1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hemos actualizado nuestra Política de Privacidad acorde con la nueva RGPD. +Info // We've updated our Privacy Policy to comply with the GDPR. +Info
    Dismiss Notice

MSV2 sniper poll

Discussion in 'Access Guide to the Human Sphere' started by zapp, Jun 29, 2019.

?

Do you think the addition of strong MSV2 sniper models to cheap core linkteams was a good decision?

Poll closed Jul 6, 2019.
  1. Yes

    41 vote(s)
    44.1%
  2. No

    52 vote(s)
    55.9%
  1. meikyoushisui

    meikyoushisui Competitor for Most Ignored User

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2017
    Messages:
    1,203
    Likes Received:
    1,466
    Some smoke warbands are wildly better than others, too. I think everyone can agree a Mutt is a much bigger threat to 90% of the models in the game than a Morlock or Shaolin Monk, for example. I rarely need to worry about a Morlock getting in my face and eating me, but a Mutt is a threat in the bubble around it no matter what. Galwegians are another offender due to Berserk + Dogged.

    I always come back to this being a problem with the way the points formula works when you put a bunch of useful one point skills or pieces of equipment on anything. Dart and Mutts have this in common.
     
    Mahtamori and Hecaton like this.
  2. Space Ranger

    Space Ranger Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    1,849
    Likes Received:
    1,327
    I think the proliferation of MSV snipers is because they didn't want to change smoke. They really can't make a huge change until another edition so you add troops like them.
     
  3. Section9

    Section9 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    5,344
    Likes Received:
    8,430
    Crazy, innit?
     
    AngryPanda and A Mão Esquerda like this.
  4. ijw

    ijw Wargaming Trader, Freelance Editor (UK)
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    4,883
    Likes Received:
    9,931
    But that’s the exact opposite of being consistent.

    Smoke Grenades are template weapons, so should work the same as other template weapons. The template is also a Terrain Zone, so should work the same as other Terrain Zones.
     
  5. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    4,155
    Likes Received:
    3,990
    That's only fair, then, if they proliferate said MSV2 snipers back through existing factions; only having it in new ones is the definition of power creep.
     
    Modock, meikyoushisui and Section9 like this.
  6. Armihaul

    Armihaul Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    346
    Likes Received:
    282
    Yes and no. Smoke grenades create zones. Making a distinction between them doesn't make it consistent or not, just make them some different, which is at the moment. In fact, there was a huge discussion time ago about smoke that forced to change the working of non lethal templates, that would have been solved instantly if they were treated differently at that moment.

    To be working at the moment doesn't mean that it is the best way of working, and this is something some people seem to forget when talking about improving rules
     
    Hecaton likes this.
  7. ijw

    ijw Wargaming Trader, Freelance Editor (UK)
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    4,883
    Likes Received:
    9,931
    @Armihaul I think I’m missing something. Smoke Grenades are template weapons that create zones. At the moment, templates and zones work identically. As far as I can tell, you’re suggesting treating templates and zones as different, therefore making things less consistent. It would also mean that Smoke Grenades would be inconsistent with one of the two things that they count as.

    I’m also not sure what discussion you’re referring to about non-lethal templates, was it the one that led to the FAQ about being able to place them where they affect your own troopers?

    I’m well aware of the distinction between rules working now and trying to improve the rules - I think what you’re suggesting (different rules for templates and for terrain zones) would not be an improvement.
     
  8. Armihaul

    Armihaul Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    346
    Likes Received:
    282
    Making them different doesn't make it more or less consistent, just different. Consistency, aa I understand it, implies making it work correctly in more cases, with the need of fewer exceptions. I put before an example of inconsistency that is now in the game: a trooper A at a side, touching the smoke zone with a 90% outside of it. Add another trooper B behind both A and the smoke, without touching it, but with a 90% of B behind the smoke. You can draw LoS to B even when he is less exposed than A. That is inconsistence to me, because is as if there were no trooper ther, but if it was implemented as to be completely within of smoke, then there would be no issue or problem there. And if having different rules would be the same as inconsistency, then what about having 3 different ways of putting zones that we have no? Smoke, white noise and stratuscloud

    And yes, I was referring to when you could not touch your own troopers with non lethal templates because was not specified that you could at that moment.

    Thinking that the rules as are now are more consistent that any other rules that could appear is a bad way of thinking for someone who is doing a job to improve them, and is what I am feeling half the time here in the forums. I hope to be wrong.
     
  9. ijw

    ijw Wargaming Trader, Freelance Editor (UK)
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    4,883
    Likes Received:
    9,931
    Ah, now I think I understand where we are getting our wires crossed.

    Consistency is having things work the same way, not about whether things work ‘correctly’. Currently, templates and terrain zones work (almost*) completely consistently with each other. I can't remember the term you're looking for, but it's closer to 'realism' or 'convincingness' than 'consistency'. Which is why I was getting really confused. :-(

    *The sole difference being that the terrain zone for Smoke etc. is not the whole area of the template but is limited by Total Cover.

    What difference is there between those, other than the terrain zone for Smoke not covering the whole template?

    Your suggestion would demonstrably reduce consistency (rules working the same way).
     
    Abrilete likes this.
  10. Armihaul

    Armihaul Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    346
    Likes Received:
    282
    Maybe is a false friend from spanish, but I don't understand consistency as "working the same way" but "working without cracks". Having 2 diferent rules working different doesn't bring more consistency or take it out, just make them work different, and now, smoke works differently than other templates in the meaning that you can ftf roll even if your objective is not the enemy, and you can touch with it your troopers, but also work differently from other zone templates in the way you put them on the table. It has exceptions from the general rule, and that is not consistency in your meaning. But also is not consisrency in mine, because we have an strange interaction in rules.

    And I am not talking about realism. Just about reducing the numbrer of "cracks" in rules, loopholes and so
     
  11. ijw

    ijw Wargaming Trader, Freelance Editor (UK)
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    4,883
    Likes Received:
    9,931
    "acting or done in the same way"

    Having two rules work the same way is the actual dictionary definition of consistency. :-(

    I don't understand. :-(

    Could you spell out in more detail how you think Smoke is working differently from other template weapons, and how it's working differently from other terrain zones?

    EDIT - bear in mind that we're talking about working out how troopers are affected/not affected by the area of the template or terrain zone.
     
    #171 ijw, Jul 17, 2019
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2019
  12. Armihaul

    Armihaul Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    346
    Likes Received:
    282
    Then yes, seems a false friend from spanish, similar but not exactly the same exact meaning.

    For any other terminal template weapon (outside from especulative fire), you have to select an enemy trooper if you want the ftf roll. Smoke doesn't (thanks to the special dodge trait). You can touch your troops thanks to the change in the rule (before was more consistent, right?). Also, it work differently to other zones in the way they can be put in the table: smoke is with a range and bonus/malus, white noise is forced to be "completely" in the ZoC of the hacker, and stratuscloud is "on the bearer". 3 zones, 3 ways of putting them in the table
     
  13. ijw

    ijw Wargaming Trader, Freelance Editor (UK)
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    4,883
    Likes Received:
    9,931
    You could always put Smoke over your own troops, the FAQ just confirmed that. We were talking about what position troopers need to be in, to be affected by Smoke templates and terrain zones, this is completely unconnected.


    Yes. We were talking about what position troopers need to be in, to be affected by Smoke templates and terrain zones, this is completely unconnected.

    This is where I get really confused. We were talking about whether troopers need to be within (just touching) or completely within an area, and whether that should be different for templates and for terrain zones. How the template or zone gets there is a completely separate argument.
     
  14. Armihaul

    Armihaul Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    346
    Likes Received:
    282
    Before the faq, people used it like that, but raw, it was against the rules, but that is something outside of this debate. My point was not on that side

    You talk about consistency, using the same wording for different rules (templates and zones) as beign a good thing. And I only stated 3 situations of a "similar rule" (putting zones) with different wording to prove my point: bringing different rules is no problem, the problems are the cracks or loopholes in those rules, creating exceptions and counterintuitive situations (something that I would call non consistent), and also another point is that treating zones and templates differently can reduce the cracks, make them more usable and intuitive even if therenis less consistency (in your meaning)

    What I mean is that, if we have inconsistent rules for "deploying" zones, and that is ok and good, why using different wordind for different rules (templates and zones) that create different situations is bad?
     
  15. ijw

    ijw Wargaming Trader, Freelance Editor (UK)
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    4,883
    Likes Received:
    9,931
    That doesn't prove your point. The rules for 'deploying zones' aren't inconsistent, they're for completely different purposes. This is like saying that Impact Template Weapons and Direct Template Weapons are inconsistent because one needs a roll and the other doesn't.

    EDIT - I think we're at the point where we will have to agree to disagree. Sorry for going on about it. :-(
     
    A Mão Esquerda likes this.
  16. Abrilete

    Abrilete Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    1,837
    Likes Received:
    2,365
    No, it isn't: "consistencia" has the same meaning in spanish.
     
    A Mão Esquerda likes this.
  17. Armihaul

    Armihaul Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    346
    Likes Received:
    282
  18. Luisjoey

    Luisjoey High Marshall of Wotan
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2017
    Messages:
    327
    Likes Received:
    246
    hehehehe brawlers rant! smoke is missing his supremacy :D
     
  19. AngryPanda

    AngryPanda Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    39
    Likes Received:
    58
    Yes, but that's not the route they chose. Now the complaints are about said MSV2 Snipers. Which is a bit funny to me because I kept being told then I started "You got MSV2 to deal with smoke" which was kind of nonsense in the reactive turn but now it's not and suddenly there's a huge outcry. I mean what are those special forces thinking to just give their defensive shooters gear that let's them actually shoot warbands, the most common threat to run at you.
     
    barakiel and realder like this.
  20. AngryPanda

    AngryPanda Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    39
    Likes Received:
    58
    I've been playing Onyx for the last year and often against Nomads. I'm uttelry terrified of Morlocks. Those things are the bane of me. They dodge well, they can kill almost anything I have, and they eat even my 40 point CC space vampires for breakfast. Not to mention what they do to TAGs or link team or well anything really. Muts are just the bogeyman (and rightly so) but that doesn't make the other ones less trouble. I think one of the issues is that once you have your own cheap warbands you immediatly got an answer to them. So only the armies that don't have any really see the full joy of how screwed up they are.