1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

External army balance issues in N4

Discussion in 'Access Guide to the Human Sphere' started by Zewrath, Jun 2, 2021.

  1. Teslarod

    Teslarod when in doubt, Yeet

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    2,407
    Likes Received:
    4,864
     
  2. Mob of Blondes

    Mob of Blondes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    1,234
    Likes Received:
    1,335
    You lost me there... crits give you 5% on a single die (ignoring the below 1 and above 20, for simplicity), and they win against any other value, or cancel if both players get critical. So exact face in a given die does not matter, what is more, it improves the fairness with real dice, that is, non perfect manufactured ones, as it spreads over the defects (and the "roll highest in changing range" base even more so against loaded dice). If multiple dice, the maths are still based on 5% (or the other part, 95%), still not caring about it has to be 1 or X, it's always one face in twenty. Please clarify, because I don't see the math problem in "two requirements".
     
    DukeofEarl and Teslarod like this.
  3. Tristan228

    Tristan228 Bakunin's best Morlock trainer
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    1,168
    Likes Received:
    2,217
    As an (former) avid Bakunin and StarCo player I woud've loved to call you out for talking bullshit. But considering my recent first hand experience you're damn right about both armies.
     
    Zewrath likes this.
  4. xagroth

    xagroth Mournful Echo

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    6,420
    Likes Received:
    5,380
    Yes and no. While the change to crit mechanics made ARM a valuable stat again, you went from losing 0-1 wound per failed F2F roll, to 0-2. This means units that before where 100% safe from instant death from a B1 ARO, regardless of dice, are now at the same risk as any other troop with the same amount of wounds. For example, Rahma's Namurr is a 36/43 pts troop with 1 wound, NWI, bioinmunity and Total Inmunnity with ARM 2, BTS 3 (which is kind of an overly complicated array... remove Bioinmunity and make it ARM 3 BTS 3, since the AP ammo is ignored already by Total Inmunity). This troop suffers a B1 crit, and fails both ARM rolls... just like, for example, a 24pts Sekban, or a 10pts USARF Grunt...

    So if a dude with a "basic" shock sniper rifle, unlinked, has an ARO and crits your troop, the only ones guaranteed to avoid Death are 2w+ troops, and of those, only TAGs, Achilles, and NWI troops could remain operative.

    The fact that about 70% of what makes the lists tends to be 1 failed ARM roll away from Unconsciousness is an apart (and frankly, people suggested that a critical hit should be an ARM/BTS roll at value 0).

    The problem with Infinity, ALL data is considered anecdotal...

    To be fair, people complains about USARF being shafted by the 15 troops limit, not Ariadna. In fact... I think TAK is considered best option for fireteam compositions, and Vanilla for everything else atm...

    You know the difference between N4 Rasyat and N3 Rasyat when it comes to walk their enemy's Deployment Zone? In N3 he was forced to roll PH at 16 (because the player would have either an EVO, or a Hacker to activate the Controlled Jump). In N4, it's no roll.

    And ANY AD trooper was able to do that. Like Diomedes for example, or the 20pts chain rifle with CC DA sword that was a basic Ekdromos.

    Sincerely, what you have expressed says more that those opponents were not very experienced, more than "now it's better".

    This goes back to my position of "you can't have the tools to counter all the potential hurdles that assume you have such tools, and at the same time score the points to win the mission".
    As for Military Orders, you just were buffed with new troops and profiles in February... the only minus of the transaction is that the mandatory Teutons box is 50€, and that you have to choose between a single trinitarian specialist to have hidden until the last turn, or more expensive ones to support Mendoza's inferno.

    You seem to have never ever encountered a troop that made a combat jump on your DZ... And that somehow, for some reason, you had the manpower on the table to magically cover all four sides effectively.
    As the other options... Flashnews, Teslarod: not all factions have disposable fish people insultingly cheap that act as a 1 use 360º deterrent. Another flasnews: Puppets are no longer in a "free haris", they are just synchronized between themselves (I'd say they work like an Antipodes pack, but I fear you may have never even seen one on the table), so they no longer have +1B in ARO. And the third nail in this little outdated conversation: Technical weapons, like Flash Pulses, get little to no benefit from being inside a Fireteam.
    Besides, they changed Total Inmunity sometime before N4, so you could no longer use flash pulse to neuter enemy Total Inmunity berserkers...


    On 1 dice rolls, the chances to roll the precise number you need are always 5% for a single roll.

    Now, lets imagine you make 20 rolls with perfect spread (for simplicity's sake): the first roll is a 1, the second a 2, and so on.
    So the first five rolls are made with a BS 12 troop at range +3 against a troop in cover, nothing more. That means you need a 10 for crit, but roll 1 to 5. No crit.
    The second three rolls are desperate AROs in bad situations... like dodges against first, a Surprise Attack, and then normal attacks by an enemy sniper, by your Total Reaction bot... first dodge needs a 7 or less, the rest a 10 or less: none are crits.
    Etc etc. In essence, you need the dice to roll that crit, which keeps changing, with a pool of options that never shrinks, because while statistically a perfectly balanced (mmm yorkshire tea...) dice has a 5% of showing each number, it is also totally random, and will only reach that perfect distribution with an infinite number of rolls (because a perfectly valid, if unlikely, distribution of rolls could be showing twenty times 20, then twenty times 5, then twenty times... etc).
     
    #84 xagroth, Jun 5, 2021
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 8, 2021
  5. Teslarod

    Teslarod when in doubt, Yeet

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    2,407
    Likes Received:
    4,864
    And ofc the N3 Rasyat being not as deadly in a Meta filled with 5 point Chain Rifles to make his life hard.
    Again, you didn't have to deploy dedicated AROs to secure your DZ, your cheap expendable troop screen did that just fine for you.

    Flash News not sure how you managed to miss that but I'm quite obviously talking about N3 here, when all that stuff was there. All playable Factions in N3 had access to Warcors, Techbees, Daylami, Libertos, Monks, Morlocks, Helots, Kuang Shi, Galwegians, Flash Pulse Bots, Mutts etc before ever having to consider actively opposing AD.
    If you play a list in N4 that relies on those troops to achieve the same it is much harder because you can't achieve the same level of board saturation with 15 models and several of those choices have been nerfed. Which leads to my whole point of people playing their N3 lists in N4 without making adjustments to deal with threats that were non issues for the 20 Order N3 list in N3.
    Same for linked Flash Pulses - I'm talking about N3, not N4 where they're B1 and largely hiding instead of being used as ARO pieces. No one ever suggested Linked Flash Pulses were a solution to AD in N4 and I don't get where you got the idea that was implied.
     
  6. LaughinGod

    LaughinGod Well-Known Member
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    679
    Likes Received:
    1,111
    I agree with @xagroth that crit change wasn't the happiest solution, though I am happy they removed the autowound mechanic of it. It killed all the fun IMO. Before N4 was released there were several topics about how crit should change and two of the CB playtesters argued at the time crit shouldn't change because basically it was anti armour mechanic and without it high ARM models would reign supreme. Which was not true, but anyway they change the crit so it is actually more punishing to 1W models with low ARM now. I would totally want to hear that story from someone with inside knowledge, how did we came from crits must stay because they are anti TAG, to the what they are today. I was personally proposing for crits to be +3DAM and cancel enemy success like now.
    But would like to see some other stuff fixed first, crits are the least of this game's problems IMO.
     
    #86 LaughinGod, Jun 5, 2021
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 8, 2021
    WiT?, Dragonstriker, xagroth and 4 others like this.
  7. Skoll

    Skoll Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    1,038
    Likes Received:
    1,266
    "As for Military Orders, you just were buffed with new troops and profiles in February... the only minus of the transaction is that the mandatory Teutons box is 50€, and that you have to choose between a single trinitarian specialist to have hidden until the last turn, or more expensive ones to support Mendoza's inferno."
    MO had a very nice side grade with some cool profiles added like teutons, which skewed list building to all shit .

    But Mendoza is a piece you are taking vs ariadna . Lacking stealth and paying for forward deployment without marker state when you are going to run into everpresent repeater nets and midfield hacking is just big oof .

    When killer hackers reigned supreme he'd have made it into most lists (specially since he'd have costed same as defersen did then) but now a very interesting profile is very hamstrung by game state .
     
    eciu, RolandTHTG and xagroth like this.
  8. Diphoration

    Diphoration Well-Known Member
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2018
    Messages:
    1,349
    Likes Received:
    2,533
    You're assuming a perfect spread in your example, you can assume a perfect spread and base your statistics off of assumed results.

    There are no ties between each rolls, each dice roll has 5% to occur (barring a attribute roll of 0 or less).

    No matter what, it's always going to be 5% per dice roll. Even if the target number changes between each actions, that has absolutely no incidence on the chance to crit.

    Edit: Are you saying that you're expected to have an even spread of rolls, but that the target numbers are moving around so it affects how your actual crit% will end up? Or that the concentration of target number is not as evenly distributed? I really don't understand what you're trying to show with your example.
     
    #88 Diphoration, Jun 5, 2021
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2021
  9. Mob of Blondes

    Mob of Blondes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    1,234
    Likes Received:
    1,335
    I think he believes the exact number matters (dice imperfections notwithstanding). When what matters is that it's always 5% chance for the 1D20 case, as you pointed. Anything else is human perception.
     
    nazroth and A Mão Esquerda like this.
  10. Rejnhard

    Rejnhard Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2018
    Messages:
    195
    Likes Received:
    336
    I think I was misunderstood, I'll admit that words like "universal counter" might be misleading. I didn't mean that swarm lists (or armies) were necessarily OP. What I did mean is that - back in N2 and N3 - if you didn't have a good answer to a particularly dangerous tactic/troop you were facing, you could always fall back on trying to deal with it with a warm bodies wall, and this was always a "not bad / pretty good" answer. Whether you were against DZ Parachutist, 3 Cameronians, Achilles or whatever.
    4 Orders Avatar wouldn't look so bonkers if people could still field a full combat group of cheap irregular screen, while also having a 10 order combat group behind the screen.

    I do think that "mitigation factor" is a better description for what I'm trying to describe.

    I am not necessarily disagreeing with you here. I mostly think it is important to point to a probable reason why it might be so. I firmly believe that in all editions there were some bullshit units/tactics, and more significantly - bullshit match-ups, where some armies/sectorials had really bad solutions to some possible problems. The difference was, in such a case most armies could fall back on relatively easy (also cognitively) and fairly universal solution of getting more cheap bodies. Now they can't, so now we see which army had the tools all along and which actually *needed* to spam. Sort of. While I would be fool to even attempt to say that there are no problems with N4 balance, I do think that there are cases where people refuse to adjust and adapt. It is important to distinguish one from the other.

    My whole point is: If there are problems with N4 balance it is not because CB suddenly became shit at balancing. It is because after removing the "universal mitigating factor", the differences in armies (including the usefulness of their toolkit) became more pronounced.

    “Only when the tide goes out do you discover who’s been swimming naked.”
     
    iyaerP, bladerunner_35, ETEA and 8 others like this.
  11. Sungwon

    Sungwon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2018
    Messages:
    110
    Likes Received:
    109
    So, what is your point here? Do you think there should be "The List" that has all the tools to score and counter all the potential threats? Or they are meaningless because you can't take them every time?
     
  12. wes-o-matic

    wes-o-matic feeelthy casual

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2019
    Messages:
    633
    Likes Received:
    1,051
    This sort of relates to the "gear check" issue. Whether or not a tool can do something and whether it is efficient at it are different.

    The idea that you can bring an all-comers list that has strong areas and weak areas but no total blind spots sounds fine to me. It means that even if things don't go according to plan and your Plans A-C get (literally) shot to hell, you at least can improvise to handle things with some slight chance of success. The odds might be grim, but they're more than 0%.

    Conversely, threats that you have zero way of dealing with at all will leave you in that non-interactive game state that sucks in a game that's billed as minimizing that kind of thing.

    It's OK to have a few things that your faction just doesn't have a hard/strong counter for, or that you can't include a counter for in every list, but you should ideally at least have some kind of soft/weak counter available. When a threat requires a specific trooper as a counter, including that counter takes up a slot in your list.

    If you have to plan on five such threats and you have one troop that can handle three of them (weakly or strongly) and one troop for the other two, you're only giving up two slots to be equipped to counter those threats (again, your counters might not be strong but at least they're present). That leaves you with thirteen slots and hopefully plenty of points to play the mission.

    Compare that with a faction that has to take five separate troopers to counter those five threats; that faction is paying a much higher opportunity cost to get the same approximate coverage, so that faction's lists are either going to have to accept some glaring defensive holes that create rock-paper-scissors matchup problems, or they're being deformed by having fully one third of the available slots (and a bunch of points) locked down to pay a gear check tax.

    From a design standpoint, this stuff is all sliding scales...having one notable weakness is pretty reasonable, like Ariadnan units being short on BTS for the most part, or high hackability in IA. There's a sweet spot for balancing faction capabilities, and I think a lot of the commentary is about N4 not doing that evenly across factions.
     
  13. SpectralOwl

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2018
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    3,129
    I've found so far that I greatly prefer playing and teaching N4's core rules to N3, but it really does seem like some time in late N3 the people in charge of Army design lost their marbles and the ITS team hasn't caught on yet. On one hand you have units like the EVAder, with a desirable anti-armour SWC weapon, Wildcard Tinbot, excellent Specialist option, D-Charges and Veteran Troop all on one trooper for the price of an ORC, and on the other you get factions like ISS which missed the power creep bus and may as well throw in the towel if they see Morans, Peacemakers or Pitchers since they won't be contesting objectives much at all. I wound up quitting my efforts to play NCA in N4 simply because every attempt to build tournament lists came down to "the fun list" and "the list that gets played against any faction that Hacks better than mine".

    Edit; removed tangent to allow everyone to get back on topic!
     
    #93 SpectralOwl, Jun 6, 2021
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2021
  14. Sungwon

    Sungwon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2018
    Messages:
    110
    Likes Received:
    109
    I generally agree with your comment, but maybe you and I have different feeling on the same thing. You said the list is being deformed, but I would say it as adaptation or tailoring. In N3, many armies moved toward more order counts, even those designed as elite armies tried to go above 15 orders. In N4, The checklist changed from order counts to gear check. Filling that checklist may be difficult for some factions, but I think that is where the player's skill and insight to missions and tournament environment shines. If you sacrifice 20% winrate against paper for 20% winrate against rocks and suddenly the tournament is filled with rocks, you get benefit from "deforming" your list. Of course that will be difficult and won't be such clear math, but I think that's one of the reasons I like Infinity.
     
  15. xagroth

    xagroth Mournful Echo

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    6,420
    Likes Received:
    5,380
    * looks at Aleph's troop costs
    * looks "cheap expendable"
    * shrugs

    * Remembers his Limited Insertion games against spammy lists
    * Imagines a gaming table
    * Imagines deploying in a corner, instead of a Line of Battle
    * Looks at ARO options. Discards experience.
    * Thinks again about how to stop, with ARO options, 2w+ enemy models that can only suffer wounds one at a time (sans crits), can choose attack vector, and have other tools to remove saturation-based ARO pieces (like TR bots). Adds to this how only ONE unit in the game is a MSV2 TR... and it's quite irrelevant since linked MSV1-2 can saturate equally good against a Total Inmunity target.

    Wouldn't this be you accepting there IS a problem with N4, regarding several issues in ARO against certain, too cheap & too effective troops?


    While I agree taking him against nomads might not be the best option, he is still BTS 6, WIP 13, PH 13, and deploys near the center of the table... and can have up to three Trinitarians to run interference and clear his way. I mentioned him merely anecdotically, but I see him in Achilles' tier of paintrains, frankly (besides being a little easier to stop, as you mention thanks to the lack of Stealth).

    Other factions I would not take him automatically against... possibly Vanilla Aleph, but only nomads can add a hacking-heavy game to their lists without much effort, nearly eveyr other faction needs to make a deliberate effort and sacrifices to do so.

    I'm presenting a simple example, thus the numbers being placed in a perfect row.

    Saying "it's always 5% to crit" is not exactly true, because the conditions are "roll X" and "X is the Target Number". To make it a precise study, one should find the % of each number from 1 to 20 being the Target Number in Infinity (for example, I *think* 20 will be a critical hit much less times than, say, 12, because while you can shoot a BSG with a BS14 in a 5 man fireteam troop against a "normal" troop at +6 -range- and -3 -cover-, it is a much less likely scenario than a BS 12 troop shooting with a +3 -range- and -3 -cover-).

    The same way that rolling 3 critical hits in a single roll is not 5% (in truth, it's more like 5% of 5% of 5%, which, if I remember right, it's 0.0125%), rolling a critical hit needs the intersection of two events: the dice result, and said result to be the target number.

    I agree entirely.

    One of the problems is that several sectorials have not been revised as a whole in a long, long time. While Bakunin has recevied some upgrades, for example (Riot Grrrls, Chimera AVAx3, prowler now with Hidded Deployment...), some units have not been revisited, like the Moiras (and custodier and healer). While these units might be right in points value, their actual battlefied value has gone down directly since N4, because of the buff to MSV1: now it can see through smoke, a lot of profiles not widely used before have become used now (like the Suryat with MSV1 in a fireteam core), while at the same time the forced reduction to 15 slots, the changes for criticals (making a single wound troop no longer inmunne to go Dead from a single critical), and the reduction in point costs for HI forces to grab AP-capable weapons over others without it... making the Riot Grrrls a superior option all around, increased by their Fireteam options (marginally defined by StarCo).

    Compound effect in a game's unit... shame it compounds to reasons not to deploy such troop :(

    That there are too many variables, and too little control options. A game in which looking at the opponent deployment means knowing you will lose any chance to win the tournament (if not outright the game), needs to adress several issues.

    I'm not asking about "the list", flash pulse on cheap platforms were a more or less universal tool to vastly reduce "nukes" (Avatar, Total Inmunnity multiwound cheap assaulters, etc...), because while they did not any damage, they stopped the threat, allowing you to attempt to remove it once it was your active turn... if you were able to pass the enemy's flashpulses (if any) and other ARO pieces.
    While it was not special, that gave the other player a chance that has been removed, without replacing it at all.

    Also, I was advocating to keep the 5 rolls tops for Guided attacks, but to also place in that limit (shared) Intuitive attacks... so you could fire 5 missiles, or 5 grenades, or a combination of both, but not up to 15 speculatives plus up to 5 missiles.

    Precisely so, this is the intent of the post and, again, I thank you for a good contribution.

    The issue is that not all factions sacrifice the same for those "five" (random number there, thus the "") mitigating troops. Some factions pay more or less slots, others pay more or less points, others SWC... and some factions don't even have the option to make the sacrifice, because they don't have any troop able to.

    Also, if Infinity's motto is "It's not the list, it's you" (caveat: your list can make you lose, but will never hand you the victory). Being forced to "autoinclude" several profiles, like them or not, because without those you run a non-acceptable risk of simply rolling and watching your list being destroyed, is something many of us run counter to that ideal.

    For me, at least, besides that idea, Infinity gets defined by the Orders system and the Order Expenditure Squence, and the ARO mechanics. Everything else depends on those core/foundational concepts.
     
    #95 xagroth, Jun 6, 2021
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 8, 2021
    RolandTHTG, nazroth and Dragonstriker like this.
  16. Diphoration

    Diphoration Well-Known Member
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2018
    Messages:
    1,349
    Likes Received:
    2,533
    In a world where everyone is capped at 15, "cheap expendable" means "your cheapest expendable trooper". You have as many expendable troopers in your list as any other factions.

    Now, factions with a higher access to peripherals might have more bodies, ALEPH is one of the faction always have more than 15 bodies on the table. So they most definately have cheap expendable troopers.

    The fact that your cheapest expendable trooper costs a bit more than another faction doesn't mean you don't have less of an expendable pool of troopers, since you're hitting 15 troopers anyway.

    You can't use an example of numbers being placed in a perfect row and then use those as a basis for how the odds of something works. You picked a fixed set of outcome, that's not how it works.

    You ALWAYS have 5% chance to crit per dice.

    The fact that 2 numbers need to "intersect" alters does not lessen this chance.

    You pick your target number (this has no impact), then you roll a dice to see if you match the target number...
    If your target number was 1, you have 5%.
    If your target number was 2, you have 5%.
    If your target number was 3, you have 5%.
    If your target number was 4, you have 5%.
    ...
    If you target number was 20, you have 5%.

    While the distribution of crit will be gravitating torward your target numbers that come up more often, this does not mean that the odds of getting a crit on a particular dice will be altered. Even if you never, ever have 20 as a target number. Your chance to crit on each single dice will always be 5%. The fact that a particular number is never a target number does not any percentage to your odds.

    Now you are right that rolling 3 critical hits in 3 dice roll is less than 5%. But this is a completely different calculation. Each of those individual roll have 5% chance to happen (regardless of their target number). And regardless of the other dice outcome. By checking for "3 out of 3" instead of "1 out of 1", you're changing what you're looking for. So of course the number will be a lot smaller as you need to compound the odds.

    - - - - -

    If you wanted to visualise this, you could create a matrix of all the possible target numbers, with all the possible number of rolls. You'd have a 20x20 matrix. You could then weigh each target numbers with their relative chance to appear (perhaps 13 is a more common target number than 20), and you'd see that the numbers will still remain 5% for your chance to be a crit.
     
    #96 Diphoration, Jun 6, 2021
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2021
  17. Diphoration

    Diphoration Well-Known Member
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2018
    Messages:
    1,349
    Likes Received:
    2,533
    Here, the odds of each specific event occuring. I added random rate of occurence to show that even if some target number would occur at different rate, the crit chance would always remain 5%.

    While the chance of the event "crit on a 20" will have a lower distribution than the event "crit on a 13", the chance to crit when your target is 20 and the chance to crit when your target is 13 will remain 5%. And the chance to crit on any given shot is 5%. (All this is per dice obviously)

    upload_2021-6-6_11-47-47.png

    upload_2021-6-6_11-47-25.png
     
    #97 Diphoration, Jun 6, 2021
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2021
    RolandTHTG and Cthulhu363 like this.
  18. Rocker

    Rocker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2018
    Messages:
    115
    Likes Received:
    58
    I generlly agree with the OP. The rock-paper-scissor issue I think has been present for along time and is difficult to avoid with a game with this many factions. More importantly to me though, is the non-interactive game-elements and NPE (negative play experience).

    I recently suggested the following house rules to the local meta (and only got negative feedback from a Nomads player):

    a) Idle does not break hidden deployment, i.e. declaring dodge ARO without fulfilling requirements, does not place the marker on the table.

    b) If you only have 10 unit slots in your army list, the opponent can only deduct one order by spending a command token. If you have counterintelligence, you don’t lose any orders

    c) There are no localized decompression zones

    d) Burst always caps at 5.

    e) 5 man fireteam bonus changed to +3BS in reactive turn only
    (I'd like a complete revamp of the fireteam rules, but don't know what to suggest)

    f) During the States phase of your turn all your troopers may perform an optional “Reset” action (No ARO allowed).

    g) BS attack (guided) does not get +6 to hit. (Only the Targeted bonus of +3 BS applies). Target can dodge without penalties.

    h) Pitcher gains grenade range bands (+3 BS up to 8 inch, -3 BS up to 16)

    I should probably add an Endgame pheroware nerf as well. Maybe limit to two per turn?
    Maybe also add a possibility of removing targeted/isolated on a model by using a command token in the states phase.
     
    xagroth, Knauf, Zewrath and 1 other person like this.
  19. Zewrath

    Zewrath Elitist Jerk

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2017
    Messages:
    2,000
    Likes Received:
    3,484
    Lmao I second this.

    Also this, but this is mostly for the consistency for me, like I remember the first few games everyone kept forgettting that they don't have the same rangeband.
     
  20. MattB89

    MattB89 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2018
    Messages:
    295
    Likes Received:
    343

    A) I agree with this, idle should not break hidden deployment state, especially when declaring a dodge from across the other side of the board.

    B) I think LI should be a viable way of playing the game and now you mostly only see 15 model lists with little to no variation. I think an improved setup could look something like this :
    10 order generating models or less - no orders can be removed.

    10-15 order generating models - up to 2 orders can be removed.

    15-20 order generating models up to 2 orders can be removed from each combat group.

    This would allow an increase in order generating models up to 20 but would mean that when going first any Alpha Strike is somewhat blunted.

    C) Localized Decompression is a stupid rule that hurts defensive fireteams more than anything else because of how the math swings odds heavily into the favor of active turn, which is already strong to begin with. I very much hope this is removed for ITS13.

    D) The only model this rule hurts is the Kriza who if linked should be winning most FTF rolls anyway, therefore I don't really see the need to limit its burst.

    E) The way I see it is that +3BS is not the problem with the Fireteam rules. The main problem comes from the Sixth Sense 4-man bonus, allowing them to ignore Surprise Attack and the -6 for shooting through a Zero Visibility Zone when getting shot.

    The solution I would propose to this problem and reign in Fireteams is to remove Sixth Sense as the 4-man bonus and replace it with 360 Visor instead. This still keeps the situational awareness for a fireteam but would allow Suprise Attack to actually be useful and make Zero Visibility Zones viable for taking on Fireteams.
    This would also make Camo Snipers useful again in that they can actually have an impact on models in a fireteam like they would in real life, ie. Pinning models down until dealt with.

    F) This is an interesting idea but definitely hurts Nomada the most due to heavily nerfing Hacking.

    G-H) Again both of these house rules heavily hurt Nomads as this is part of their playstyle.

    I like that you have tried to create some houserules to make play more enjoyable but given that rules: D, F, G and H all directly affect Nomads by nerfing them a lot I am not surprised you got kick back from a Nomads player in your local community.
     
  • About Us

    We are a company founded in 2001 in Cangas (Spain), and devoted to design and manufacture games and figures. Our main product, Infinity the Game, was born with the ambition to satisfy the most demanding audience, offering the best quality.

     

    Why are we here?

     

    Because we are, first and foremost, players.

  • Quick Navigation

    Open the Quick Navigation