Change Super-Jump to make it clear that it's impossible to jump up vertically and shoot, and being able to navigate the battlefield in 3D is already a huge advantage. This would also make it possible to give Super-Jump to more profiles, as it only gives them a movement advantage rather than also giving them a positional advantage. Super-Jump (Jet Propulsion) The name implies that it can only be technological. Change the name to Super-Jump (Hover). This change would make it more universal. Models can only do vertical Jump + BS Attack if they have Super-Jump (Hover). Super-Jump (Vector) would be the alternative to Super-Jump (Hover), and with Super-Jump (Vector), the model can get the benefit of Partial Cover while using Super-Jump. Having these three different categories would make it easier to categorise the role of models. I'm going to use CA as an example here since I know that faction the best. I'm sure that you can think of other faction examples. Super-Jump (Hover) would be for more tactical positioning use, in the CA, SJ (Hover) would be appropriate for Dropsuit Taryots, Fraacta Drop Units, CJ Ko Dali, and all Exrah. Thus would be a rule that also informed how they were supposed to be used and shows that their presence is more tactical for positioning and then attacking. Super-Jump (Vector) would be more for tactical aggression, in the CA, SJ (Vector) would be appropriate for Rasyat Diplomatic Corp and Rodoks. Both units are supposed to be used for tactical aggression, and this rule would represent that. Rodoks would have their SJ distance reduced to compensate. Applying this rule differentially on units would give the units a niche they could fit into. Right now, in CA, for example, Rodok and Exrah largely fill the same role, and it's only for specialised action that the two really have any difference. If the Exrah had (Hover) and the Rodoks (Vector), they would naturally have different roles. Exrah would be more of a wolf-pack style U-boat unit that attacks you from unexpected angles, while Rodoks would be raw aggression and in your face. The latter would also help with internal balance as they would have a clear niche when compared to Team Meatball, as their use would be completely different, yet they can keep up the same level of aggression while being a real alternative for most games.
Still nothing that prevents vertical Jump + BS Attack, also MOV 6-X units with Super-Jump are diabolically fast now.
Why troopers shouldn’t jump and shoot with super-jump skill? For the super jump(jet propulsion), many skills and weapons in Infinity are the names for the group of things do similar to each other. Like rifle vary through factions and races but they all do the similar thing so they are called rifle. Mimetism in PanO, Ariadna, and Shas can be all different things but they do the same so they are all “mimetism”. Super jump(jet propulsion) is just same.
I don't see your your problem with Jump and shoot? There are limitations firstly you are unable to claim cover that order, secondly you can actually only jump on the spot vertically only half of the total allowed jump distance because you have to account for the movement back to the ground.
You're thinking about Jump + BS Attack is a manner that's too limited. With the LoF that a model has, you can get out of the LoF of that model and still attack it from an unforeseen angle, you get a Normal Roll, and the penalties you mention have no effect, as the target is unable to shoot back. The common jump distance is also 6". That means 3" up + the Silhouette size, so the attack height is bigger than the obvious would imply. By making it impossible for standard Super-Jump, it makes it easier to justify models getting the Super-Jump rule, as the designers never have to contemplate if the model gets too dangerous. It also makes existing Super-Jump-only models cheaper.
If your getting shot in the back from outside 8” you done messed up. If they couldn’t jump shoot then they would be able to climb as a long skill and shoot anyway.
You do also have to watch that jumping straight up often will open you up to a lot of ARO lines that also would have been blocked before since you are getting above most of the LoF blocking elements that was shielding you. If you were able to find a position to attack in such a manour and not have to deal with any other AROs potentially then good on you as the pilot in that game. I don't see it as a particular issue and this has always been the case for SJ for pretty much as long as SJ existed. This isn't new and aside from the tiny blip when some people I know tried to argue playing with 12" SJ Rodoks and 14" SJ Seraphs, I've personally never seen this come up as a genuine issue so much as a learning moment on how to watch for angles. And usually to get a shot like you are describing requires you to get behind it still and if said model is in the deployment zone, you also need to be in the deployment zone. And at that point either the attacker earned their way to that spot or the defender likely needs to evaluate ways to prevent it. And not being able to benefit from cover during the jump is pretty huge still, and we all know how bad it can feel taking a hit while out of cover.
I like how you both assume that everything works for the person you play against and that the player doing it is a total idiot. Both of your posts assume that the opponent has 100% coverage all the time (which would mean that no models are lost), and that the player never checks LoS before they do something like this.
Been able to jump and shoot from unexpected angles is the entire point of the Super Jump skill since the first edition, mobility is something that is added as a functionality in this edition.
I would like to direct you to the final sentence of the main paragraph in my post: "And at that point either the attacker earned their way to that spot or the defender likely needs to evaluate ways to prevent it." I see at no point did I assume that anyone in this game scenario is an idiot and the fact we're even going there feels to me you are taking this very personally. In fact I am assuming that both players are playing well and if the scenario you are proposing happened then more then likely the attacker engineered it to happen. And at that point it's not SJ that is really at issue. It's the fact the attacker setup an opening for it to be useful. That is called playing the game as far as I am concerned.
Your argument assumes that they are as it can only be falsified by assuming everyone is playing perfectly. Things change as the game advances. Perhaps the Trooper covering the Trooper in question was taken out, and then the SJ model has free rein. Most factions can also get 2+ models with SJ, without the target model having 360 degree Visor it'll be unable to cover every field of attack, unless it's in a position where the fields of fire are limited, and then there are other ways that can be exploited. The issue with SJ base giving the vertical jump is, as I said, that it's unable to be given to models that could use mobility and would be too expensive if they had that ability. An example would be the Umbra Samaritans. They're already extremely expensive as they pay for their kit, and the price could be reduced by a point or two if they lost the ability to vertical jump + BS attack. By splitting the rule into Super-Jump Super-Jump (Hover) Super-Jump (Vector) it would create a clear purpose for a lot of models. Using the aforementioned Umbra Samaritan, if compared to the Exrah, the only difference in their jump ability is that the Exrah can cut corners and shoot and scoot on the same Jump Order if they give up Partial Cover.
If we are dealing with hypothetical scenarios then you go on the assumption that people are playing in such a manor that they aren't making major mistakes in positioning. But your comment about having killed the model covering said target is precisely what I mean by the attacker earned it. They didn't just get to attack you for free, they still had to set it up. So thank you for proving my point. Additionally if we're talking the game changing as it advances, then that also implies you had a turn to do something about it. If you think said SJ pieces are going to be a significant risk to your desired game state then perhaps it should be a higher priority when deciding on what threats need to be removed. You obviously can't deal with everything all in one go so this is why you have to prioritize on what is going to cause you the greatest issue. If the SJ wasn't your greatest issue and they manage to use said piece to good effect then that's still credit to your opponent and not a particular issue with the rule itself. I just can't shake the feeling that your suggestion has more to do with a game or series of games where things didn't go well rather then a failure of the game itself. But let's look at your suggestions from a design perspective. So ultimately you want to reduce the number of models that can SJ and attack ultimately. First of all, what is the intended goal of this change aside from that? The main benefit to Vector I can see is to make them harder to kill as they move up as they can dodge with the benefit of cover. But the thing is that active turn dodging in LoF or otherwise being unable to attack is a massive disadvantage. So at that point I'd only ever want to use the SJ while not visible and by that point what is the benefit to gaining cover? And if you only make Hover models able to attack while using SJ then it's a pretty fundamental change to a large number of profiles who not only had those capabilities across multiple editions but is also completely shatters internal balance for many of them. This is not as easy a change to make as you think it may be as you now need a very large balance sweep on top of it, which is something that typically would only happen with an edition change. And I then have to ask the question again, for what purpose? In many of said scenarios, for something like you described to even be possible the attacker typically needs to either setup a way for said model to even get a shot unopposed like that or the game has developed in such a way where you left their model alive. Sometimes that might be dice but if not then either you chose to let them live for one reason or another (focused on the mission perhaps which is typically what I do) or said opponent setup a defence of some kind to avoid losing them. Plus as the rounds develop you have fewer orders to afford to make plays that require excessive positioning and you typically have to take more risks to save on orders. If said SJ model was already in position to act on it then it's close enough that you would have had a chance to deal with it during your turn. So what part of that is playing perfectly or being an idiot? That is just how the game develops round to round assuming both players are making decisions that they feel are the best they can do in the moment. And as we are all human that's really all you can ask. After the game you can then see if you should look to making different decisions in the future as part of learning. And ultimately we never stop learning. Secondly, you note the Samaritan and Exarah as examples. And in the case of these 2 we are looking at the difference between Jet Propulsion and standard SJ. It may seem insignificant and for the purposes of just jumping straight up then yes, there is no value. But where they do see significant value comes from traversing the battlefield. As someone who really enjoys playing Hollowmen who are also a 6-2 SJ like the Samaritan, one very key difference you have to watch out for is that your jumps have to be in a completely straight line. In some cases that won't matter but I have run into more cases then I can count across the years where taking that jump in a straight line either loses me movement or puts me way out into the open and usually into sight of AROs I don't want. In previous editions I would just move instead as it was the same speed to SJ or Move but now with the extra movement you do have to make that decision when doing your move planning. Jet propulsion allows you to round corners when jumping and with that alone so long as you don't need cover during your movement you can basically treat the unit as having +2" all the time. Over the course of a few orders where I may have been forced to Move with my Hollowmen, the Exrah would have gotten a full order's worth of movement ahead of said Hollowmen (or in this case the Samaritan). That alone is good enough a separation between the two. And if you wanted a skill that is for repositioning and comes with a cost discount? Such a skill exists. It's called Climbing Plus. If you wanted to really give Vector some value then instead of making it a discount SJ then make it a SJ that can't make attacks but give it a larger movement bonus and only in straight lines. But there has already been plenty of discussion of SJ providing way too much value in your ability to simply get into your opponent's deployment zone so I don't even think that would be a great idea. So really this all boils down to what is your main criticism here? If you feel SJ is causing certain profiles to be overcoated, we can have a look to see if that it really the case. In the case of the Samaritan, I can assure you shaving a point or 2 won't suddenly solve it's problems. It's just too overloaded with skills, stats, and gear in general. And the Samaritan is not the only example of a model that is bloated. If you can make use of most of those skills, and you certainly can, then it would still be worth it. But if all you want is a fast moving piece to jump+shoot as you described then take the Exrah. Just don't get unlucky in ARO, which is a genuine downside. If I put in multiple orders to setup an attack, being able to weather a bad ARO which will happen from time to time can make or break a gameplan. If it's a criticism of SJ itself and it being too good then that is a separate discussion but atleast most of the discussion I've seen criticising SJ has to do with bonus movement and little to do with the ability to jump and shoot. So yea, at the end of the day I don't see the issue. We can agree to disagree about the particular issue at hand but can we atleast drop this pretense of assuming how skilled people are playing in these scenarios? If you want to deal in hypotheticals that's fine. If you also want to describe lived experiences that's fine too. And we can debate on how valid our points are about what decisions players can make on said scrnarios. But let's not make value judgements on people as players while we discuss this please.
