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

Fireteam changes incoming

Discussion in 'Access Guide to the Human Sphere' started by Hachiman Taro, Aug 19, 2021.

  1. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    12,018
    Likes Received:
    15,302
    I don't think it's an ITS thing, it's more of a game balance thing where certain lists are so difficult to mitigate that most factions are forced to work around it. It's more about how much CB's cranked up the ability for aggression and how some factions get away with what is essentially non-interactive play. Note how "put the Thing in camo" is the solution to most of the problems that isn't about composing your list to complete the mission?
     
    Dragonstriker, Hecaton and wuji like this.
  2. wuji

    wuji Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2017
    Messages:
    1,327
    Likes Received:
    369
    Someone was suggesting allowing more than one chance to Discover against markers and honestly given how difficult it is to maneuver multiple units in position to Discover then the fact that it's easy to fail a single roll, well. If CB doesn't make it where you can roll to Discover multiple times then maybe increase the Burst of Discover to 2 or give more +3 mods out. Even then, I've witnessed just incredible bad luck for 4 models in a row, part of a fireteam each failing to discover on 13s.
     
    Abrilete likes this.
  3. Lawson

    Lawson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2020
    Messages:
    533
    Likes Received:
    837
    I'm always concerned that buffing skills to help deal with the worst offenders (e.g. improving Discover to help with high level Impersonators and such) will disproportionately nerf weaker camo units as well. I feel like I already have trouble keeping my average camo/mim units from getting spotted. So in general I'm more in favor of spot-nerfing the OP units specifically... BUT that said, I do feel like thematically Fireteams could be given a burst bonus to Discover or include a few more units with bonuses to discover as you suggest.
     
    Elric of Grans likes this.
  4. wuji

    wuji Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2017
    Messages:
    1,327
    Likes Received:
    369
    I'm up for whatever as long as we get results and they don't cause problems elsewhere in the game, like for cheaper camo units as you said. The marker state seems to be the strongest game factor as has been mentioned countless times, I like that CB started handing out Discover +3, it was such a unique expansion of the rules but it was just so minimally dispersed. Likewise with Sensor, but considering that templates are so commanding now, I feel like there are numerous factors that simply aren't "fair" and which ever faction has the most access to these factors are the factions/armies that will consistently make winning easier.
     
    Lawson likes this.
  5. SpectralOwl

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2018
    Messages:
    1,891
    Likes Received:
    3,130
    I'd definitely say ITS is a part of the problem- bringing "mission units" can eat up a lot of certain factions' points and Trooper capacity. Looting and Sabotaging is probably the worst offender, since a lot of Sectorials are heavily limited in their anti-materiel CC options, but others can be quite skewed as well (especially ones with lots of Classifieds- units like EVAders and the Unknown Ranger are a lot more effective than, for example, Acon's roster of Specialists).

    I've noticed the Camo problem. It really says something about the current game state that Uma Sorensen would likely become a staple unit in PanO if her Camo profile could be LT, just because it's so hard to keep a known LT alive these days and you can't really spare the Trooper slots on three blank Fusiliers any more.
     
  6. Triumph

    Triumph Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    5,715
    Likes Received:
    6,472
    The answer is literally increase the points value. Missions like Mindwipe are a pain in the ass to build for at 300 points to the point where we were debating changes to it when it first released. We revisited the mission at 400 and discovered it's actually fine if you just have a better spread in redundancy for mission oriented units.

    I know I sound like a broken record but the game functions so much better at 400 points.
     
    csjarrat, Mahtamori and Zewrath like this.
  7. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    12,018
    Likes Received:
    15,302
    I've got the complete opposite view, to be honest.
    Not... about how UKR seems to have accidentally gotten the hackable discount or how EVAders seem to have gotten it twice, but about the ITS impact on things.

    You've got three budgets to balance; points, SWC and slots. Since SWC puts a hard cap on the number of heavy weapons you can bring and is designed to run out typically before points and always before slots (unless you're playing like 600 point games), you shouldn't ever actually be constrained by ITS mission design due to SWC. What's left then is points and slots which interacts with each other quite a lot.
    From my point of view, other than specialist operatives, the specialist skills are all on their own worth taking now that paramedics are no longer Imperial Guard Commissars. As such, I don't think that the missions requiring you to have these units are in and of themselves constraining you other than motivating you to diversify your forces a bit.
    Naturally, factions are not evenly designed. The doctors or engineers that start in the DZ, without movement skills, with low WIP, unable to join fireteams, and even sometimes without even access to helperbots are just bad for missions but they can still provide some value to the list. This is, however, not an ITS issue. Nearly all ITS missions can be done by Forward Observers or Hackers and a bit of extra orders and those are plentiful among all armies skirmishers with only a few exceptions.
    Instead, in my opinion, ITS missions get in the way when the mission is to kill these units. Particularly when the mission itself doesn't reward you properly for bringing them.

    The other side of the coin is that ITS missions through (most of the time) requiring a bunch of specialists in places even encourages you to stop taking quite so many DTW wielding suicidal troops. I think this is good design.

    I'll go so far as to say that most ITS missions are actually helping the situation, but there's a bunch of missions that just aren't and the factions themselves do not enjoy an even distribution of opportunities here. Now, I don't consider this in itself to be an issue if there weren't a bunch of mechanics and factions designed (intentionally or accidentally) to exploit this.
    And those mechanics aren't fireteams and fireteams don't really do anything to counter them.
     
    #467 Mahtamori, Mar 4, 2022
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2022
  8. wuji

    wuji Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2017
    Messages:
    1,327
    Likes Received:
    369
    You think players should get as many objective points for bringing the right specialists as achieving objectives? Is this what I'm understanding. Intuitively I feel who ever wins the battle wins the field of objectives but this game never be balanced in that regard so I believe I could support this kind of abstract play. Then, at least, armies who were more focused on bringing the right specialists could have a fighting chance. This may however mitigate the necessity for CB to give armies access to more/new kit like you've mentioned before. Maybe a little both is the right way.
     
  9. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    12,018
    Likes Received:
    15,302
    I'm referring to Firefight (I think there's one or two more that work similarly) where you get objective points for killing specialists but nothing for bringing them. There's no objective buttons to push and all they do is add vulnerabilities. I don't think this is the correct type of skill set to punish players for bringing. I'd imagine having a Firefight that so massively buffs advance deployment skills target units with advance deployment skill would have a rather interesting dynamic.
    It's off topic, though, and mostly a commentary on how I feel ITS design doesn't negatively impact fireteams.
     
  10. tox

    tox SorriBarai
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2017
    Messages:
    3,560
    Likes Received:
    3,542
    Were the actual "Kill more Specialists" be changed into "Have more Specialist in a non Null state at the end of the game"? How do you see it?
     
    wuji likes this.
  11. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    12,018
    Likes Received:
    15,302
    It's for a different thread, it would be less bad but still not great in my opinion. Slap on the caveat "on the opponent's half of the table" so as to discourage FO spamming.

    In general, I'd be happier with missions that create interesting choices. Firefight already gives good bonuses to forward deploying troops so making them the target would be perfect illustration what I mean with give some take some. Specialist killing would be more appropriate for missions where button pushing with specialists is an objective, or if they allowed specialists to choose their panoply item.
     
  12. wuji

    wuji Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2017
    Messages:
    1,327
    Likes Received:
    369
    so far since N4 has dropped I've seen a few things that are pretty constant across the board of complaints. Pitchers (targeting GML), DTWs, Baiting, Fireteams, and Marker state. I'm sure there are a couple of others but naming them isn't really the point, it's that there is a combination of factors that maybe should all be addressed at once by CB. I think I would like to see people addressing the multiple compounding issues, this way nothing negatively influences any of the other factors. I guess maybe what I'm saying is a wholistic approach.
     
  13. Abrilete

    Abrilete Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    2,490
    Likes Received:
    3,387
    Preview video of the new Fireteam rules yet to be published... not sure what to think about it, seems that it'll be very complicated:
     
    DaRedOne and Brokenwolf like this.
  14. psychoticstorm

    psychoticstorm Aleph's rogue child
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2017
    Messages:
    5,884
    Likes Received:
    11,259
    I personally feel they are quite intuitive, but please wait for the official PDF release and army update for a better understanding of the information provided on the video.
     
  15. Knauf

    Knauf Transhumanist

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2018
    Messages:
    1,615
    Likes Received:
    2,290
    The general idea seems really interesting. Especially the factor that coherency is checked right before executing an order does open new strategies. Putting some SWC line troopers in a core with a strong ARO piece is suddenly more viable. When the non-coherent Tanko ML or Father Knight or whatever dies on ARO duty, the remaining team receives a buff to compensate for the loss. What was originally constructed as a defensive core can now better act aggressively with +1 BS and +3 to discover.

    The way the new bonuses are applied also means the more oppressive core fire teams will likely be nerfed by 2 BS, which is nice. (Hello, pitcher REMs).

    Special fireteams receiving fluffy bonuses is also great, but they should probably keep those fairly tame, as they did with the Tarlok Fireteam.
     
    #475 Knauf, Mar 23, 2022
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2022
    DaRedOne, Zsimbi and Brokenwolf like this.
  16. Alphz

    Alphz Kuang Shi Vet. Retired.

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2017
    Messages:
    1,457
    Likes Received:
    2,947
    Yeah will need to see the PDF and more importantly, the army update for how other sectorials are changed.

    I think a big part of it will be how many units get the 'cohesive' trait. If its 90-95% of the main profiles, kind of like shown for morats. I think its mostly a buff to fireteams who get more rules and more flexibility.
    But if its quite restrained, it can add a lot of flavour and be a wee nerf for some of the most popular ARO teams.

    I really like that you can have 2 haris and the discover bonus + burst bonus + potential special rule is a great space for sectorials to move towards.
     
    Abrilete and A Mão Esquerda like this.
  17. Triumph

    Triumph Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    5,715
    Likes Received:
    6,472
    2 Haris is Morat specific, it may not be a default.
     
  18. colbrook

    colbrook Grenade Delivery Specialist

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    9,294
    Likes Received:
    17,066
    I've a feeling (hope?) that Morats are more flexible than most Sectorials, to make up for their lack of marker states, HD+, hidden Deployment, etc.
     
  19. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    7,205
    Likes Received:
    6,535
    Nerfing fireteams without nerfing vanilla... kind of pointless.
     
    Lesh' likes this.
  20. Stiopa

    Stiopa Trust The Fuckhead

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2017
    Messages:
    4,237
    Likes Received:
    9,554
    I like the idea that they could use number of allowed fireteams of a given type to make different sectorials more or less flexible.
     
  • 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