I mean you abandon whatever points and orders you spent on defensive measures, and instead pour them into a hardcore rambo unit with cheap orders behind it. Is that not clear? Seems the pretty likely and obvious choice for players who just want to wreck the other side and ignore objectives. People presented with the ability to compensate for the immediate risks of going first/second are usually going to focus on that, not mission. I actually really -hate- doing or defending against alpha striking. I prefer objective-based play, much like yourself it sounds like. Unfortunately, much as I love Infinity, it still has a structural problem favoring alpha striking that needs just a wee bit more tweaking the other direction. Sadly I really think choosing lists after you know whether you are going first/second is just going to make alpha striking even worse, because the alpha striker can focus all points, orders, and effort on killing stuff hard instead of setting up for defense. Perhaps you should test your suggested modification out for a few games and let us know how it goes? Would be interested to hear how it plays after 5-6 games. I'm guessing most players going second would gladly sacrifice a second command token to get out an additional koala, or a midfield repeater, or drop an Obvious Lt. into Impersonation. More importantly it wouldn't be the only solution, just one more tool: definitely not compulsory for anyone, so not sure why you brought that objection? That's funny, I -have- played an N3 game at Interplanetario where someone used a Command Token to run a Supportware program (the one that gave remotes with repeaters B2). It was quite helpful, I lost that game and the B2 AROs definitely helped Supp Fire on a key unit is even more helpful than that, IMO. But again, personal opinion only there. As for Cybermasking Lt being "even more limited", tell that to Tunguska, Bakunin, Aleph, OSS, Onyx, or CA players. (Also, it wouldn't have to be the Lt. You could do it with a midfield KHD, making it a more serious threat that would need to be dug out, before the opponent dedicates their orders to just alpha-ing.)
I don't think we should push the game more into making alpha striking the predominant strategy - especially the kind of all or nothing alpha strike setups I think this would encourage. I also think this wouldn't meaningfully make alpha strikes less powerful. You'd end up with absurdly greedy and optimized alpha strike lists rolling over the player going second, with either more diverse attackers, or more support for their existing attackers. I also don't think limited AVA would help all that much. Kosmo wouldn't be limited by the AVA of their bears, they'd take their bears and cut the Volk-Rokot pure core for EM-5. I don't think Kosmo would take a third bear even if they could. Bakunin has AVA 3 UFKs, and you don't see a lot of lists that run even 2 UFKs. If you wanna make alpha strikes less predominant and harder to pull off, imho the best way to do so is to hit the order pool, or give more access to quality AROs that can eat more orders, like tr/neuro snipers and/or camo HRLs/MLs. Reinforcements, for the issues it has, pretty successfully tones down alpha strikes by limiting the order pool you have available on turn 1 and limiting the SWC you have to invest into big offensive pieces. I also think it's in part a mission design problem. In missions like acquisition and frontline, you kinda have no option but to alpha strike your opponent - you can't win by playing the mission.
You can still do this today, but there is a limit on orders in this game. Alpha strikes are already at 100%, you cannot make them 110% because of reasons I mentioned in my last post. This change I suggested would be so minor in grand scheme of things, but it would be a change in the right direction IMO. On what experience you base this on ? From which game ? You already can compensate the risks, when you decide who deploys first. This would be tiny bit extra on top of that. We agree on this 100%. That is the plan, but I also have to make some other people from the community test this among themselves because I might be biased. I am running league later this month, will probably include one custom mission with this type of deployment. Because it wouldn't be effective and knowing CB, if they implemented this as anti Alpha strike measure it would take them 5 years to see if further tuning was needed. You proved my point, it is 6 out of how many sectorials ( plus Bakunin is 95% Moderator LT so I am not sure why is on the list, honestly from this list IMO only Tunguska would really love this ). EDIT: @tacos and you all still forget there are missions to be played and in tournaments there are multiple missions so you simply cannot do good in tournaments by making one exclusively killing alpha strike list. All this talk about super optimised alpha strike lists is crazy. Like I said, IMO this change would be minor but a step in a right direction. AVA can be adjusted to nerf alpha strike capabilities in general, but I don't think CB has the resources to bother with that.
Alpha striking is a pretty universal strategy as it stands right now, regardless of mission. There are missions where it's necessary to do if you are going first, and missions where it's simply really really good. I really can't think of a single mission where going hard and alpha'ing someone to either cut down their order pool or remove their key pieces isn't a good idea. I suppose it might not be great if you accidentally put people in retreat but it's not especially hard to practically table someone without putting them into retreat (e.g., killing their active turn pieces and leaving them with just cheerleaders).
In support of SpectralOwl's grenade launcher suggestion, @Savnock and @xagroth you need to remember that the old grenade launcher rangeband that the Light Grenade Launchers also had a fairly extensive -3 rangeband that started from 16". The un-interactive Emily bombardment strat is still very much alive and kicking, and as frustrating as ever, if not order efficient compared to Guided. Since the problem with Emily/Druze was very much in X-Visor making longer range bombardment somewhat order efficient, it's secretly worse than it once was in N4. Worse as a grief strat, that is, as a tactical tool for taking out high-mimetism targets or repeaters at medium range it is just bad and order inefficient.
@Mahtamori thanks for the perspective. The only times I've used it in N4 have been when I am thoroughly screwed and trying something desperate. It's definitely still okay for picking off an Obvious Lt. in 3-4 orders though. This is the consensus among players here in the Pacific Northwestern US. I'm not sure exactly why but @LaughinGod just want to insist otherwise. Sadly wishful thinking does not patch problems with the game. Being -nice- to each other definitely does though, so most friendly games around here tend to avoid going for alphas really hard. But in an ITS setting, it's happening in about half the games being played at any given time, from those I have played at or TOed.
Let's say that you normally spend say 20% of your list on dedicated defense troops. For example a Sin-Eater Marksmanship Sniper, or a TR bot plus a Minelayer. The other 80% of your list is either dual-purpose or offense-oriented. If you get to tune a list specifically for going first, you would not invest that 40-60 points into defense, but into offense. You might buy an even bigger or nastier TAG, or put an extra HI in your Pain Train linkteam. In other words, you have invested 1.2x as much into offense as you normally would have, at the expense of defense. This exacerbates the power of alpha striking. Does that make what I'm saying a bit clearer? It's actually related to a pretty well-known issue with list choice, a form of "soft cheating" that I've encountered with other palyers a few times, both in Spain and the US. People will tune their 2 ITS lists to include one that is really well-positioned for alpha striking in kill scenarios (Annihilation, Firefight) and another that's got good defense. They don't show which list they are taking (ie don't physically present one of the pieces of paper). Only after initiative is rolled do they then choose which list they are deploying. I noted this when playing at a tournament in Spain. Looking at one of my opponent's other lists later (or rather their forces on a table), I noted a -very- offensive build with little defense, when the one I had faced had been a super nasty defensive build (multiple dug-in MSV snipers, pretty conservative offense).I realized that he picked his list -after- we played, and it screwed me pretty hard. [This player was also not charitable with rules, gaming various rules pretty hard himself while refusing to let me slide on things I'd clearly forgotten about. He was one of maybe three really annoying players I've ever faced in a tournament outside the US.] Great, let us know how it goes. if the custom mission is received well, maybe try it with normal missions. That's known as a "sour grapes" argument. There's no reason not to try multiple measures to deal with the game's major weak point. Test them all, single measure at a time, at least 4-5 separate games per measure. Uh, no, you have it backwards again. The -reason- that HD+ Lts aren't taken as much is their obviousness and their vulnerability to hacking attacks. If that vulnerability were less of a problem, people would likely take them more. I play Bakunin a lot, the main thing that keeps me from running Custodier Lts is that they would be vulnerable to a KHD attack via pitcher from pretty much anywhere on the board as an alpha. Impersonation would make that not an issue. We don't actually -want- to play Moderators x2 in every game. Most people would love to play something else, like a Custodier, if it because practical. Uh, no, you must have somehow missed the last 2 editions of discussion here on the forums. Alpha strike is the major problem with the game, widely agreed, for years.
Yeah. What I missed in my post up there was that right now there are more factions that can do that than just Druze and Starco. Any faction with access to a high BS light grenade launcher that can coherently core link can medium-long range grief an opponent's high value pieces - but they can't efficiently use it to make tactical strikes on problem targets (one example among many: eclipsed Myrmidons). I'm not sure how large this list is, but I do see a bit of that depressing overlap where these frustrating non-interactive tactics that gets complained about seem to gravitate to a few "problem" factions.
IMO it's not -that- non-interactive. The odds of a kill are low enough that I actually receive Spec Fire with an attitude of "okay now I soak this guy's orders up". With something with PH like a Myrmidon, or a normal trooper in a 4+ Core link, you're dodging on 10s or even 11s vs 11s to hit a lot of the time. Rolling those dodges carries some fun suspense for the reactive player, and I like the feeling that it's a bit of an order sink. That balances out the frustration of being unable to evade being targeted, at least for me. To me as the reactive player, that's an okay trade, even if it means Jazz (typical target) or someone like that ends up dying after soaking 2-3 opposing orders, plus the order they spent positioning (unless they have x-visor, as you mentioned). If the opponent had just spent 3-4 order positioning a camo infiltrator to get that shot on Jazz, they would be in a position for more nasty attacks immediately. I'd much rather see them then have to think "okay, now what?" after Jazz is dead, than just follow through with further kills from their Ninja or whatever. I'd love to see GML be in about the same position, unless the opponent invested more orders to make it work.
Remember EM grenades are 2 BTS/2 rolls if they impact. And while a Core of 4+ dodge at their PH, those without Sixth Sense suffer a -3 because template weapon outside LoS... Specifically, O12's great weakness is this, since so many troops are WP13 and vulnerable to EM (raptor, gamma, etc...), or even WP12 (roadbots)... this has forced me to gravitate to Bronzes all the time, since unless they are hacked I won't see them out of comission with a single lucky EM grenade...
Oh I fully disagree. There's no fun and no suspense involved. This type of interaction is, aside from previous editions' gotchas the most non-interactive you can get in Infinity, because there's typically very few ways of improving position using the dodging, there's typically no way to get out of range with a dodge movement, and there's only the order pool as the upper limit. Note that "non-interactive" doesn't really mean "good". This is typically very order inefficient, so you don't see it very often, thankfully, but in terms of "a fun time of playing games" this is probably the least fun you can have when playing Infinity. Mass spammed repeaters and guided is currently worse because you get to face it on a very regular basis, but the core "bones" of GML tactic is a lot better if CB took the edge off it.
My very early N4 reaction was that GML finally gave hacking lists a way to achieve payoff if the opponent did not opt to bring hackable troops. However, it’s clear they overshot the mark slightly. If GML is going to be in the game, it needs to be both viable and fun, but it’s on the list with alpha striking / rambo tactics as things that have been problematic with the core design since day 1.
I think you're right that the mark was only slightly overshot though. Some small corrections could bring it back in range. In fact, any one of the following measures could fix it: - Targeted state cleared by a successful Dodge. [Feels more interactive, prevents ruthless unstoppable missile strikes, but also allows missile player to repeat-strike if opponent is unlucky.] < BEST FIX IMO. - Successful Guided attack clears Targeted state. [A slightly harder nerf to Guided, simpler though and does not compound bad luck of the reactive player, so might -feel- better to players who are facing Guided attacks.] - Blackout program is added back in, and allowed to target repeaters used in hacking attack with ARO, instead of active hacker. [Indirect solution, has a lot of knock-on effects so might affect faction balance negatively: but could also address overpowered forward repeater builds that don't just use Guided to oppress. Also might help factions with less-powerful hacking have fairer odds against Anathematic/Jazz/etc/.]
I feel like it would be better to make guided more interesting by giving it some interesting counterplay that involve more interesting choices to the defender. Like if KHDs had a an ARO program (maybe causing isolation) that was specifically strong against normal hacking devices / non lethal hacks. That way with a little list building / deployment skill you could place your KHDs better to defend spotlight hacks, such that your opponent would need to take your khd out another way before launching guided attacks. This could at least add an extra step to guided alpha strikes with counter play which is probably enough- while retaining the useful design wise part (eg dealing with hide prone on roof tactics etc).
I like the humble EVO-bot, and always think of things it could help with. How about a Jammer program that imposed a -6 MOD to all Guided attacks, and could be activated in ARO (like Controlled Jump)?
Yes, not a bad idea. it would make the EVO bot more useful and a serious support option when list building. It ties in with the design aspect of being a total support remote. Even having the option similar to Fairy Dust, for example; counter-guided (Guided -6) software can only be applied to one troop type at a time i.e., HI, TAG, REM. It would make tactical decisions more interesting as the controlling player would have to consider what their opponent is targeting, and make the correct selection.
A simpler potential house rule than bringing Blackout back is to allow Oblivion to target Deployable Equipment including repeaters, but in ARO the declaration becomes an Idle if the targeted repeater isn’t used in the Order that generated the ARO. You’re trading a high likelihood of shutting the repeater down for the risk of being targeted by a hacker who gets a Normal roll on you. I would also consider allowing a trooper targeted by a hacker via a repeater they can see to ARO with BS Attack and make it a face to face roll to see if you can blast the repeater before the hacker affects you. Rather than the repeater proc’ing AROs from everybody who can see it or hack it, only the targeted trooper may do so. (Anyone can declare but if they aren’t targeted it becomes an idle.) I’d be curious to see if either of those tweaks is viable in practice, without causing an unbalancing set of knock-on effects.
not by "a" hacker, but by all enemy hackers, that is the biggest problem regarding using hackers to take repeaters. As it is now, only allowing Jammers to target repeaters would make some sense (since the worst most jammer troops can suffer is a Spotlight), but I think the most "elegant" solution to allow Blackout from hackers to work against Repeaters would be to nerf Repeaters' range by at least 25% (2 inches/5cm) so you can safely use a hacker or a grenade in speculative fire at good ranges. That, however, is a change I'm not that confortable with, since nerfing repeaters to make nomads' repeater networks tactic less effective is also nerfing all the other faction's repeaters, and most have only 2-3 pitchers and one or two extra platforms with the repeater or deployable repeater, while on the other hand having a few good hackers would (comparatively) get better than having several mid-good specialized hackers (thus, buffing CA and Aleph). The biggest issues with the repeater problem are mostly three. First, all hackers lost their basic "damage hacker" program (so usually the only risk for an enemy hacker trying to fry a non-KHD is to get ISO or IMM); second, while all factions have some means of having a repeater on the table besides the common remotes (tachimotos, flash pulse, baggage...), Nomads got much more repeater options (some of them incredibly unstoppable, like the Hecklers), with more hackers that also carry those pitchers, can link in Fireteams, and are very good (if specialized) hackers that also are very cheap; and third, being able to use Spotlight as an ARO too, which makes the Guided ML very viable for lists that will have hacking capabilities. All in all, I think the simplest way to put all this is to say that Corvus has been increasing the non-interactivity between players here... This is a counter to basic repeater strategies, I'm afraid, and won't address the real problem. More often than not, a Repeater of any kind is placed in a position that forces the other player to suicide one of their troops to shoot at it, or waste orders maneuvering or speculating with grenades. This is the issue most people don't really notice, a robust repeater network backed by several hackers is not only a threat to enemy troops, but also to he opponent's order economy, by forcing them to move around the Hacking Area, or blow up the repeaters, or face so many hacking AROs, that also becomes even more punishing if the list has a GML (on the table or, unvelievably enough, as a reinforcement. Aleph at least has a profile for that...). Call me crazy, but it looks to me as if CB wants to force us to GML each other as much as possible, which I read as a rebuke to the most defining characteristic of their own game, and makes me wonder about ARO presence in Warcrow.
I already suggested two changes like these: 1) used repeater are counted as Active model (so you can declare ARO against them) 2) get a new way to disable Repeaters and other deployables via Hacking / skill / equipments that can be used without LoF. One of the most infamous way to abuse of the actual rules is this: Bring a model with Fast Panda near midfield. Declare Place Deployable - Fast Panda Place the Fast Panda within ZoC - i.e. on the top of a building (less than S+8") - unreachable without C+/SJ or a lot of orders. Enjoy your little area of hacking hell.
Sadly not as useful as it should, because if you attack the repeater the hacker attacks you unoposed, and making it so if you counter succesfully the effects apply to both the repeater and the enemy hacker seems a big core change to me. Capping repeaters to a single use per player turn (so 3 hacks and 3 ARO tops on a game) seems more interesting, but it gives other problems (more clutter on the table, and still those with better repater networks suffer much less). I think it was mentioned before the idea of being able to use the Deactivator to disable a repeater without LoF... I'm the most comfortable with this, aside from painting an even bigger bullseye on engineers (but it would open the door to give the deatctivators to more troops than just engineers).
