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

Onyx continuing to get screwed by ITS XI

Discussion in 'Combined Army' started by Hecaton, Oct 10, 2019.

Tags:
  1. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    4,684
    Likes Received:
    4,545
    So, the new FAQ his today, and what in my opinion was a very poor choice of a ruling was made:

    First of all, there's the ambiguity in terms of what "automatically" means - if one player includes an O-12 liaison and the other does not, does the player who included it in their list automatically score the point, even if their O-12 liaison is dead by the end of the game or still in their deployment zone? So a poorly-conceived ruling is just creating more problems and questions.

    Second, it's highly unbalanced, again, for factions like Onyx that are extremely limited in terms of what non-REM FOs they can use, since it's basically giving their opponent free objective points in ITS. It smacks of either an actual antagonism towards balance or a lack of understanding of how the game is played; given that people at CB apparently aren't playing much Infinity anymore, the latter seems more likely.
     
  2. Sedral

    Sedral Invincible Officier

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2017
    Messages:
    456
    Likes Received:
    739
    Do note that it says "YOUR datatracker/liaison officier", not your opponent's one. So in mission where you score points by killing datatrackers/liaison officier, your opponent automatically win the points for killing it if you didn't deploy one.
     
    DaRedOne, xagroth, Spinnaker and 2 others like this.
  3. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    4,684
    Likes Received:
    4,545
    And the bonus OP for the Liaison officer itself?
     
  4. Alphz

    Alphz Kuang Shi Vet. Retired.

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2017
    Messages:
    1,080
    Likes Received:
    2,150
    Has nothing to do with your liason officer and so will score normally.
     
  5. A Mão Esquerda

    A Mão Esquerda Deputy Hexahedron Officer

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    1,851
    Likes Received:
    1,836
    Or them, well, having a vision for their game and how they want it played...
     
    RobertShepherd likes this.
  6. Sabin76

    Sabin76 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    1,201
    Likes Received:
    1,496
    Yeah, it seems there's a misunderstanding about the ruling. This really just guards against someone not bringing a DT/LO to a mission that rewards points for killing one. Without this specific ruling, you could elect to not bring one and deny your opponent the points.
     
  7. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    4,684
    Likes Received:
    4,545
    That's not clear at all. And it very much doesn't "have nothing to do with your Liaison Officer."
     
  8. nehemiah

    nehemiah Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2018
    Messages:
    405
    Likes Received:
    760
    Perhaps not clear to upon your first reading, but everyone else was able to determine what it meant, so it is not a big deal.
     
    WiT?, TheRedZealot, Alphz and 2 others like this.
  9. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    4,684
    Likes Received:
    4,545
    I was clued into it by someone else who got confused on this point, so it's categorically not "everyone else."
     
  10. Alphz

    Alphz Kuang Shi Vet. Retired.

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2017
    Messages:
    1,080
    Likes Received:
    2,150
    I don't know what to tell you when you misunderstand this sentence.

    your opponent will automatically achieve any of their Objectives that involve your DataTracker/Liaison Officer.

    How does that result in you concluding that they b score objectives which involve their datatracker.

    I know people are reading it too quickly and jumping to conclusions but don't blame other shit when you do. Everyone makes mistakes, we're not going to judge you for it.
     
  11. Space Ranger

    Space Ranger Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    2,151
    Likes Received:
    1,640
    It might be a they way some people interpret. I didn't get it at first either. In the US it would have been more like "If you don't have a Data Tracker/Liaison Officer, your opponent will score the points involving them." To me, that sentence was backwards.

    Are you saying they want to make it unbalanced? Because some armies just have more FO to be Liaison Officers troops than others. And some just better than others. Of course it's not as bad as say a Doctor where Yu Jing has 1 and Haqqislam as 15+ all with bonuses. As Hecaton pointed out, his only option for an FO, in Onyx, is the Malignos AVA2. Whereas Ariadna has 17 different troops with the FO skill. If I'm playing him, I know that's his only option and I'm going to hunt down that Malignos to make sure he can't get that point. He also looses the one advantage a Malignos has of Hidden Deployment.
     
    #11 Space Ranger, Oct 22, 2019
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2019
    Hecaton likes this.
  12. DaRedOne

    DaRedOne Morat Warrior Philosopher
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    883
    Likes Received:
    1,853
    I want to start this post by saying I hate Liaison Officer and asked not to have it added to ITS XI. That being said, your point is moot.

    First, you are comparing a Sectorial Army, which is supposed to have limited options, to two Vanilla Armies, which are supposed to be about having more tools for any given job. This is a design paradigm that has been in the game since the introduction of sectorials, and it does not alter balance so much, because you trade variety of tools for order efficiency and fireteam buffs in sectorials.

    A more correct comparison would be Onyx with USARF, for example, in which case USARF has 4 options of possible Liaison Officers. More than Onyx, yes, but only 1 of those has camo to protect it. Yes, losing the ability to Hidden Deploy is bad, but dealing with a TO camo marker is not a trivial job, and your liaison officer can start the game in a position where all they have to do to score the point is stay alive for the rest of the game, something that may be very easy to do, all things considered.

    Also note that the location and presence of a Liaison Officer in the table is open information. It is way easier to hunt down an uncamoflaged Liasion Officer, even if they are in a fireteam, than it is to kill one that is hiding behind a TO marker.

    Think about how many orders you will have to spend to hunt down a Malignos who used Infiltration to deploy prone on a roof out of LOS. At best you will need 2-3 orders to reach it with a sensor bot, then another 1-3 orders to hit it with spec-fire. That's 3-6 orders, anywhere from half to a third of the average order count of most armies, just to take away a point that is EXTRA, so you don't even hamper your oponent's ability to complete the game objectives too much. At worse we're looking at spending maybe an entire group's worth of orders just to deal with one model.

    Now, all that doesn't mean Liaison Officer is a good rule. I don't like it. It adds extra bookkeeping to the game, adds extra rules that can be convoluted, and adds interactions and situations that we really didn't need in the game. I don't like it, but at the same token I don't think it is broken.

    If anything, this FAQ actually helps a lot of armies, because it means players will forfeit points if they elect not to bring a Data Tracker or Liaison Officer to the table. If you take the time to add that Malignos FO to your list, you now have the option to score up to 11 points, whereas your oponent will only be able to score 10. I think it was a good ruling.
     
    Judge Dredd, WiT?, toadchild and 3 others like this.
  13. TheRedZealot

    TheRedZealot Well-Known Member
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    901
    Likes Received:
    1,396
    Well... What have we seen so far..
    • MI Changes that favour some armies.
    • AD Changes that don't apply to all armies.
    • TAG Changes that don't apply to all armies.
    • Classifieds that are easier for some armies to accomplish.
    • Game Modes that favour certain armies
    • TAG Centric Missions that are favourable to some armies.
    • A Mission that heavily favours link teams.
    • Missions that favour certain specialists not equally available to all armies.
    So yes, yes it seems to be pretty clear that the ITS missions/Tournamnets are designed to favour or hinder certain armies to encourage players to vary their play. But I wouldn't call that unbalanced exactly.
     
  14. Triumph

    Triumph Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    2,421
    Likes Received:
    2,614
    You are confusing imbalanced with unbalanced. You can deliberately cause an imbalance between factions to create a balanced game.
     
    Space Ranger and DaRedOne like this.
  15. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    4,684
    Likes Received:
    4,545
    The opportunity cost for your list of taking a 36 point trooper can be pretty significant, however; taking an 11 point FO who can hang out in a fireteam and support your other troops is much more workable in terms of listbuilding.
     
  16. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    4,684
    Likes Received:
    4,545
    And the missions that slant real hard towards one faction or another are generally considered to be poor missions. Let's not forget that Heavyweights can score in some missions now; that's clearly an erosion of the ethos you're presenting.
     
  17. TheRedZealot

    TheRedZealot Well-Known Member
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    901
    Likes Received:
    1,396
    Well you're right there are certainly missions or changes that get adjusted and not all missions/rules/whatever are designed that way for sure. But even the shift to apply heavyweight as well is an unequal adjustment to the rules. The Daiyokai is scoring but its sister armour (I believe?) the Mowang is not. We also continue to see new rules that follow this ethos to varying degrees (ex: Peacekeeper, Countermeasures)
     
  18. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    4,684
    Likes Received:
    4,545
    Let's keep in mind that Peacekeeper was specifically meant to be campaign/fluff only, but according to HellLois some people in the greater community wanted it to have relevance in tournament play and so he capitulated. So there's a segment of people who are hell-bent on turning tournaments into "fluffy" play, balance be damned, and I'm guessing they're the same kind of people who think Spec Ops at the Interplanetario is a good idea.
     
    LaughinGod, Dragonstriker and Zewrath like this.
  19. TheRedZealot

    TheRedZealot Well-Known Member
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    901
    Likes Received:
    1,396
    You make it sound like there is some sort of Fluffluminati secretly planning behind closed doors to ruin Infinity. :joy:
     
    smog, Zewrath, cazboab and 1 other person like this.
  20. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    4,684
    Likes Received:
    4,545
    Well, it's not exactly secret if we're talking about it? Still, the fact is that there's a segment of players in any game like this hostile to the idea of balanced play because they see it as promoting WAAC behavior.
     
    Zewrath likes this.