Discussion in 'ITS' started by Triumph, Sep 2, 2019.
While you're here, could I ask you to consider revising the O-12 Liaison to include Autotool troopers with Forward Observer, since they're intelligent robots?
of course. I will put on the table.
Well, it's roughly as mandatory as any other objective that gives you victory points. As in, not mandatory at all, but you'll just lose if you ignore or fail enough of them.
Just to be clear though, I'm not trying to say that adding a scoring objective to a set of competitive scenarios is somehow wrong, I'm just pointing out that it's still what it is.
I don't get it. So rules are supposedly playtested, points adjusted, then changed on a whim depending on who complains about them?
rules are playtested, points adjusted, and if change it, we tested again. If we dont hear the players to try to improve, whats is the purpose of this post, or even answer here?
I stand this perfectly, but not all factions has the same Irregular un-armed Warcor. Why don't add the Jourlnalist rule to another Regular profiles to each factions?
P.e. an Jourlnalist option to all factions support pack (one of them or each).
Is it a concern for single combat group lists?
All things considered, I am glad to hear this, even if I don't like the addition Liason Officer
I think so.
Yah that is pretty normal. It's also a disconnect that is supposed to get flagged by playtesters. There are seminars on this very topic you can find on youtube.
Still, much better to make sure all factions can score all points.... it would be pretty silly for example to have a mission that you need a tag to score on if all factions did not have a tag.
I see what you did there.
Directly comparing YJ to Pano is a sure fire way to have a bad time. News flash most sectorials have worse shooting and tags compared to Pano. A 10 model combat group that can generate 14+ orders is pretty strong. They have plenty of missions where they can absolutely shine. They also have missions that they struggle with. That's not bad game design to have inherent strengths and weaknesses.
Also why not be happy to have the options of playing dahshat and IA? I look at it as just another way to play IA. It's like ikari and QK are different ways of playing druze. Starco is another way of playing corregidor or vice versa.
It turns out IA wasn't able to live up to the mythical unicorn standard of players who are still salty and crying over the uprising. Crazy
No, it's just weak, specially if you compare it to the Sectoriala that came along at the same time
They could have given everyone in the faction TOcamo, and a 10 point cost reduction and you still would be complaining and calling it weak.
Now that's just ad hominems.
I don't see IA shining in competitive environment. I see it laughed off tables in my local meta. Maybe I just don't know where to look?
It's a fun an flavorful way of playing the game, but claims of their good competitiveness (which I infer from attacks on posters claiming they are weak) need some backing up.
I have had my ass thoroughly kicked by IA and they have taken several tourneys around here. They aren't bad by any stretch of the imagination. 14 order single group armies are scary as hell