only one plate can have SS2 only two of them can have B2 in reactive if your opponent dumps 72 points into full ava (they are ava3 please check before you post) you are already winning before the game started
Without meaning to be pedantic, a loophole being by definition an ambiguity or an omission, it’s usually expected to be unintended, at least where game designers are concerned. But I feel this type of discussion always comes back to the same where CB is concerned, and I haven’t been here very long: the rules for Infinity are simply not tight enough for the competitive environment it wants to promote. With the corollary that even when the rules seem clear, people are distrustful about the actual intent: if they made mistakes elsewhere, what’s to tell us this one is not? I really, badly hope N4 will sort this out. Or at least C1, you’d hope the simpler rules would hold up. I’d be wonderful to have discussions about how to beat a certain situation rather than asking whether that situation should happen at all.
if someone thinks that needs to appologize for using a rule, that might be an indicator that there is a problem in there (it might be legal, but nasty)
They have a gun and decent stats together with quirky LOF and a template that you might not expect to be facing. You're in no way already ahead if your opponent gets 3 of them
One of them is indeed a strong denial tool but has dead weight feeding him The other is weak to stealth The third is just a Heckler without a marker in the deployment zone I can't see anyone taking all three
I can't quite tell whether you're trying to argue that Jammers are too strong or just right... from what you're arguing it's the prior? I mean, you make the argument that a unit that's a Zhanying (same stats but cheaper) or Govad is only decent when placed inside a core and only because of a 1pts device. Or are you arguing that a significant portion of loadouts are completely dead weight because they don't have Jammers*? * Or more reasonably no Jammers nor specialist skill nor SWC weapon
I mean, this is a pretty easy issue to solve. At the start of the game, just say "I'm playing White Banner, it's a new sectorial you so might want to know I get linked holo jammers." Done. As for the idea that against a new player you shouldn't take the best stuff at all... well, when I was learning the game I would have been pretty pissed off if my opponents had pulled their punches. I wanted to learn, after all. It would suck to think you'd learned to play, and then discover you'd only learned to play against substandard lists and tactics. (Not to mention the hassle of having to come to the FLGS with two sets of lists, the real lists to use against the good players and the dumbed-down lists to use against the newbies.)
I am saying that only 1 Tiang Gou (that goes into a core link) provides a real threat to most units coming into his ZoC and it is a pretty manageable bubble for a decent opponent. Taking second for the haris may be wise if you take the haris (already doesnt seem optimal in WB, in my opinion), but that one has no defense against stealth units. Third one is just bad and taking points from valuable unit choices. "Dead weight" is Zhanshis that build a core that Tiang Gou goes into.
Man, Yu Jing finally gets something totally broken for once and people already want to take it away Let me have my fun for at least a little while!
be glad, comments are less nocive than when hecklers appeared, and these new dudes will not get the nerfbat (the ones that CB hear the most will not say anything this time)
Honestly, I'm already having bad flashback vibes to when the Iron Hands Supplement released and I saw my Iron hands go from ''You have to have literately replaced your brains fleshy bits with machinery to run them'' to ''The most dominant faction in the entire game for half a year'' ...really feels like deja vu...
Yeah and bringing IH in their most op incarnation, optimized for maximum damage output and survivability meant you basically cannot lose. Was bringing that netlist legal? Sure. Was it WAAC to bring it to a pickup game? You guys tell me.
IDK honestly, for some odd reason I more or less remained the only IH player locally during that period... everyone kinda just grabbed Raven Guards instead. Which is understandable, as far as I'm aware the local meta is weird for every tabletop game here... And, TBF, I am not really able to fully delve into competitive scenes, in general, to comment on that stuff. T:
The Jammer itself is not the biggest part of the isssue, If you build a Zhanshi link with a paramedic and a hacker, then you put in the Lei Gong in with a Tian Gou and a Quiang Gao than it is the issue. With the HMG you can eliminate long range threats, with all of the direct templates you can scare away War Bands, with a hacker and paramedic you can push buttons and revive fallen comrades, and the Jammer is the cherry on top that scares away any short range models and denies the objective.
Well, to counter this point; Iron Hands was broken as a whole, while this Jammer option requires a full core to exploit (with SSL2), in a sectorial that doesn't have a good (read, strong) core link option. Either you go barebones with a Zhanshi link + big guy, which isn't a link that's worth talking about or you grossly inflate your link with a semi HI core link, that's super expensive. However annoying this guy is, he feels very restricted compared to massed Mutts who also have smoke OR marker state jammers that starts up the board. Mind you, I don't think this game needed another Jammer profile (or the Jammer, in general.. like.. at all), but I don't view this particular option as a "game breaking" option. Who knows, I could be entirely wrong and this is the next meta defining thing since Libertos and Kamau Sniper but it sure doesn't look like it from my perspective.
Sorry, I originally had a line explaining what I meant by "exploit", but I dropped it because I know I've said it on the forums here a number of times and didn't want to beat a dead horse. I mean "exploit" the way you would exploit a natural resource -- to maximize how much benefit you gain from it. As a side note, you're not being a dick for following the rules. Sportsmanship and fair play exist outside of the ruleset of a game. They're about courtesy and manners in carrying out the rules exactly.
But it's not by every means possible. I'm not going to break or bend the rules. I'm going to carry them out exactly as they've been interpreted by CB. If you're not going to have fun playing against even nasty lists, then pick another game! Hassassins are super annoying to deal with, but there's no "gentleman's agreement" that no one plays Hassassins. That would be ridiculous. The fact you can't think of an example of that in Infinity is pretty telling to whether or not it exists at all. There are no crutches in competitive games. Crutches do not exist. This is a great example of scrub mentality -- you are letting your imagined ruleset override the actual rules of the game. There's a saying in Go -- "lose your first 50 games as fast as possible." I wouldn't want anyone to hold back on me when I was first learning. And yeah, for the first year or so, I lost a ton of games. But I don't remember the losses, I remember enjoying learning, regardless of the outcome. Yes, I was playing to win every single time. But I also needed to develop some of the skills that would allow me to do so at all. I started writing this post as I worked my way down, so it's hilarious that my example above is exactly what you brought up here. I don't care if someone brings Hassassins. Yes, I'll sigh and let out an "oh god", but after that, I still enjoy the game, even against bullshitty stuff. Deploying against Hassassins is always an interesting puzzle, and they're pretty easy to neuter if you drop their Fidays. And when is a Fiday ever going to need to bait a Change Facing? He has 20 inches of free movement to get engaged with you. That interaction is super necessary to allow non-marker state CC units get into CC at all. Deciding that someone can't play the units that literally make their faction competitive because they are unfair is ridiculous. Choosing to intentionally not take your strong pieces to handicap yourself is a disservice to your opponent. This is fine! In a friendly game, I'll gladly offer you every necessary piece of information like that. "Warning, I have a Holoprojector sniper with MSV2 in my army." "Warning, the points on my side of the table don't add up." "Of the pieces you can see, the ones that can be Lt. are these 3." That's all information that a player should know in an ideal situation, and in the case of the second piece of information, the first thing I do when my opponent finishes deploying is do the math to the best of my knowledge (I'm much better at some factions than others, of course). But in a tournament, my lips are sealed.
I sigh inwardly every time someone links to that Sirlin article. There's not an objectively correct way to play a game - whether you're arguing that certain things should be off limits, or if you're arguing that every match must be played to the hilt or you're dishonoring your opponent. (Warning - hyperbole) For me, what's important is having a good time interacting with the person who is currently my opponent. Regardless of the rules, if one or the other of us is having a bad time, then the game's not good. This includes tournaments - I've had tournament games I won that completely sucked and were awful experiences for me. I try to avoid those, as I would much rather lose a fun game than win by crushing the spirit of my opponent. When you're playing a "competitive" game, it's important to look at both what you and your opponent want to get out of the experience. Social interaction, learning, and the adrenaline rush of victory are all valid, but you need to make sure everyone has compatible goals.
