think we all know that the minus-to-hit abilities (mimetism, ODD, etc.) are incredibly powerful abilities, and my point is that they don't catch flack like Symbiomates. The reason this is the case is they don’t feel terrible because they change the target number instead of the result.

    And the having to declare the ODD Mate against a WarCor thing was kinda bait to draw people into an argument about the advantages/disadvantages of the Obligatory requirement in the new rule vs. the choice available in the old rule, but, given both of our above novellas it appears that wasn't necessary.
     
  14. RobertShepherd

    RobertShepherd Antipodean midwit

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2018
    Messages:
    2,048
    Likes Received:
    4,191
    See, I consider this kind of hypothetical engagement a serious feature of the new rules.

    On one hand, conventionally engaging a model protected by a NewSymbiomate is likely to produce an outcome not hugely dissimilar to anything you might have expected previously (there is a drop in relative effectiveness, and we can present perspectives on that information in varying terms of relative or absolute value, but overall I think we can agree that trying to inflict meaningful injury on an ARM12 BTS12 Total Immunity model is going to be a struggle, albeit less of a struggle than against a model totally immune to non-critical attacks).

    But on the other, it's now possible to out-maneuver a model with a NewSymbiomate to diminish its relative effectiveness, which is a serious positive for overall design. It means there's now counter-play to symbiomates that didn't exist before; it means that when someone asks how to deal with Tohaa overwatch you can in addition to just suggesting list changes that might make you more effective (which you could previously, of course - though the answer has changed in a few respects and might change again when we have the full rules update), but now also suggest strategies on the battlefield that will work more or less regardless of the list you're using. From a design perspective, that's fantastic.

    And frankly, it's fantastic from a people-maybe-finally-stopping-complaining-about-tohaa perspective, too.[/user]
     
  15. Vanderbane

    Vanderbane Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2018
    Messages:
    505
    Likes Received:
    726
    Sure. But, that's not a new feature. All rules have counters. Camo list? Bring templates, sensor, and MSV2. High ARM? Shoot it with AP, EXP or in the BTS. Old Style Mates had counters, too (threaten lots of ARM rolls with template weapons, special ammo, or high burst). Before, those were your best options, and most of the time they were okay, but they never _felt_ as good as they were.

    What I think you are saying is that Symbiomates are now worse, on average, than they were before. Which is of course both CB's point in nerfing them, and mine in running these estimates. I agree there are probably more new engagements that favor the opponent than favor the New Mate. Given than, play _will_ change. That's why I think people are underestimating how much worse the New Symbiomates are now than they were before. There's _lot's_ of ways to beat them now, even though at first glance those 60%- and 90%-as-good numbers in the straight up shooting doesn't sound terrible for the New Mate troopers. I think the reality it's going to be far worse. If you're trying to say my ~half as good is too high an estimate, though, you may well be right.

    On this front I remain a pessimist.

    edit: typos
     
  16. RobertShepherd

    RobertShepherd Antipodean midwit

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2018
    Messages:
    2,048
    Likes Received:
    4,191
    Those are all things you need to adjust at list construction, not in play. Truly effective counter-play (note emphasis) to mates is new, or at least greatly expanded.

    Also, going back to this briefly;

    Probably less than you'd think, honestly. In general I'd argue that Infinity favours players who are simultaneously aggressive and good at engaging with risk (because playing aggressively offers the most chances to make decisions with good probabilistic outcomes, which helps ameliorate individual instances of bad luck).

    Our disconnect on the issue of when to spend a symbiomate comes from the expected future EV of a symbiomate in the event that you don't spend it. To revisit the Gao-Rael example, by not spending a symbiomate, your future EV is immediately reduced by 40% (that is to say, you'll have a 40% of not being able to spend it in future if you decide to not spend it on receiving the rifle hit in our hypothetical).

    So if your EV of a symbiomate against a rifle hit is 0.4 of a wound, then you need to expect a future incoming attack where spending a symbiomate would produce a 0.6(repeating) result, which is to say you need to expect your next opportunity to be against, a single DAM19 hit, or any number of lower-DAM hits, to have the decision be correct. You also need to account for the likelihood of an enemy crit, but frankly that math is context-dependent and doesn't modify the overall conclusion more than a little.

    To render this in practical terms means needing to invent context that I appreciate you kind of wanted to avoid, but just taking two hypothetical situations where a Gao-Rael might have taken a DAM13 hit:
    1. a Gao-Rael spitfire in active turn engaging an enemy model with a rifle. Even against an enemy model in suppressive fire, the overwhelming likelhood is that the next hit the Gao-Rael will receive will also be a single DAM13 hit. The EV of this future OldSymbiomate is categorically lower than if you spent it now (to whit it's 0.24 wounds, down from 0.4 wounds).
    2. A Gao-Rael sniper in reactive turn is engaged by an enemy model with a marksman rifle. As before, because the Gao-Rael is taking a single hit and deciding whether or not to spend a mate, this engagement was categorically not decisive, so is most likely to be repeated. Ergo the next attack a Gao-Rael will receive is from the same weapon and position that caused it to take the original DAM13 hit. If the Gao-Rael is linked and not being engaged on terrible terms, typically you would expect to take at most one hit in a subsequent engagement as well (thanks to the effect B2 in reactive has on diminishing enemy successes). However, if it's something like say Sheshkiin in full link with a Red Fury*, the odds of you taking two or three or more hits in the next volley increases significantly. In this case your EV of a future symbiomate spend goes up. In this case it might be correct to not spend the mate, unless your overall tactical position requires that you delay the enemy link in question, in which case you're not just talking EV in wounds but also enemy orders, and a Gao-Rael that doesn't spend the mate will be making a guts roll, which it has a 25% chance of failing, which... etcetera, etcetera.
    So broadly I accept the argument that that there are some circumstances under which not spending an OldSymbiomate is correct, but my experience is that in practice they are far rarer than they would appear in an on-paper argument. Additionally, the mental load of genuinely calculating when it's actually correct to not spend a mate is likely to be sufficiently significant, and sufficiently distracting from the broader game, that my advice to almost any Tohaa player is, if in doubt, expend the mate.

    (As noted, the exception is any model with multiple symbioarmour wounds, who have a much easier time figuring out when it's correct or not).





    *of course in my experience as a Combined Army in addition to Tohaa player, Sheshkiin engaging a Gao-Rael sniper under any circumstances immediately results in Sheshkiin getting crit and shocking out and your whole gameplan going to hell in a handbasket, so YMMV.
     
  17. DustGod

    DustGod Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2018
    Messages:
    241
    Likes Received:
    241
    +9 ARM +9 BTS
    Seems like a great Fuggin deal to me...
    I'd love to have that for a hardazz Haris unit in Hassassins (probably 20 of my 30 games)
    I know the other setup was 1 order get outta jail free card...
    Still seems like that... But you can always flub a Roll right...
    But flubbed rolls are what make infinity so great
    Why?
    Cause Anything can Kill Anything
    That's my 2 cents
     
    Cothel and RobertShepherd like this.
  18. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    7,205
    Likes Received:
    6,535
    @Vanderbane I think that old Mates *were* too powerful. Some people recently crawled the tourney results and, surprise surprise, Tohaa had the highest win rate of any faction or sectorial.
     
    meikyoushisui likes this.
  19. RobertShepherd

    RobertShepherd Antipodean midwit

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2018
    Messages:
    2,048
    Likes Received:
    4,191
    Also, I think this might be slightly too in-depth a conversation to have over a rule that will be obsolete in literally 3-4 days. :P
     
    oldGregg and DustGod like this.
  20. Ben Kenobi

    Ben Kenobi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2018
    Messages:
    1,386
    Likes Received:
    1,639
    Only if you're looking ITS9 and 10 results.
    If you only look at ITS 10 it is vanilla Aleph where in 58% of the lists where Achilles.
    But none complains about stupid statlines of Aleph...
     
  • About Us

    We are a company founded in 2001 in Cangas (Spain), and devoted to design and manufacture games and figures. Our main product, Infinity the Game, was born with the ambition to satisfy the most demanding audience, offering the best quality.

     

    Why are we here?

     

    Because we are, first and foremost, players.

  • Quick Navigation

    Open the Quick Navigation