Isnt it too much?

Interplanetario consistently uses different add on rules like Mercs that none of its satellites use.

 

I'm curious why not? As it stands, once you're targeted, there's pretty much no counter-play; all you can do is dodge at a -3, and hope you survive long enough they run out of orders or expend the 5 shots per active turn limit.

 

How so? What recommendations would you make, if any? Because I and also on the "GML attacks are uninteractive and a little broken" train, and I'd like to understand your thoughts on this.

 

Frankly I'm surprised that any playtesters thought it was a good idea for Spotlight to have a stacking reset penalty, and then have it persist through player turns. This is the same group that decided that Jammers should be mega-nerfed. Jammer was deemed unacceptable, but Targeted is fine...? At least Jammer wasn't a death sentence. Now, all it takes is a 17 point mini to turn Spotlight into a death sentence, unless you burn valuable orders Resetting through negative modifiers to clear it. It feels fundamentally worse than old Jammer did. Jammer models were easy to spot, and couldn't project themselves straight into an opponent's DZ with a single order, Top of turn 1...

 

Interesting summary about Corgis, quite informative. Appreciate it!

While keeping it stackable, but making it exclusive only to EVOs could be a reasonable adjustation I think. What is your idea?

I agree. Apart from whether it is the best way to fight or not, it is causing some unnecessarily negative experiences to certain opponents. It might be a part of CB's intention to go beyond the limitation of firepowers, but still it makes me think GML should've been buffed less than other methods, as I've mentioned in my previous thread(https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threads/after-a-few-games-with-bs-attack-guided.39616/).

 

The GML mechanic is one of the reason why I've stopped playing the game.

Another is the power creep. A third is the ease of alpha striking.

Granted, the fireteam rules seems a step in the right direction. I hope they'll fix their game eventually.

 

W

Hat was wrong with the old version of U-turn?

 

Re; "ITS or TTS play data", I don't think this is going to happen.

• Data regarding Gator or other changes would take time to materialize, which makes it irrelevant to that part of this conversation
  
  
• The granularity (? I'm unfamiliar with statistical terms) of ITS data is unknown. This data draws from good players and bad players, winners and losers, and different metas. It is unknown how this data is collected, tagged or sorted, and so it is uncertain as to whether anything useful can be identified from it.
  
  
• ITS data is not available, or not frequently available, to the public to the best of my knowledge
  
  
• regarding TTS data, when I asked Vaulsc about it I was told top players often "dont' play the faction they think is the most powerful". So looking at specific event winning lists will likely conceal both the prevalence in strength of GML and of other top picks.

"Alpha the alpha piece before it alphas you" is not a fantastic solution, when the game is supposed to be about active and reactive turn. There should be ways to reduce and mitigate the effect of any type of unit using your reactive pieces.

Also, I've found players are rather difficult to crack open with your typical jump trooper, particularly if the target is guarded within a link team. Its at the point that when I play seriously I don't take them and don't see them a ton, and they only work if the defending player makes a mistake.

Whats that meta? Was it snipers and Avatars or something? Trying to remember the last time I paid attention to IP - got put off of it by some weird rules and kind of forgot about it, but it would be an interesting datapoint

I started off listing armies that could do it, and got depressed and left it as Nomads. But we all know who the honorary nomads are.

Wondering what your take is on Heckler Fastpanda? I found mines specifically could thwart him, but could not name another meaningful counterpiece, and the extra 8" on the deprep meant that the only thing that would stop a nuke was my own incompetence. I'm not convinced any of the camo infiltrator repeaters are necessarily any better, but this one feels... a bit too much.

Nah bro, take your own GML, go first and nuke it before it nukes you. Thats the best way to get damage deep into their deployment zone after all. Once the meta finishes its inevitable transformation into GML perfection, start taking impersonators simply to place next to your own GML for protection.

Great post! But I'm not certain what you are saying here. Is your point that Bandits were more disruptive when they first arrived (which I would agree with), or that they "are" still the most disruptiveas you have said above, in the present tense. I can buy the former, but certainly cannot wrap my head around the latter.

He's always negative and a apocalyptic in his takes, but he's not always wrong.

 

Yes, I know you don't say that KHDs work on top hackers. I am saying the same thing. Yes, there is the possibility that someone who doesn't think Jazz is completely broken says the same things like you.

But while you keep saying that KHD "should" be able to kill top notch hackers, and keep implying I am claiming the opposite, I say nothing like this. I don't says KHDs should, I don't say they should not. I have not expressed an opinion about this.

I just keep repeating that KHD don't reliably kill top hackers (that's why it's not wise to hack a hacker) and you keep interpreting this as if I'd say KHDs shouldn't be able to.

But these are different statements: "KHDs don't work on top hackers" doesn't mean "KHD should realiably kill top notch hackers." and it doesn't mean "KHD should not reliably kill top notch hackers."

Read it again and I think you might understand. I think you are a native speaker, so I think you just plain refuse to understand.

 

Not to make an overly long post, but Guided Missiles aren't the problem in and of themselves. The problem is that two good systems - increasing hacking interaction with non-hackable targets and giving Forward Observers a lot more ooomph to their primary ability - interacts negatively with each other. It's not only that it is a strong tactic, it is also one of the absolutely least fun interactions the game has to offer.
I know I know, the latter is subjective, but I argue that most other strong tactics have a finality and a conclusion that can give you a dopamine rush when you finally seal the deal. With the heavy hacking and GML tactics, clearing the threat is tedious and extremely order intensive if it is even at all possible.

 

That's not true. I don't have a problem with siocast and I think the kickstarters were good ideas, for the most part. Just for examples. People focus on the negative things I say, but that's human nature for you.

 

I can actually agree with you there, but I think some of those more elite Hacker variants should make their way around the factions. Not to the level of Jazz, being among the game's best for the price of a Bolt, but providing access to a few Upgrades to more expensive Hackers designed for the role would be nice.

On the topic of Jazz and Morans, definitely an issue for me. I've spoken exhaustively on the topic, but my favoured faction, NCA, does not actually have a counter to Jazz at all; we have no Camo Infiltrators, no Impersonators and our single AVA of Air Deployment is the Hackable Garuda. Best options I've found, after way too much effort, are the Locust KHD (a unit in the running for flat-out worst Skirmisher in the game) because of its Cybermask and Infiltration providing a credible threat if you go first, and the Uma Sorensen released with the new Fireteams update, who still needs to cross half the table and will die thanks to her short range. This issue is further compounded by having very few non-Hackable Specialists within the faction, of which only new-Uma can start outside the DZ. If I'm playing against CJC or Vanilla Nomads, my entire game is absolutely contingent on removing Jazz or scoring objectives with Line Infantry. It's not much fun, and I haven't even run into GMLs yet thanks to playing in a relatively casual, new-player-friendly meta. Used them myself on TTS though, feedback from opponents wasn't good.

 

When you said that you shouldn't shoot TAGs, or hack hackers, that was a normative statement and ties into my point I'm making. Also, when you suggest using non-hacking tools to attack Nomad hackers but want shooting tools to be able to contest a linked Kamau it comes off as hypocritical.

 

Hacking interaction with non-hackable targets is ok, but the lack of ability to attack bts 6-9 hackers back through their repeater net is less interactive, not more. Defanging KHDs in N4 was CB doubling down on noninteractive play, not making things more interactive.

 

To be frank, I just simply don't agree. I'd rather they were incentivised to take risks than have them in a hole in the ground all game, but I don't think it's a huge deal either way. This is, I feel, besides the topic so let's try and not bring up every single grief we have about the game and paint it on Corregidor?

 

You're a funny guy. Yes I stand by my point that you don't hack hackers, don't shoot TAGs and don't fight CC specialists in CC.

If you, by luck, have in your faction one or two tools to shoot a TAG, like K1 or AP HMG, that's fine, but most don't have these tools.

And on being hypocritical .. I don't necessarily want to outshoot the Kamau (again something I haven't said, you just keep implying it), I for myself would be happy enough if ANYTHING would work against the Kamau. Like I already said, you can not hack it, you can not shoot it, you can not surprise it.

But you keep demanding ways to outhack Jazz. That's the same as asking for a way to outshoot the Kamau. And your only argument was Albedo. Do I have to repeat, how many units have it? It's like telling someone who is complaining about Loss of Lieutenant to use Mnemonica.

Hey, maybe that's the solution to your problem: GMLs are shooting your Lieutenant Turn 1 and you can not do anything about it? Just use Mnemonica! What, your Ariadna have no Mnemonica? Awww... bad luck. Then maybe you should play what your Avatar suggests.

(and before you start again, yes, you can spotlight everything, but that's not the same as shooting everything. If the Kamau shoots something, it's dead. If a hacker spotlights anything, it's spotlighted. Not dead, you don't loose the order, nothing. It's just ike gaining or loosing cover. Or mimetism. And although you claim every list includes a Missile Bot, that's not the case. So being spotlighted is not the end. Being shot unconscious mostly is.
If the Kamau would just spotlight everything, I would happily walk towards it, let him spotlight me as much as he wants to and then shoot him or put a template over him. But I can't walk towards the Kamau, cause ... he just shoots me.)

 

We Need something like U-turn but not U turn as it was. Even against GMLs that were starting crop up again in late N3 Uturn did less than nothing, it was a death sentence. All it did was force a -3 on the GML taking from a 18 to a 15 meanwhile the target is still more than likely dodging on around an 8. and if the target was the hacker doing uturn then they just died as it was an uncontested shot.

Uturn sucked as a countermeasure against an, at the time, niche strategy, and would be utterly useless against it now.

However if a program that not only forced a -3 but F2F'd the roll then it would actually have an impact against it.

Without guided being the way it is it would be. Helps swing not great engagements in your favour (especially if youre down to tertiary gun fighters), helps bulk up harder ARO's if something gets lit on the way through, Helps with discovering obnoxious pieces that have re camo'd.

Incredibly powerful, not only does he have the camo to get anywhere he likes should he encounter a mine or need to move past one he still projects a nonlinear hacking threat of around 20" (4" move, 8" panda run, 8" repeater bubble, and about 2" for their base sizes). there is not stopping them from getting that thing where ever they want it (same for Acon but the reg has a far longer range to run and no camo).

 

In fairness, we focus on what we see. If its 95% negative and then 5% positive concentrated in two places... thats what people are going to see.

I don't give a shit about siocast or kickstarters so haven't been in those places to see any other takes from you honestly.

 

I'm really interested in knowing why it wouldn't be a good solution. Even if a new U-Turn would not be cumulative it would give armies an option to defend against that tactic.

Just as a mind game: if this new hacking program would apply a ECM: Guided (-3) to the targeted trooper the resulting 75% chance to hit is still high enough. Furthermore TAGs (IMO the only proper targets for the guided Missiles) and all already equipped with ECM: Guided (-X) wouldn't benefit from the Hacking program since ECM effects don't seem to be cumulative - and if they are just slap Firewall's last paragraph on ECM, properly worded of course.

It was cumulative and basicall all hackers had it (hell that made even DHDs useful!). Thus a -6 was achievable (-12 only in really specialized lists) which made dodging for the GML's target way more favourable and feasable. Still true for the poor targeted hacker.