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 PolĂ­tica de Privacidad acorde con la nueva RGPD. +Info // We've updated our Privacy Policy to comply with the GDPR. +Info
    Dismiss Notice

"Project 28" - Stopping the Caledonian Behemoth

Discussion in 'PanOceania' started by AdmiralJCJF, Mar 8, 2020.

  1. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Jan 28, 2018
    Likes Received:
    It's not, the sweet spot for most "large" sizes is 16-20. Which is why Tac Window is a blunt instrument: it reduces those factions to below their sweet spot. Reducing factions designed to be large to 15 orders does remove meaningful list building choices.

    But the reason Tac Window seems to be popular is that it seems to be the sweet spot for player expectations and good game play. Honestly when you see OSS, Tohaa and Ikari builds at 20 orders commonly then factions designed to be big lose some of their uniqueness. Which is why I think soft advantages should be used to drive these sort of factions to feel more optimal under 16 orders.

    I do however think that lists over 2 CG aren't valuable from a game design POV. Look at the list posted above: it literally has 7 profiles and ignores so many of the units that give CHA its character. It may well be effective, but that is not aesthetic.

    My reaction to that list isn't "Wow that looks like a fun list to play, I should play CHA" but rather "Wow, that's so fucking boring": that's a response reflective of a lot of the player base, which is why you see complaints about spam all the time. Moreover, lists that aren't specialised to deal with it come down to little better than a coin toss (do I win the Lt roll so I can go first and defang it, or not?). Ultimately I think the important question is: do 3+ combat group lists commonly seeing the table increase or decrease player participation in Infinity?

    Additional points.

    Hamstringing implies that CHA and similar factions are not viable below 20 orders in 200-400pt games. That's massive Hyperbole when reality is "lose a few extreme list building archetypes". I mean losing the Morlock Lt hamstrung Bakunin: we can't run all Morlock lists any more, that's borderline game breaking.

    The game is designed and balanced to support 200-400pts, if you go bigger it's not unreasonable to add CGs. + 2 CG per 400pts or part would work for that.

    Honestly though, making lists like that playable (for both players) without needing to run counter skew against it is why I seriously think 8 order CGs to be worth considering. Maxing that out at 3 CG for 300/400pt games gives you a solid 24 troops, and makes the break points feel more natural than they are now.

    I absolutely think that 20 order lists should be legal and playable, and all factions should have a reasonable chance of facing that sort of onslaught with a "normal" tournament list. I think that you ease that problem by limiting it to 2 CGs and you gain more than you lose by doing so.

    Until that happens, more power to players who are exploring the edge of what's possible within the rules. :) None of the above should be considered a criticism of a player choosing to play that list, rather it's its commentary on whether or not the game should let them.
    #41 inane.imp, Mar 14, 2020
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2020
    AdmiralJCJF and SpectralOwl like this.