Discussion in 'Access Guide to the Human Sphere' started by Space Ranger, Oct 30, 2018.
Netrods are not troopers, hence they can't use AD to begin with.
See what I did there?
The issue I usually see is that players using pieces of this volume stall and only allow 2 turns to be played out in a tournament setting, thus making the time the enemy spent chewing through their chaff means they are at a point and unit efficacy deficit.
In the rules for Deployable Equipment, it states they are under the same deployment rules as troopers. So everything that would apply to troopers still applies to them - Exclusion Zones, dispersion, not having to use a template in ITS X, etc.
This is why the recent FAQ ruling to do with them is almost certainly wrongheaded.
I see you being a troll?
Netrods have a skill which enables them to use AD Combat Jump with certain stipulations and exemptions.
Wording in the ITS document specifically states "Troops possessing AD". Netrods are not troops, they are equipment with special exemption to use AD.
As deployable equipment, they follow the deployment restriction rules for troopers.
I'm bit arguing about that part. I'm arguing they still need the template.
Troopers with AD don't need the template. Why would deployable equipment, when deployable equipment follows all deployment restrictions of the scenario?
Because the rule removing the template is not a deployment restriction.
By definition, it is, since it affects how troopers deploy.
It is a well-documented fact that in order for AI Beacons to work you have to make some compromises on the Trooper/Equipment readings. Unless someone has a new insight to offer, this is not a useful or interesting conversation to be having.
I feel like earlier maybe in this very thread someone got flamed for pointing out that CB was often very slow to release FAQs for questions that had been asked very long prior. These issues with AI Beacons are not new, the rulings are not consistent, and this is an excellent example of what people mean when they say CB is very slow to release rulings for critical mechanics.
Yep, there are definitely some core mechanics questions that they appear to be uninterested in ironing out. They don't come up every game, but when they do, it can be disruptive.
I don't know, maybe I got lucky, but my first attempt at looking at the numbers paints a different picture. Please correct me if I'm doing the stats wrong as it's not my strong suit.
Suryat HMG vs 2 Bounty Hunter Spitfires (chosen because they are both basically kitted to shoot things and the BHs are exactly half the cost of the Suryat HMG). All three in cover.
Suryat splits burst in active, 2 and 2 within 24":
Suryat has a 45.32% chance to drop either which translates to a 20.54% chance to drop both in 1 order. The BHs each have a 11.92% chance to inflict a wound and although that translates to a 22.42% chance to inflict a wound, it's only a 1.42% chance to drop the Suryat in that same order. That's 14.5x the chance to take out the 2 22 point troopers vs the other way around. It only gets worse for the BHs if engaged outside of 24" (31.05% to drop both while only a 0.40% chance to drop the Suryat), the Suryat is able to slice the pie, etc.
Of course, flip active and reactive between 8" and 16" which would be the sweet spot for a spit vs an HMG and we get:
BH (only one this time) has a 17.93% chance to drop the Suryat in 1 order, but the Suryat has an 8.18% chance to drop the BH.
This means that the Suryat has a higher chance of dropping 2 BHs in 1 order than the BHs have of dropping the Suryat. That and the BHs are nearly 6 times more likely to eat it from the ARO.
I agree with you @Hecaton, but I know the last time a netrod conversation came up, the thread was rather divided on how the sticks are to be treated. My interjection was purely to bring up that netrods are currently up for debate on if even exclusion zones matter to them and so they can be even more assured on their rather sturdy nature.
And to the previous discussion and not targeting any specific person:
I do find the argument between a thorakita's defense vs a netrod's a bit of apples/oranges however.
If it is who can survive more shots, then netrods easy. But a thorkitai does 1 thing a netrod does not, actually shoot back as aro defense.
The reason why I disagree with comparing netrod vs thorkatai is that many a game, people just move past netrods, as the player is on limited orders and they wish to kill something that is more significant to the game, and netrod outside orders, is not winning many objectives (dominate zones being the only thing that they can do). But a thorikitai must be fought before the enemy moves to a more significant action (this is why warcors are so powerful in this game for their costs). So thorikitai has more strategic value that it gains in exchange for less orders/easier to kill.
Chessclocks my dude. Played with them at a German Tournament and honestly, this just needs to be mainstream. Faced a CHA list with 27 orders against my own 19 order ISS. We were given 60 minutes on the chess clocks each, INCLUDING deployment. If you ran out of time, your turn not only instantly ends but you're not even allowed to ARO and if someone takes more than 30 seconds to decide on an ARO, you press the clock so, which means he's using his own time to ARO.
We played all 3 turns each and my opponent had less than 7 minutes to spare, while I had something like 15 minutes or so. This really kills any bullshitting stalling and you also completely eliminate any games were one players feels like he was cheated out of a win because his opponent used 2/3rd of the time.
I'd be very down if that became standard. It's trickier in Infinity due to the ARO system but if it could be made to work that'd be great.
Yeah, it's a very divisive issue and I wasn't sold on it to begin with but I must say when I tried it in Germany, I was very positively surprised.
Truth be told though, I would never play with clocks on my regular games and would much prefer if everyone was perfectly fast at the game.
How can we came up with a situation where 2 buonty hunters (a strong active troop but weak reactive troop) are leaved both contemporary in LoF of the suryat hmg???
That player deserves to lose and that has nothing to do with the "wrong" (imho) pricing algorithm.
I mean, I get your point, but if you start adding entire army composition and using the right tool for the job, you are no longer simply looking at points from a survivability standpoint, which was what we were discussing. Also, note that I did put those bounty hunters in the active turn and it still looked bad for them in comparison.
As I mentioned, those were chosen because they are both basically just "shoot things" platforms (and I'm very familiar with Suryats), so the extra points on the Suryat go into the extra wound and high armor. I mean, Wu Ming are even cheaper for exactly the same firepower as a Suryat so I guess my question to you, then, is what situations were you thinking where double the points does not equal double the survivability (or more)?
I think you mean Thorkitai, with is ARM3/BTS0/W1 vs the Netrod's ARM0/BTS3/STR1, unless you're using something that attacks BTS (far less likely).
Yeah, I think this really depends on a lot of factors. It's just as easy to devote a short skill to shooting the Netrod, particularly if there are no other targets. Due to their deployment, they're much more likely to be some place easily shot, while the Thorakitai is going to be in a much better position.
I'd also rather strip the order pool by shooting down a few defenceless Netrods than face Achillies.
Finally, the Thorikitai might (or might not) need to be fought, depending on it's location. A lot of people will just hide them in the back, at which point you can ignore it.