PanO having CC monster ? Wow must have had missed them, please do enlight me about this mysterious combatant so I can use him on my next games.... Well if he has MR it's suddenly much more risky. Plus unless your enemy missplayed and left his Kriza "around" corner, FK won't have easy access to him (and he is not in SF). Really calculating how many orders FK will need to get to Kriza is not that difficult. Srsly saying "use PanO CC" is completly missing the point of the main weakness of PanO CC (except for not having MA3 on non-character untis) whole thing of getting into said CC.
Well any BS13 B4 weapon shooting at a nisse in those range bands has a 34% chance of winning while the nisse has a 28% chance of wounding. As a last resort sure go for it but you'd be hoping for better odds than that. If you can get into good range bands you're looking at 55% chance now. But like you said getting in those right range bands is another story. I do think the Kriza though slightly worse in optimal range bands can be more order efficient in taking out a Nisse. When you have a Kriza in supp fire and someone boarding shotguns you around the corner and ignores cover you're making them roll on flats. That is insanely good which is why full auto is a mistake.
Not sure it's a very good example, any mimetism troop would impose the same modifier, Borak is not really different. Plus, BSG without any form of modifier vs a suppressive fire in 0 range will have low chances of win due to difference in burst. When dealing with suppressive fire, negative modifiers can add really fast since there is no positive range band to compensate for. Take any normal camo, camo + cover + surprise shot, and the Borak is shooting at 4. Considering his cost, counting on him to defend a position with suppressive is highly situational, he could very well be wiped out. I don't find the Borak particularly strong in reactive, he has first and foremost high burst low damage weapons, he is made to shoot on active turn. He is a good addition to nomads but he is nowhere as scary as a swiss or Achilles.
In no particular order: Gabriel de Fersen Joan Montesa knights Sepulchre Knights Magisterial Knights Teutonic Knights Father knights Now "monster" is a stretch for a few(okay all but gabe if I'm totally honest) of them, but just because they're not Musashi or Achilles doesn't make them pushovers... It will take more than one order to drop a borac most of the time, there will be risk involved, but that could be said about almost every unit in the right circumstances, it's just the circumstances that favour the borac are extremely common and it seems like for all the teeth gnashing over full auto, people are not prepared to put a bit of effort into killing the damn things...
And again how are you going to get them in CC with Kriza? (obviously Im not talking about vanilla option as this costs as much as a TAG if not more)
From that list, only Teutonic, Joan and DeFersen are good CC units. All the other can do good if they're facing a non CC enemy, but probably get wounded against a CC specialist
Sorry thats true. I was using riot grrls and forgot about msv1. Still I wouldnt want to be putting tarik in that situation to face a DA round
Of course you wouldn't want to if you had a better option available, but as the discussion was Tarik was constantly getting put in these situations and getting away with it and he felt he wasn't learning to use those options because lul crits.
Looks like OP mispelled the skill Fatality lvl2. If not then OP will also find Bulleteer with supportware OP and broken
Two questions: 1 - Why now? This skill has been out for awhile, get used to the idea of it existing and work around it. Full auto is a powerful skill, but it is far far far from breaking the game. 2 - You know this is the rules query forum, right?
To be fair it's not the rules query forum, it's just the rules forum. Discussions about rules comes under that.
It's been a topic of discusion in the old forums since it's apearance in the beyond PDFs. And it'll keep "at least" up to the release of the final rule on the next book at the end of 2018. I've asked for a specific section to debate rules, and sugest changes or new ones, in the old forum (in order to keep answers to real rule questions separate from this kind of topics). No, measures taken Yet! Maybe it's time to ask fo it again in the feedback section. I find Full Auto more handable than DDO or TO but kind of bothersome. All that is needed now is a counterpart for it and for the supresion fire mod.
Pretty much. Or more like the N1/2 Suppressive fire, which was a 2" wide corridor of death, anything crossing that ate full B of the weapon, and one model in the corridor when it was declared ate the full B of the weapon, too! But Full Auto is somewhat unusual for an N3 rule: it's more fluffy (and somewhat realistic), less gamey.
Could we please concentrate all fire on Full Auto and leave Fatality Lv2 for another discusion (like in the distant future, when pigs fly...) #shamelesshaqq, #leavetarikalone, #notapowergamer, #assaultpistol4odalisques Sillyness aside, I do find the introduction of new rules a tad unnecesary in an already large rules system; however, in theory, I don't find Full Auto to be broken. I'll get back to you all once I'm on the recieving end of Kriza's wrath.
wow, sorry i'm late to the party... as i said on the old forum, Full auto is a rule that frankly could have been worked on better. Not for the bonus itself IMHO, but mainly for the "mixed" bonuses of levelled skills. My reasoning goes a bit OT, but bear with me. Right now infinity contains a lot of different rules and interaction, and every rule increase the number of interactions in an exponential manner. So IMHO, more than ever, all new rules must be "catalogued" and thinned to the bare minimum. if a levelled skill is consistant in its working mechanics across all level it's easier to remember / FAQ / Play with. Full auto and fatality are part of those rule that should have been made consistant accross the levels. Full auto, for example, could give: L1: -3 on opponent ftf (Courage negate this bonus) L2: -6 on opponent ftf (Courage negate this bonus) L3: -9 on opponent ftf (Courage negate this bonus) of course this is only an idea, no playtesting or balancing have been done. But a rule written like this is easier to understand/remember for everyone. because it's a modifier on ftf that increase for each level. imagine if full auto was like this. L1: +1B during active turn L2: -3 on ftf during active turn L3: Markmanship L1 L4: +2 DAM if target is a LI now, this is obviously an impossible skill, but you can clearly see that it requires more memory to remember it. and in a game with the number of skill and interaction as infinity, that's not needed and needlessly complicated. In the same way, fatality is a "not streamlined" skill that introduces a completely new rule, but only from level 2. Infinity has an enormous potential of having extremely balanced point cost, so i really don't understand why CB needs to mix skill levels like this. i recall maybe Bostria, saying something along the line of "Interruptor is against all new rules, and each new rules must be approved." and i think that's why they used to expand existing rules with various level LX. If they were level of an existing rule, Interruptor would be more inclided to approve the skill. but this "add to existing rule" created a bloat in nested and "similar mechanics in different skill" skills, that for sure is not helping the new player on the learning curve. Notable examples of this stuff: - Guard, protheion, Martial Arts > Identical bonuses to CC (with mixed levels to complicate the things), minor differences in work method that could be solved in other way (example giving the Wound-stealing propriety to a CCW attribute and giving Protheion CCW to the users) and by simply exploding the nested skills. - Chest mines > was this really necessary? we have explosion that's practically the same. Fluff reasons is the reason why there is fluff text on the skill! -Aerocam > a skill that's there from almost 4 years? and is the same as 360° Visor. then why does this exists? write 360° Visor on the profile and call it a day.
My only complaint for Full Auto is that I think it should only function for weapons that have access to Suppressive Fire.
Why now? Maibe because now we could test it in some games. That's why I think it is not broken or overpowered. Why not only on suppression fire weapons? Because it is not suppression fire. Is not the same. The FA user has tools for his weapon to have more burst and that forces the enemy to be more careful. Suppression fire needs a high burst weapon so anybody can use it. Why do courage fighters have the right to ingore the malus? They have guts, but they are not stupid to not try to scape from that bust. I could understand that in fanatics (religious and impetuous troopers), but not in courage troopers, the first ones are crazy enough to ignore it maibe, but then we have some abilities that were gaining a bonus that they don't pay for. In the end it could have been 2 previously existent rules (mimetism and dual weapon). But maybe there is a level 3 incoming that makes more sense for it to be a new rule
