Discussion in 'PanOceania' started by Rocker, May 8, 2019.
No worries. I will think of you every time I make rules mistake :*
Has the thread run its possible usefulness? maybe a few pages ago?
Notably Speculos are not the only Impersonators. Fidays are extremely good, arguably better, and a DACCW Fiday or even Al-Djabel is very likely to destroy a 1 w mini but will find it harder to destroy a 2 W one. I played an ITS tournament with Hassassins and my Fiday got me a lot of points when it killed a Shukra Datatracker, wouldn't have worked against a HI or NWI trooper.
First of all, take that as a lesson that when you enter a debate with your pathetic broflake attitude, you contribute with a lousy input therefore you get a lousy output. Also, you were literally the instigator of a toxic attitude, in fact you still are:
As for the rest of the your post, I honestly don't give a damn at this point. I know how to counter Impersonators and how they work so I'm not interested in your bloated text explaining anything how something I already know about works (except you're still entirely wrong about BS being even remotely relevant but I'm not surprised at this point).
I'm sorry but what do you mean with 'Hmm?'? First of all, where do I even make this claim that Jammers somehow stops Impersonators dead in their tracks? My point with Jammers is that they DRASTICALLY change the behaviour of the Impersonator, making him waste massive amounts of time and all but makes basic moves like move+smoke impossible under many circumstances. Quite frankly, I don't see how that's even disputable.
Omg, it's like you're repeating 95% of exactly what I'm saying and you get showered with like, as you made a different point. Honestly man, I'm laughing out loud at this point.
Yes, in that 1 edge case were the Impersonator decides to shoot the Orc. Against litterally everything else, no. But you don't even disagree with this so I won't press that further.
Bravo, this part is actually the only good point produced in this thread and very well said.
Are you unaware of how Smoke works? Do you think I'm talking someone who spends a single order and then goes "Gee golly whiz! I sure won't do anything about that Unconscious Datatracker now!"
Keyboard broflakes with mediocre stats acting like they're talking to plebians, frankly. Otherwise I actually totally agree with your message.
I don't think there's anything wrong with that approach, although I don't think it translates well to all armies. This sort of philosphy fits very well with NCA or Haqq but I don't think it would fit very well with fx. ISS but that's an entire different debate
Personally I like multiwound Datatrackers for a variety of reasons. Namurr, Krizas, Riots... They've all worked well for me before. I don't see any reason why a VORC wouldn't also. In fact I think a Datatracker that is a HI with stealth is much more useful than people think for certain missions.
I think we all now how smoke works, thank you. What was implied is that even with smoke, a good defensive set up will tolerate only one try before getting stopped. Either with MSV2+ in the FT, playing bodyguard with your DT, with Jammer around, etc.
And since move + smoke isn't silent, Jammer is relevant in this case.
Anyway, it's also table dependant so maybe what you say is relevant for your meta @Zewrath but doesn't fit for others (for example those dominated by speculative assassination or use of Kiiutan with Symbiobombs).
Yikes. Definitely enough of the PanO forum for me for a little while. See you next Tuesday, mate.
Mm.. I understand what you're saying but I don't agree with that in practice (well with MSV2 anyways). This assumes the Impersonator engages the DT before the MSV2 has been dealth with, which isn't true. But yes, I can definitely concede that there are points where the Orc is more durable but my main point is that it isn't worth the extra points (in my own opinion, in case this isn't clear). Patsy though, is a different matter as she acts as a utility piece and might as well be a DT for what ever else she brings.
Yes, entirely the point of why I mentioned them.
So essentially most of Europe, not including France and UK? Because I'm not talking from the perspective of a FLGS and 3 dudes playing. Just to be clear.
It's been pretty quiet in here since our big rules dump. When Yu Jing players come to visit though, it tends to spark things a bit
@Zewrath: I don't know if the Southern Europe thinks like you too, and among them Spain is the biggest country for Infinity in Europe.
I understood that you have had a big and active community around where you live from many years compared to France where everyone is spreaded all around the country in little communities with one tournament per month at best (except for Lyon where there is in average 2 tournaments per month).
Maybe this is because you make all your tables the same too? If all your tables are like the ones at the Teutonic satellite, I understand your stance and I know why we'll have hard time to agree as our tables are too much different in their settings. One common point along most of the Teutonic satellite tables is it is easy to deploy a good defense provided you have enough troops to do so. There are little to no LoF blocked from one part of the back of the DZ to the other, meaning it is easy to defend againts AD troopers who try to AD3+ in there. But it is harder to defend against WB, Impersonators and flanking troopers who have broke your line of defense. On the contrary, we tend to have more tables with segmented DZ where AD can jump in but are harder for IMP and WB to come in while giving to 1 group lists an area or two where to deploy effectively in defense and so on. We mostly do our tables in order to give to every type of unit and list a chance to win while still being a challenge for everyone. Our TO and guys who make the tables accept feedbacks and are really careful about all this. Since you all think that one group lists are worthless, maybe you don't take care about this. Or maybe this is because your tables are like this that you think one group lists and TAGs don't worth the care? I wonder...
I heard a lot of criticism about Interplanetario tables but from the 6 I played on last year, only one was borderline. I don't know how you found the one on which we played against each other but I found it good.
One day, I'll come to challenge this Eastern Europe meta thing but unless I find a good internship there, this will have to wait some years (I need to have my diplom and a job first). But you're also welcolme to come at the next french satellite too.
Are you going to Interplanetario this year? If so, I hope you'll have at least more success than last year.
Why in the hell are there two different rules for deploying mines?!?
Hey, I try to be civil!
Because CB loves to make things complicated ?
Be happy that this one was written in main rules text and not hidden in "example" section like some rules....
I'd say that it's because you otherwise have some opportunity to do something about a Trooper with Mines before the Mine goes down.
Whereas with a Mine deployed before the game starts you do not.
While I agree that it's probably the reason, the last thing you really want in a game is two different rules for something.
I'd change it so that you cannot deploy a mine with a camo marker in it's trigger area, full stop.
I hope this isn't too much OT, but I'd like to respond to quite a few points here.
Most of theses tables at the Teutonic Satellite were provided by the club hosting the event and originate from a small number of very talented terrain builders. They might be somewhat representative of the local meta on a city-level there, but they aren't representative for the German Meta and on e.g. the German Championship you'd find a wider range of tables.
Also just for the sake of not giving any readers a wrong impression: the terrain builders as well as the TOs at the Teutonic Satellite were very open to feedback and in fact actively collected it. What you may be referring to: they did not alter the tables before the event, which I think is very reasonable mainly for time and fairness concerns (imagine some tables being changed because the first arrivals demand it and at some point the tournament starts and other people noticed tables being changed and think that they have much more valid points to make).
So just to avoid giving the TOs of such an amazing event a bad name: I discussed problems of the very few tables I found problematic with the table maker and he agreed with the concerns and will "fix" these issues before the next event, so nobody thinking about traveling to the next Furor Teutonicus should feel held back by tables.
Those issues aside: I get the point about split deployment zones helping AD3+ troops, but I don't get the point about warbands and impersonators. Im my mind, warbands profit from dense tables where they can get close to the enemy with many move-move orders and few orders "lost" on smoke throws. Impersonators profit from having a hiding spot next to their target of choice (if we limit the discussion to DT assassination runs). These things are not the same, and they are certainly not the same as what makes TAGs viable or not. E.g. at the Teutonic Satellite, I'd have happily played a TAG if I had chosen to play e.g. Aleph.
Maybe you can elaborate why you'd feel that e.g. at the Teutonic Satellite Impersonators weren't in a good spot for assassinating people? Not the same thing, but my Oniwaban was my MVP by far.
you started out with derision at the idea that a 2W trooper is less likely to die than a one wound troop. You then got your back up at the idea that anyone dare point out means of stopping your impersonator from merely walking into Base to base, regardless of if you are able to get smoke down unopposed or not, due to smart and intelligent deployment of DZ defense.
You then got in a twist when I pointed out in passing that the ideas I talked about have personally worked for me. More specifically you started to belittle my current ITS record.
The fact that you have done this with little knowledge of the meta I play in, the events I have participated in without ITS registration, the quality of the players I play against regularly (two of which have been ranked higher than yourself at various points throughout the year) and in apparent ignorance of the fact that I was fortunate enough to win a 70 player satellite this year (meaning yes, I do have some idea of what im talking about) is just laughable.
The fact that others here (Many good players whose opinion on the game I deeply respect) agree with the arguments put forward for a linked HI is vindication enough for me and I will continue to discuss the game with the assumption that people are able to work out reasonable ways to use their tools without having to have every single setup and interaction spelled out to them.
But you do you mate
@daboarder the cringe is strong with that post.
Also they don’t even agree with you except on special cited situations (otherwise they agree with me)
But hey, you do your mental gymnastics. :*
Wow! No, I'm not pointing at you TOs and saying "They suck!". Please forgive me to have left this feeling. Thing is since this is a satellite, I can't ignore the table setting in this tournament too.
I won't talking for our own TOs for the satellite but I know for previous local tournaments that some small terrains were sometime moved if the table was found out to be easily blocked by only one Sniper/ML as the events are also thought to be enjoyable for everyone. But I wouldn't say this occured during the satellite. But what is sure is that's our TO who organised the tables and had the final word on the settings. When we lend our tables, we agree that they won't be necessarily played like we are used to if the TOs decide it otherwise. We can discuss with them about it but that's all.
I think you misunderstood what I was saying: your Oniwaban was absolutely at home with the Teutonic tables set up and you seem to prove it. One BS burst on troops aligned along the crates/terrain is absolutely destructive.
About segmentation and WB/impersonators: segmentation gives you the possibility to set up a defense in depth in you DZ, spreading your cheerleaders around in order to transform them in real DZ keepers while harder to clip multiple troopers under one teardrop. It makes it also harder for Impersonators deployed outside of the DZ to get their target as they won't be able to go to it in straight line while maybe forced to fight their way in order to continue their rampage. Yes, it is easier to move in segmented DZ but it is harder to fight effectively in it. In the same time, it is easier to deploy by refusing a flank to your opponent because you can at least defend effectively against outflanking. I would say try this kind of set up and maybe you'll find out what I'm saying (but maybe not):
As you can see, you can force your opponent to fight for each inch moved in your DZ with few troops rather than having them aligned and killed like training targets. 2 groups lists can entrench really well too, but since the DZ is crowded by terrain, it is not that obvious and can be their doom throught template uses.
All good man, I just had the feeling not commenting might leave others with a bad impression of the tournament. Thanks for clearing that up!
Also thanks for the picture, that helps to understand your point. The table is played from lower left side to upper right side? Essentially you are saying that here you could put a data tracker behind the grey box in the center of the table and then protect it by fellow link members, jammers etc. so that without rolling for WIP an impersonator would need to move more than 8 inches to get LoS on the datatracker and would be seen my many people in the process? And that means that the impersonator is less likely to pull of a smoke + CC assassination and his best option would be to move-move and then use a move-shoot on his second order and then a tough data tracker like Patsy is worth it for better changes in the shoot-out? That makes sense to me.