Is the 15 unit limit a good design choice?

No

 

No.

 

This is my first post and sorry for my bad english. I'm from Germany and play Ariadna since N1 and don't play with 16+ Lists. 16+ is a playstil, not a rule of Ariadna. the only thing that don't work is LI with 10 units. But I work on. ;)

15 Unit Limited is that what I want since N3. I vote Yes.

For you I hope you find a way to have fun with N4. With Kosmoflot, I will. :)

 

Many of us (*raises hand*) who are native English speakers still have poor English... thanks for sharing your thoughts!

 

All I want is help to lose his fokus on Mass Play; fokus on that what you can do, not what you can't.

 

Agreed. It simply *is*, so see what possibilities it opens up rather than worrying about what possibilities it closes off.

 

You're going to have to think about what it curtails, too. Asking for unflagging positivity is unrealistic.

 

16+ isn't a "playstyle". What a patently ridiculous stance to take. It's a result of being a cheap point-costed faction.
Kosmoflot, much like TAK, doesn't seem to actually be an 'Ariadna' list when it comes to how things are organized.

Anytime a game is required to create these weird kinds of artificial constraints just for 'matched play', it suggests something fundamentally wrong with the the core game design. We saw it with 40k and their introduction of the 'Rule of 3' and some factions being given '1 per Detachment' limits on certain units(Tau Commanders were being spammed to excess because Crisis Suit Squads were trash, comparatively) or "1 per <insert other unit here" limits(Guard Command Squads were swapped to be 1 per Officer, simply because they were being spammed as suicide units with special weapons...gee, why does that sound familiar?).

If they truly wanted to do something meaningful? They'd have changed the AVA system long ago to disallow these situations from happening in the first place.

 

Thinking about what it curtails is fine, however why dwell on it? The 15 Trooper limit simply *is* and lamenting it is simply wasting energy.

 

Whether or not one is dwelling on it is subjective. Moreover, the 15 trooper limit does not exist in some sort of ineffable way; it was a decision made by human beings with a specific goal in mind, and it can be critiqued. The critique of that choice is the topic of this thread.

 

In my opinion, the 15 order limit is one of many possible changes that could be made to achieve a design goal. My assumption is that that goal was to guide players towards building forces that are more thematic in the game. The extreme end of this spectrum would be what most historical simulation wargames do, which is to impose a rigid order of battle that prescribes exactly what units to take. A softer approach would be to create a force organisation chart (1HQ troops, five line troops, two elites etc.).
Viewed from that perspective, the 15 order limit is an even softer limitation, which allows for more flexibility in list creation. I think it was preferable to make this, in context, rather minor change to still allow creative list building while all the same pushing the game out of the ”pitched battle” system it had become towards the ”spec ops” system it was intended to be.

I will probably enjoy playing narrative pitched battles in the future, but I will not miss playing them in a tournament format.


Additionally, I find the frequent assertions that there is some inherent flaw in the game engine that should have been fixed "instead" quite perplexing. Of course there are flaws in the game engine, as in any other "engine" that strives to model a particular facet of the world, wether real or imaginary. The question is simply within which parameters the model works, and where it fails in one way or another. This is equally true for entertainment games, simulations as well as models used in science and engineering. In my opinion it is a sign of maturity on the company's part to say that they have recognised what they perceive their model/game engine does well (small scale action) and what it does less well (large scale actions). The reason I like Infinity is that it does in fact do what it does well really well, as opposed to some other miniatures game that do what they do well quite poorly.

I dare say that I think Infinity works ok even at larger scales, but I do think that it would be even better if larger games in terms of models would be played on larger tables, so from that perspective, it seems reasonable to limit army sizes in terms of model count in a standard format.

 

So I voted "yes" on this poll, but I'm still undecided if I like that change or not.

(+) The change benefits sectorial armies more than vanilla. I might be wrong, but any sectorial released since 3rd offensive benefits from this change. As a YJ player, the vanilla option imho was always better in terms of powerlevel then the sectorials because of the option to go beyond 15 orders.
(+) "Balancing vanilla mercs", I'd call it. Since the Mercs, yes Liberto, I'm looking at you, are one reason why vanilla armies are that strong. It still gives CB the options to put the "new book merc that can be played by all" into the game without buffing vanilla.
(-) As many already stated here, without anymore changes to Shas or OSS/Aleph, these already strong factions will have it easier.
(-) I somewhere read a good comment that there is the fear that all sectorials/factions are the same (HI + LI core) with different armor design if their "playstyle" is removed from them. For Ariadna this was camo spam and many cheap units, for Haqq it was the trading of irregular cheap troops with high cost units from the opponent, i.e.
(+) Games should be faster overall (yes, I know there are slow player on LI and fast on 29 orders)
(+) No more extreme lists like that CHA spam, but that was never a real issue imho.
(-) Easy approach on balancing the game. It could have been done without the hard cap to still keep a bigger variety of lists in the game. If you want people to not spam, why design a profile like the Liberto in the first place. Or make SMGs so damn cheap and give them to everyone, or why does half of the new units have NWI+Shock immune (to make them cheap).

 

If you want we can cotinue this conversation privately, so we can prevent to deviate too much the topic ;) Let me know! (I really enjoy to do "theory-infinity" a little). If someone want to join uns ...

Back to the main thema... As I said before, I can imagine why CB did this choice and understand it, and while I can be sure we, players will have to adapt to the "new style" and to be Ok with it, I would have preferred other options which were less restrictives because I love to have when more options better, but sometimes this is not possible. You need to "cut" somewhere. Still I can understand why are many players complaining about the limit. I like to play with camos even if I don't play ariadna. I have a tendency to deploy many as I can, sometimes forcing my lists too much in this "style" (yes I paid sometimes the 2CAP to have a Dasyus Lt in SSO. So extreme, guys). Of course if CB would have said now you will deploy only 3 camos per list in "standard" game (you aren't thinking nothing like this, really? XD), I will be now really angry.

But, please, don't forget this is only "the standar", in the end is more a "proposal" than any other thing, because it will the people who do tournament and write the tourmanent rules, picking this or that extra, who, in the end, will made this decision more or less relevant. Where I play now the extra SpecOps it isn't used soo much, while in my region of born SpecOps is normal.

So, keep this in mind. All of us should try the new standar, if we like it, so we stay in it, if not, we will have only to ask our "warcors use the extras, please" Same as now if we like more IL than the regular game.

@Panzerschwein If you should have to say sorry for your english I shouldn't write anymore and to ask forgiveness to a lot of peple here every day, every hour :D By the way, I love your nick, the "image of certain farm animal really big, pretty armoured and with really big cannons" came to my mind in the moment I read it ;)

 

I'll have to admit that it speaks for CB in terms of keeping their "engine" working...while I wouldn't even say that the engine has too many flaws. One of them, the Crit auto wound, has been adressed and after some time of moaning (i.e. accepting change) I really start to appreciate this new mechanic.

Still I see N3 as an engine tuned up to maximum power output...and though I dislike comparisons in forum discussions (they mostly lead astray), it feels like an overpowered big block V8, turbo injected, nitro fuelled, straight exhaust pipe, slicks...a machine that has become more of an annoyance to drive in a controlled way...and to watch/listen to. The thing is: combustion engines are fine, but simple capping top speed, while leaving all components tuned up as they are...well...that just makes it the same car going slower while the torque, noise and grip stay untouched...if that analogy works...don't know...in my head it does. Getting rid of stage 4 kits might get things back to a mre reasonable level as well.

If a game is supposed to have less cheap troops in lists (which I agree to) you can either cap the large number of cheap available troops, or you could reduce the number of cheap available troops. As it is right now, seemingly N4 will reduce the amount of rules to make things a little more "memorable", while the newly released troop profiles offer more and more rules. So while we presumably are going to see less troops on the table, the amount of rules (and thus bonusses) might even increase as lists will certainly tend to maximize efficiency as they always did. I read some hopes that more mediocre profiles might see the table again but I am quite sceptical about that. Much rather I anticipate player's choices tending towards tweaked up units all over the board, good old line toopers only being used for filling up fireteams...where there is no cheaper alternative.

One aspect I didn't see much comments on: while an open format left some room for people playing smaller lists, as indicated in a thread on ITS 10 and ITS 11 statistics average list size swings around 14-15 with only a few factions being way out of line. The 15 hard cap incentivizes players to use that 15 slots...a psychological effect...so speaking in averadge numbers, there will presumably not be that much of a change (if not for Dashat and stuff)...only variety in numbers will decrease. What was beforehand regulated by "will that number of troops still work?" now should be "how can I tweak that fixed maximum number to work best?" Admittedly the answer to the former question shoud be "NO" for most factions picking up more than 13-15 units.

 

Haha! I like the car analogy, although it might as you say be a bit confusing. I would like to turn it around like this, however:

Person calling Volvo helpdesk: "The brakes of my car are not working properly!"

Helpdesk: "Please stop driving at 200 km/h in built up areas"

Years go by...

Governmental department of roads and traffic: "That guy is still driving at 200 km/h in built up areas and blaming Volvo when he crashes into preschool children. What if we impose some kind of speed limit?"

This is actually how legislation happens in Sweden, so it is very easy for me to see the parallell here....

 

@Sergej Faehrlich you're right about the engine being the same.
I'm gonna run 15 Orders every single game no exceptions. Extra bodies are crucial for me to retain a functional combat group as long as possible.

From a balancing perspective that feels good though. With a stable base bodycount, the composition is what matters and where the variety comes in. Having access to a specific combination of gear and skills gets the chance to make up for a subpar cost efficiency. Things that manipulate bodycount (Puppets/Posthumans/G:Sync...) and Orderpool (CoC/TA/Impetuous...) get increased value. Opens up real choices rather than having piles of Troop Profiles that get clearly outperformed by their budget/elite variants.
You can put 3 Heavy TAGs and nothing else on the table and call it good in N3, no one does though. Anyone can intuitively grasp that at less than one Combat group is suboptimal.
N4 is going to be locked into Limited Insertion and 13-15 Order lists. I doubt it, but who knows, double Jotums (13 Orders with TA and LT) might just be competitive.
Looking forward to see people test every troop under the sun again.

 

The expansive and smart Teslarod posts are basically the only reason I bother to check these forums, co-signed under everything, good job man.

Playing a lot of tac window I have seen a lot of list diversity already. There is still a healthy minmaxing and optimal builds and trash-by-consensus, but a lot of previously wacky choices are actually considered. Did you all know how awesome Intruder Hacker is in Countermeasures? He does half of a deck by himself - zero khd could've never. And yes, in tac window premium LT (survivable and/or useful) is almost always better than a shell game.

To all that I can only add the SMG problem
It is essentially a multi-rifle with a massive discount, yet CB keeps seeing it as a variant of chain rifle - an equipment choice that is slapped on when a profile needs a points cut. Its ridiculous -3 range, SF mode and AP/Shock are still in, judging by Code One, and the discounts on SMG profiles are with us, too, so that problem would persist.
The ARM/crit changes may seem like a new stone-paper-scissor model - i.e., look to bring AP ammo in your list to deal with high ARM targets... but the SMG profiles usually being optimal ones and the dang Libertos being an autochoice even for single group vanilla lists already pre-solves that problem. You already have enough AP ammo to cut through all the TAGs that you may find! We'll see.

 

I am very in favor of this change, as a Shasvastii / Nomads player. I think it does a tonne of good and encourages players to play more elite units. However, I do see the plight of 1-2 Sectorials (USARF & CHA specifically) whose identity seems to revolve around low-tech troops competing with more advanced forced by bringing more bodies to the party.

What if there was a new leadership ability, "Coordinated Assault": If this model is in your force, you may increase your unit cap to 18. This should be given out to JUST those 2 Sectorials to avoid true abuse, and you are still not getting into true spam at 18 orders, but at least they can still outnumber their opponents, which seems core to their Sectorial identity?

 

Or....and stick with me on this one, as I know it's radical...maybe don't do that so we actually see wulvers, dog-warriors besides mcmurder, Van Zant, Airborne troops, blackjacks.....

And before I get hit with a "but you don't know what you're on about", I pretty much always whip out my ariadna when it's time to get serious and hit up a tourney.

 

Lol thanks man.

SMGs are a mixed bag for me. They seemed to be designed as a salvage option to make stuff cheaper the way Frenzy does. They were pretty rare when N3 came out, for the purpose of cheating the point formula where it couldn't cope they were workable. Until someone didn't get the memo and started slapping them on everything. I do like the synergy on the Ryuken to attempt another midfield troop without Marker state. Still was a mixed bag and having only one viable Profile is a bit of a missed chance.
Then we had an abundancy of Shock in the game and somehow "too many things" had Shock Immunity leading to the terrible Shock FAQ getting released.
Then the Shock FAQ went in the bin and 2W models went back to being Shock Immune.
Then CB doubled down on Shock not working against the things it appears to be designed for by introducing widespread NWI+Shock/Bioimmunity for the majority of new NWI Profiles.
And that's basically where we are now.

The SMG led to an avalanche of bad consequences and it would be better off losing both Shock and AP. Which would have opened up Shock, AP, Breaker or K1 SMGs for troops who really rely on it as main armament.
Unfortunatley it's in C1 with AP/Shock, which is a problem even if it was more expensive. Standalone NWI and Dogged can be basically worthless due to how much Shock there is in the game.
In N3 I still preferred having a LSG/BSG over a SMG. Not so much in N4 where +1B beyond DTW Range is way more important. Multi Rifles were e vastly overcosted compared to B4 guns and Viral Combis in N3.
Most of the Stuff Shock is useful against are Shock Immune (while Bioimmunity is rare enough to let Viral Rifles remain great). AP is better but still not all that great when you have to compensate for Burst, Range and Basedamage. On the plus side a MR used to be 9 points more expensive than the SMG, it's *only* 6 points difference on Crushers and 5 points cheaper than a FAT1 Red Fury deducting the Light Riotstopper.
Pointcosts have moved a bit (which is good), but the underlying problem remains - I wouldn't want to design a NWI or Dogged troop right now - unless the trooper is Shock/Bioimmune the whole Skill is worth 0.1 or 0.2 extra wounds given how often you run into the counter for it..
At least Combi+LSG is cheaper than before and pretty useful now. Multi HMGs finally appear to be a real menace worth bringing a heavy TAG for, stopping power could be the alternative way to make a gun viable outside of BS MODs.

Well, let's see how the big picture turns out.