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. SpectralOwl

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2018
    Messages:
    1,495
    Likes Received:
    2,207
    I'm more on board with the direct 360 Visor option for the 4-man link, having Surprise Attack actually work against the game's most prevalent ARO pieces opens up a lot of design space for more effective users of Holoprojectors, Decoys, Surprise Attack at higher MODs like the Ayyar, etc. MSV+Smoke can be annoying when it allows for easily picking fights, but it's Mimetism(-6) that costs a whole order when used only for the MOD and it's almost yesterday's news anyway in the face of how easy it is to get linked MSV now thanks to mixed links- passing gear checks more easily is one of the very few things I consider positive concerning the current state of Fireteams.
     
    Dragonstriker likes this.
  2. Zewrath

    Zewrath Elitist Jerk

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2017
    Messages:
    1,902
    Likes Received:
    3,229
    @SpectralOwl

    Except for a few outliers, I generally don’t believe links have an issue regarding defensive options.
    I think quite a few links are too deadly in active turn, but that’s a general issue in this game more than anything.

    Although I agree that the Ayyar could use some more love.
     
  3. psychoticstorm

    psychoticstorm Aleph's rogue child
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2017
    Messages:
    3,689
    Likes Received:
    7,336
    The thread has been cleared to the best of my knowledge (and got slim by at least 50%) and will be open in a couple of days to get some cool down time.

    People are welcome and encouraged to come back and participate when the thread opens, deviation from the original topic and the discussion about it and only about it will not be tolerated.

    Thanks.
     
    #143 psychoticstorm, Jun 8, 2021
    Last edited: Jun 8, 2021
  4. psychoticstorm

    psychoticstorm Aleph's rogue child
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2017
    Messages:
    3,689
    Likes Received:
    7,336
    Thread opened, it will be watched, I will not tolerate any deviation from the topic discussed, it is an important topic and people contributing to it have put a lot of effort to be derailed like the last time.

    As always I remind there is the report function in the forum.
     
  5. Ieldin Soecr

    Ieldin Soecr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    125
    Likes Received:
    302
    Copied from the other thread:

    Having at least 1 game per week under the belt for N4 with different factions/sectorials I would put my current game concerns as follows:

    Rules:
    - In general the rules are fine with some wonky interactions (Hidden Deployment ARO Idle, Discover + Shoot in link teams) and bad changes from N3 (Jump movement paths).
    - Targeted State: A little overcorrected from N3 (Applyable in ARO, no -3 on Spotlight, Unlimited duration, -3 on Reset). There should be a change to revert it back a little bit (eliminate reset MOD, 1 player turn duration, max 1 active spotlight per hacker, etc.)
    - Repeater: Let Repeater generate AROs when they are used to hack through. It feels so annoying that the enemy can shot a Pitcher in LoS of half of my army and start hacking through it and none is able to react to the repeater to remove this threat. This would open the option for counterplay to reapeaters through deployment and make the setup of the repeater network more of a tactical challange.
    - Deactivator: Give it a Sensor like Area of effect ability, as in it current implementation it is pretty useless and order inefficient compared to simply shooting at deployables.
    - Hacking: I agree with RobertShepherd that Oblivion is slightly to strong. The DAM 14 change is a easy solution I would agree with.

    Army composition:
    - I find the 15 Model limit is a good change, as more different profiles are taken compared to the order maximised lists from before. That also reduced turn duration to allow for faster games.
    - As an alternative they also could have raised the points cost to get a body on the table that has offensive capabilities (For example the base cost could be something like 5 points, so a Morlock would be 10 and a Moderator would be 14).
    - In addition they should rebalance the cheap weapons (Chain Rifle/Colt, Light shotgun, SMG, etc.) as they are currently punch far above their weight or are used as an optimization for specific profiles (e.g. Jazz compared to Interventor). Either they become more expensive or reduce their DAM to 11 or something.
    - Also the Vanilla/Sectorial balance should be improved. Currently vanilla has general better list building options that have to be balanced out by more and more complex and strong Link team options. Instead they should use more Sectorial only units and profiles (like the new MO) to make sectorials more attractive outside of only the link teams (e.g. Mirage-5 has AD (Deployment Zone) only in MRRF and normal AD in Vanilla and Kosmoflot). They also could reduce the AVA of most units in Vanilla to 1 besides some core units.

    Not a complete list and it would still need some tampering, but just as some ideas for the discussion.
     
  6. RobertShepherd

    RobertShepherd Antipodean midwit

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2018
    Messages:
    1,949
    Likes Received:
    3,901
    I have good news, my friend!
     
  7. Ieldin Soecr

    Ieldin Soecr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    125
    Likes Received:
    302
    Seen it ;P
     
    RobertShepherd likes this.
  8. WiT?

    WiT? Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2017
    Messages:
    678
    Likes Received:
    893
    I haven't (been out of the loop), what changed?
     
  9. colbrook

    colbrook Black Fryer

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    7,889
    Likes Received:
    14,304
    New FAQ today, ZoC is now checked immediately before declaring AROs rather than at resolution, effectively eliminating "Hypothetical" AROs.
     
    WiT? and RobertShepherd like this.
  10. Rocker

    Rocker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2018
    Messages:
    104
    Likes Received:
    49
    The FAQ failed to deal with any of the NPE mechanics listed in the OP.
     
  11. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    10,734
    Likes Received:
    13,403
    While the FAQ did delve a LOT deeper in core mechanics than I'd have expected, what the OP was talking about is somewhat different in that most of it won't be fixed through FAQ but rather going over and rebalancing what tools All The Factions have.

    That said, it did address the nonoxynol of dodging out of hidden deployment while not actually having an ARO, which while not bad to address is also probably the smallest issue the game had.
     
    Methuselah likes this.
  12. xagroth

    xagroth Mournful Echo

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    6,202
    Likes Received:
    5,077
    BTW, I think the change to Order Expenditure, allowing to measure ZoC by any player, from the active model (I understand that, if you move a fireteam/coordinated order, any and all models in the fireteam are considered "active model") means certain weapons have been "buffed", because you can now check the first rangeband at the same time you check the ZoC.

    This is a price justification for the BSG, but improves weapons with a -3 or 0 in their first rangeband (everyone carries a pistol, and some ML/HRL troopers carry an SMG or a special pistol) and those that drop from a +6 or +3 in the first rangeband to +3, -3 or zero in the second. The greatest winners would be Haqquislamite troops with the Rifle plus Light Shotgun weapons, since they no longer need to eyeball the limit. And let's remember the smal teardrop template is a little larger than the ZoC.

    Also, smoke grenades now could always be dropped at max distance keeping the +3 because of range with no problem.

    Mind you, I'm not saying the FAQ is a bad thing, but that it dominoes into weapon costs.
     
    eciu and LaughinGod like this.
  13. Rocker

    Rocker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2018
    Messages:
    104
    Likes Received:
    49
    These issues don't require an extensive faction review and could easily be handled in FAQ/errata.
     
    Zewrath likes this.
  14. Zewrath

    Zewrath Elitist Jerk

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2017
    Messages:
    1,902
    Likes Received:
    3,229
    You know, normally I would disagree because I would find it beyond the scope of what CB would normally be willing to re-write and change of existing rules, so I would rather appeal to something that's much more "fixable" such as a PDF-file regarding link teams and army profiles.

    However, with the recent FAQ, I'm actually very pleasantly surprised and impressed with the changes CB are now willing to make via FAQ/errata.
    Prior to this, I wouldn't imagine that they would actually re-write/re-define entire sections of rules like Order Expenditure Sequence and even re-writes of short-skills to update their requirements to be in line with the new eratta.
    Much applause to you guys @HellLois
     
  15. Spellbreaker90

    Spellbreaker90 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2018
    Messages:
    169
    Likes Received:
    118
    I like this thread a lot of good analysis.
    My 2 cent on the topic.

    I like a more skirmish infinity, 15 model it's a good cap for the game, but not in the way CB have done.
    Putting this cap in the actual state of the math has only the result of making some profile totaly worthless. If CB want to limit model number they have to revise the game math. Unit under a x point cost should come with a cost penality, no regular order should be under 20 point more less and no unit under X point should come with a free auto hitting weapon.
     
    Dragonstriker likes this.
  16. Kreslack

    Kreslack Unknown Ranger lead the way!

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    557
    Likes Received:
    746
    I feel point values for weapons can get a bit skewed based on local meta. My local meta falls very hard into the more North American set up, so we play on tables that range from pretty tight to quite claustrophobic. I really like making my tables look more like an urban area, secret base, or starship.(though I have been trying to open up a few more longer sightlines in my setups) This makes template weapons much stronger and hacking/biohacking ludicrous in some situations. While Snipers and Missiles suffer quite a bit.
    I feel Infinity was designed to be played on a much more 'sparse'/european style terrain environment where these short range weapons are rather terrible and appropriately receive large discounts.
    Point being, the value you get for each weapon can be radically skewed by local conditions.
    Though on the topic of very effective templates.
    The changes to shotguns have only magnified this. Since now templates are everywhere and in much greater volume.
    I'd think they could even use a slight nerf. Something small. Like only -1/-2 damage or set damage 12 on template fire mode. Make them not the immediate best reactive option. But still a strong active turn choice for sacrificial pieces. (Even if weaker getting templated 2-3 times is gonna hurt) And you'd also have a harder hitting FtF option.
     
  17. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    10,734
    Likes Received:
    13,403
    Oh come on, Interplanetario had problems getting enough terrain for all their tables that one time almost a decade ago and that is still being dragged up as "typical EU tables"? Considering the sometimes nightmare of winding narrow streets you'll get in EU cities and towns due to city planning in the 17th century not accounting for cars/carriages it's kind of ironic...
     
    nazroth, Ariwch, chaos11 and 2 others like this.
  18. Zewrath

    Zewrath Elitist Jerk

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2017
    Messages:
    1,902
    Likes Received:
    3,229
    Well, the stereotype goes both ways.
    With the travel I’ve done to tournaments around Europe, the common joke at the expense of the American tables were something in the lines of “the longest fire lanes on American tables are measured in Chainrifle templates” or the more common one I’ve heard; “Do you know how Americans build their tables? If you can get a positive rangeband with a Sniper, there’s not enough terrain on the table.”
     
  19. Nuada Airgetlam

    Nuada Airgetlam Nazis sod off ///

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2018
    Messages:
    2,593
    Likes Received:
    2,640
    It's funny 'cause the 40k community jokes about US players being used to open flat tables with minimalistic terrain and virtually zero los-blockers because all the wars their generation has known were in desert countries. European tables in 40k are much more dense and make good use of los blocks.
     
  20. wes-o-matic

    wes-o-matic feeelthy casual

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2019
    Messages:
    599
    Likes Received:
    958
    I’d guess that it has more to do with the mindset of the various game audiences than with national history. Infinity in general, IMO, just “feels” like it should have a claustrophobic urban or shipboard atmosphere, especially because it’s small unit black ops and not open-field massed battles. I want the table to reflect that as well as the models do, because I like the immersive play experience I get from the game.
     
  • 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