So the new mimetism for all Bikes is interesting and its reasoning is supposed to the bikes kick up debris but has anyone ever thought, maybe it should be harder to shoot bikes if they are in the active turn to represent that they are actually fast which would contribute to them being harder to hit, not that MSV would solve the problem of hitting a bike? Then we can assume the reason why the bikes dont take a penalty is either they have specialized gear for firing from a bike theyve just developed the skill to do so... Given the current confines of the rules, I believe the cleanest way to execute this would be simply to put (BS -3) next to the first MOV value on the Bike profile. It would look like one of the images attached, but obviously cleaner with the right font, spacing and etc etc instead a phone editor but the idea is obvious. Honestly, I think I just gave CB the idea of how to perfectly implement fast troops in Infinity so we can reduce the over reliance on mimetism and the over effecti e ess of MSV against armies that rely heavily on mimetism.
While it's potentially quite anime to have bikes hard to hit, It seems like additional complexity for not much gain. Like do you think bikes need the buff or would it just be cool? And if the latter why not just house rule it with friends and see how it goes?
You know there's over reliance on CB using mimetism to buff units which means the game gets one dimensional and too many units of a force can become countered by a single OP MSV unit not regularly available to every army.
Other ways CB could be using their new system. This method can also be used to give further character to units while at the same time either shaving off points by limiting something they already have or adding minimal points by giving them something in a limited way. These are just examples: I dont believe Achilles should be man handled by anything with NBW, sure they should beat him, but they should have to work for it. The new merc unit could have a limited CCW with evwrything added onto it like NBW so that after 3 orders of being a boss in CC, he would be spent. This is how CB can add more character to the game and not have to make more rules. Just specified profiles. Wild Bill could really be a master gunslinger, the fastest gun in the sphere with only his pistols. He might not even need the rifle anymore. Musashi could finally show off how he is a master of the of the mind by imposing a negative mod on people with the stare down and flash pulse. I would almost argue to just have this apply to him in general, even on top of his MA and then he doesnt ha e to be given NBW as he isnt an animal and I believe NBW should be reserved for animals, weird aliens and perhaps CC oriented AI robots. It would only apply in his active turn but it would show how imposing he is mentally. The sky's the limit and we dont even have to make anymore rules.
While I do agree that the current rules provide the grounds for rules modifications like the ones you suggest, the bikers in this game are meant to be fragile and relatively easy to hit; you need to learn to hide them if you don't want them to be shot, and work hard to use their strenghts. I like it that way, and I don't think they need an aditional advantage in Active Turn. Anyway, the current ITS rules might be a test because they've realized the bikes are more vulnerable than intended in N4, and N4 seems to have given more power to the Active Player compared to N3.
Well that's the thing right, we cant actually say for sure what CBs intention is for them. We as non CB staff aren't privy to that information. That being said their are several bikers in this game that are durable/hard to hit. If you mean why they cant take cover, well, that could very well be just because bikes were impetuous before as the first bikes were a warband and for quite a while but bikers want to feel impetuous the idea of being impetuous feels initially like a biker thing for sure. The realization that not going prone, not having smoke or not being cheap enough to promote fielding them if they arent going to be protected by partial cover is something needed addressing, especially for those more expensive bikes. Perhaps there is an argument for bikes that are not war bands to be allowed to take cover and still be impetuous since they still cant prone (just thoughts out loud). I believe allowing the player to choose whether the biker is impetuous or can take cover is one of the best things CB could have done for bikers. But then we have the scare issue of the 9pt Desperado, I do agree that is likely too good to the point of auto include. Luckily any model in cover gains survivability which is boosted further by Supressiom fire. I'm all for some of the bikes to keep their mimetism but Kum and Desperados, definitely dont need it when they are cheap and have smoke. The other thing we have to think about is that if bikes use mimetism, then you're almost demanding every player bring MSV and I dont like the not being able to choose if I just want soft counter. In the case of Desperados, they are cheap enough and plentiful enough in USARF that you would have to bring MSV for both list just for them alone cause you wont know what mission youd play them in. I initially liked this boost for USARF but someone pointed out to me that it pigeonholed USARF to rely on them too much. I think CB can use the method I've described to do more for USARF and not turn the Desperados into a crutch. Also, maybe I'm wrong when I say this, I hope I am, and I'm only asking because I dont see your argument as to why making Bikes hard to shoot in this manner would be bad and a persons feelings are definitely allowed to have their own preference but I'd like to know what's the reasoning behind it. I do recall seeing which posts you've been liking recently and so I have to ask, and really you dont have to tell me, you're more than welcome to lie to my face even if you wanted, but the asking of this question might illuminate things for both of us. Are you at all not inclined to like this idea for bikes because I'm the one who said it? Again, you dont have to answer, and honestly, the odds of you saying your not is higher than you saying you are for good and poor reasons. But I want this forum to go in a new direction, and that means taking the first steps.
Another easy addition is just slapping things like "3 Uses" next to any skill so we can reduce its cost.
The way I see it, adding more rules into the pile will overcomplicate the system so all you need to do is use what you already have. N4 was all about streamlining and making stuff easier to understand, and streamlining means fewer rules and easier-to-understand gameplay. In my opinion, I'd grant bikes Dodge (+3) instead of lowering the opponent's BS while moving. Maybe some of the more skilled bikers could pick Dodge (+6). It still conveys the same idea of bikes being super-fast and agile. Quite a turnaround after N3.
It's a BS attack rule that is only active when a unit is moving. There haven't been any skills tied to the moments when a unit is declaring a Move. Chances are it will take up more headspace in a player's head that could be used to focus on the game at hand, simply because that rule is one of a kind and is specific only to bikes, and applying only when they declare their first move short skill. That's a lot of specific details that require this skill to activate. People might forget about it or they might remember it and make additional calculations on whether or not that -3 stacks with their Mimetism or Cover based on the presence of MSV. Stuff like that usually extends the playtime and people usually try to avoid that. Meanwhile, people are already used to the Dodge (+3/+6) skill since many units have it and it would be easier to keep in mind a skill you're familiar with.
There's nothing to remember, it'll say it right there in the profile just like all the other little modifications CB has already done like +1B, limited use, FTO, +3 to what ever, etc etc etc. Do you see that your argument doesnt apply? it's not a new method, nor is it extra head storage.
This bike thread is interesting. I don't know if making the bikes harder to hit would be negative or not in practice. Guess it would need some games to test out the idea and see if it is "op" or not.
I think you are getting hung up on the technicality Wuji. "New Rule" doesn't have to strictly mean an actual new rule with new wording. If you take an old rule and distort it a whole bunch so it works differently than in any other situation thats much of a similar effect. I don't need to remember some new rule called "Hard to Hit -3" but I do need to remember that bikes get special mimetism that MSV doesn't work on only on their active turn if they move. If anything thats worse. I like the idea of Wild Bill getting TR and losing his rifle, but the rest seems kind of low impact for the memory use.
Wut da fuq? I was reading the first part of your post and intended to answer. Then I read this paragraph... you've left me speechless.
You can react that way if you want, but I was absolutely as polite as could possibly and if you're unaware of the posts you were liking that were directed at me or you are unaware of how I could possibly concerned about the validity of anyone's objections to to something I suggested right after they were liking multiple post from people who were talking down to me, then that's precisely one of the problems that we see in these forums. Simply that the majority of the users here arent aware of themselves to the point that they are egregiously insulting. And here is the thing, if you really are surprised by what I'm saying, then youre proving my previous statement, the alternative ofcourse is that you're feigning that youre wounded that someone could be skeptical of your sincerity. But like I said, I was 100% respectful in describing why I'd be skeptical. Admitting skepticism the way I did isnt insulting at all. But your reaction, is not warranted if you were truly reading everything and taking into consideration all that I said. This is pretty much the standard problem in these forums. I wish I could say I'm genuinely sorry but as I've described, there's no possibility of you either not being aware of what you were doing and why I might be skeptical OR you werent being genuine. Neither of those two things could possibly be my fault.
Alright, please dont imply I'm doing something wrong by trying to use specific words or meanings, people have accused me of moving goal posts and yet if you're gonna tell me not use the definition of a word then that's moving goal posts. But you also said I'm trying to take old rules and distort them a bunch. How? How am I trying to distort an old rule when N4 is the first time CB started slapping labels and modifiers elsewhere in profiles. The only thing I'm suggesting is a more liberal use of a new rule that we just got in N4.