From my experience with a limited number of 400pt games, alpha strikes are mitigated by the fact that the reactive player can bring more redundant pieces, so that when the enemy's alpha strike takes out your apex gunner, you more likely still have a second one. For example.
At 250pts it's harder for certain usual suspects at 300pts to bring enough orders and their heavy weapons to make the cleansing. On the other hand, people may go for a single group in that points bracket, meaning it's much easier to trigger retreat, so it would require a much much precise player (both at counting and strategizing) to make right Alpha Strikes, instead of mere phyrric victories (in which yeah, you get the match point, but your chances to win the tournament took a nosedive)
Oh there's definitely enough points. 9 orders on the Squalo MMR with the option to flip a COMD token for 10. 5 on the MHMG Squalo with a COMD token to flip for a 6th Enough Combat power for an Alpha Strike ────────────────────────────────────────────────── GROUP 1 8 2 SQUALO Mk-II MULTI Marksman Rifle / MULTI Pistol(+1B), CC Weapon. (1 | 57) CRABBOT Flash Pulse / CC Weapon. (0 | 0) FUSILIER Missile Launcher / Pistol, CC Weapon. (1.5 | 15) FUSILIER (Lieutenant) Combi Rifle / Pistol, CC Weapon. (0 | 10) FUSILIER Combi Rifle / Pistol, CC Weapon. (0 | 10) FUSILIER (Hacker, Hacking Device) Combi Rifle ( ) / Pistol, CC Weapon. (0.5 | 15) FUSILIER (Commlink [+1], Specialist Operative) Combi Rifle / Pistol, CC Weapon. (0.5 | 20) MACHINIST NCA (Bioimmunity, Veteran) Combi Rifle, D-Charges ( | GizmoKit) / Pistol, CC Weapon. (0 | 16) PALBOT PARA CC Weapon(-3). (0 | 3) CSU (Specialist Operative) Rifle, Light Shotgun / Pistol, PARA CC Weapon(-6). (0 | 11) TECH-BEE (Specialist Operative, Deactivator) Flash Pulse ( | GizmoKit) / Pistol, PARA CC Weapon(-3). (0 | 5) GROUP 2 2 1 SQUALO Mk-II REINF (NCO) AP Spitfire / MULTI Pistol(+1B), CC Weapon. (1.5 | 63) CRABBOT Flash Pulse / CC Weapon. (0 | 0) SHONA CARANO REINF Submachine Gun, Nanopulser(+1B), Flash Pulse / Pistol, EXP CC Weapon. (0 | 27) GROUP 3 3 2 SQUALO Mk-II (NCO) MULTI Heavy Machine Gun / MULTI Pistol(+1B), CC Weapon. (1.5 | 71) CRABBOT Flash Pulse / CC Weapon. (0 | 0) FUGAZI DRONBOT Flash Pulse / PARA CC Weapon(-3). (0 | 7) FUGAZI DRONBOT Flash Pulse / PARA CC Weapon(-3). (0 | 7) WARCOR (360º Visor) Flash Pulse ( ) / Stun Pistol, PARA CC Weapon(-3). (0 | 3) 6.5 SWC | 340 Points Open in Infinity Army
When you are refering to the O-12 prestige rule - there was an update. It will not work in a combat group with TA. €dith: Ah I see you probably mean the Warcore and Techbee - never mind ;-)
Yeah. O-12’s Prestige change didn’t bother me too much. It’s just revert to previous principles prior to ITS15
Weird of the army to place the reinforcements as group 2 XD. I would not take Shona, but a Blade Ops engineer and 2 palbots (you can shoose to not deploy those, so the blade ops can duo with the Squalo), mostly because that Machinist in group 1 (and the tech bee) has a target in the back, specially if the opponent has EM weapons. Anyways, that's a great list for going first in firefight, annihilation or the like, but at least around here that's one of the three missions, the other two being mostly of button pushing... And, well... you lack any Mimetism counter (besides the fireteam), smoke combo counter (besides the fireteam) and you have neither doctors nor paramedics... A sniper with mimetism-6 will devour your ML fusilier and a cenobite linked can really take the risk of a FtF on her HRL at BS14 B3 :/
Wow. I was today years old when I found out that the entire reinforcement model line and rules concept was designed to balance GMLs. Edit: Also, I am of the opinion that the game is mostly tested and balanced (to varying levels of success) around people doing their best to maximize the amount of points and models they bring to the game. I say this because of exactly the examples brought up here.
I doubt it. Even if the palbot dies, the Blade Ops is still considered a Controller. I doubt you can cheat it by buying palbots and then not deploying them. So far, all you can do is have 2 doc/eng and decide on deployment to whom each palbot will belong; and that is only because Army doesn't have a way to show who are the palbot controller during list building/list printing.
No? You can't be a Controller without something to control, please note how "controller" is never defined by itself, but always in relationship to the servant. Also, what I said was to choose wether to deploy the peripherals or not, you can't gain anything (not even a tag, in this case "controller") from something not on the table! Assignment of servant/controller is done in deployment, not on the Army (because, believe me, Corvus could have implemented that should they wanted to, it's the same procedure they use for holomask, only instead of replacing the whole troop entry in the PDF, it would add the servant under its controller, the same way a sincronized troop is added... Mind you, some troops -all AD ones- have this already, with the Delta doctor + Yudbot being the most recent example). Your argument is the same as claiming that you need to define the fireteams on the Army instead of deployment, frankly...
Can you not deploy what you have in the reinforcement group? Can you not deploy what you have in your army (which does not have AD nor Hidden deployment)? Edit : The wiki says All Troopers belonging to a Reinforcements Section must be deployed during the same Tactical Phase. from the 4th triangle of the "Reinforcement & Reinforcement section" part. And I understood this says All troopers must be deployed, not part of them.
I feel like you didn't understand me. Or rather, no I don't believe the part where you said "believe me", because I have contradictory evidence from a closer source. What I'm saying is that currently peripherals are assigned at deployment (that part we agree), because of the limitation of the software (and this is where we disagree). And I'm saying that if the software would be any better, it was CB intention to have us pick a controller at list building. Here is my reference : "For the record, as far as I know, the idea was always to assign peripherals to a specialist at the list creation". I'm sure when psychoticstorm said "the idea" he didn't meant his own personal idea, but the idea of CB. Your personal idea is that it was never meant to be assigned on list creation, and you base that on the current implementation of the software. A logical conclusion, I take nothing out of that. But I maintain my hunch that if the software and rules were written slightly differently, CB would not hesitate having assignment done at list creation. Thankfully, currently we can assign on deployment. That said, I don't think you can read from that rule section or elsewhere, that you can opt to not deploy some of your stuff.
It would be hell to read but it would maybe be better if REMs like Palbots were under the troop that can take them rather than separate. But then it's hard to control the AVA.
That would be an ideal solution, but as you said it can potentially dramatically increase the amount of available servants on the table.
They could do a "Note: Limit 2 peripherals". Or whatever for for that troop. For instance my Lamda would be limit 2, but I can still take one with my Delta doctor.
My personal idea is that when you try to squeeze so hard people see the options but can't use them, people do not like it (see how well received is the Commlink trooper tax as a very relevant example). While I can imagine some of the designers at CB are of the railroading inclination regarding RPGs, that is not a great strategy when trying to sell a product, since the more rigid it is, the less options are present, and it becomes harder to attract enough people. I agree that a competitive game has to have some rigid parts, but making it monolithic everywhere leads to monolists, which I don't think is the selling point of Infinity, and we are talking about AVA 2 or 4 models that cost 3 frigging points, not the Avatar... so while it is important to separate those Servants that can deploy specially (some version of AD deployment), stratificating the regular servants, which are thrown in depending on points availability and controllers availability (come and tell me those factions with a single doctor and a single engineer have a problem with servants AVA...), seems a little... excessive Check the definition of Trooper, Servant peripherals are not (they neither generate nor consume orders by themselves, despite being able to declare and receive attacks independently if they get an ARO but their controller does not). Unrelated, since the code already checks the presence of several units that have different troop entries (Achilles being the most common example). In any case, this is not a problem of data control but of data presentation. No? As I mentioned in my previous post, you use the same process for changing a holomask troop for another valid holomasked troop, only in this case you trigger the assignment with the presence of "doctor/engineer" and "servant", letting you choose which troop each servant gets assigned to (align 2 yudbots, the program asks you to select a doctor or engineer for the first, then for the second. Please someone think that if only one option is possible, autoassign gets needed). The player gets shown then an entry similar to that of the Delta Doctor with Yudbot. Besides, that is a problem only in certain factions (usually nomads, aleph, haqquislam, and o12, due to the others having trouble finding, much less fielding, more than 2 troopers that can act as Controllers)
something interesting that I saw in the app is that if you add an AD troop with a doctor / engineer rule (such as a Tomcat) and a Zondbot (not a zondcat), the list is valid. but, assuming that there is no other doctor / engineer in the list, and that the Tomcat is not deployed at the deployment phase, what happens to the zondbot?
Because this is a really old debate that has never been cleared out, as I have said before I do not care if it is resolved either way, but my understanding was and is that the peripheral should be assigned on the army list creation and not a free element to be assigned as it is convenient per game, obviously this has any merit only in tournaments were the same list can be utilized more than once and can have a severe impact radically changing the list performance. That is a good question in N3 we played the peripheral as deployed in disconnected state, I am not sure if there was a clause that the peripheral needed to be deployed with the controller back then.
The game breaks, sadly XD (now seriously, you can do so because it is possible to deploy an AD trooper regularly on the deployment phase) Again: https://infinitythewiki.com/Terminology Man, I would love for Corvus for be coherent with their Tags instead of using the same word in a way that contradicts their definition. Mind you, the wording on the Reinforcement rules can be read in two ways, with the english translation tipping to the "deploy all thingies in the Reinforcements group" and the spanish wording tipping to "all thingies" pointing to the "inside the ZoC of the droppod in the player's half of the table". @psychoticstorm I think this is another point to send back up to CB for the next iteration of the ruleset, so they can clarify one way or another. Technologically is possible with minimal effort, but I feel it would take some flexibility from people's hands when we talk about sectorials, since some lists can be assembled in such a way that on deployment you can rearrange a haris and a Core so the haris wants to have a doctor or engineer in it, while the other one goes with the servant. Again, I get strong vibes that CB's designs tend to railroad players, while I prefer having (and giving) the most flexibility in things that are not all that critical (so the ones that need strict enforcement sting less). RAW HSN2: Ghost:Servant troopers will be deployed at the same time their doctor/engineer is deployed as if they were a single trooper. Note that unde Requirements, however, it was stated that the player had to identify which trooper each servant was linked during deployment; and late on on the last effect it was mentioned that the servants with AD would be deployed with the same Order their controller used to deploy (also, within the same circular template/edge of the table). So in N3 it could be argued that when you deploy the servant you need to identify the trooper it is linked to, but troops not in the table can't be target of skills or effects, and there are already mentions of the servants with AD skill, and it was commonly accepted you could not link a regular servant to an AD doctor/engineer. The problem was, of course, the Tuareg (Hidden Deployment) doctor (which was, and still is, a unique case).
There are things called “exceptions” and Corvus Belli clarified that the peripherals are troopers. For me, the important part of the Trooper wording is “Game element with Attribute ~ Army List of any player” and the following part is additional explanations. If anything that cannot match every specific word in trooper is not a trooper, then Netrods and Imetrons are not Troopers because they cannot declare attacks? For the latter part, I don’t know Spanish so I can be wrong. However, you said “all thingies” and not “part of thingies” so I think it also means “all thingies” must be deployed. Also, you are saying “able to contribute and spend order” part is important to be a trooper, but “all” from “all thingies” is not. I think that is selective emphasis and interpretation of rules.
