Yup. They weren't in memory so they didn't make my list, but they do add a bit of fuel to the fire that there's a bunch of great CoC and a couple of fairly terribly designed ones.
I think a key difference here that didn't seem to be acknowledged is what some people look for in CoC and what CB might try design a CoC unit for. Eg. Most people stop at CoC being a safety blanket for their aggressive LT. While kirpal and pheasants appear more like a second Chance at an aggressive LT. Now you might argue that wasn't designed well. But you have to start by acknowledging it night have been designed that way to start with.
I managed to forget the Myrmidon Officer, so I think we're even, @Mahtamori . Particularly in N2, losing your LT basically lost the game. Especially if you managed to have two turns in Loss of Lt. So us old geezers are rather risk-averse when it comes to our LTs, and think it's particularly poor design to have an aggressive model with Chain of Command.
I'm not sure I agree. I'm more inclined to agree with @Alphz on this one. An aggressive second rambo isn't a bad concept, but I think neither Kirpal nor Pheasant are well designed to be these models. To do lazy design changes, slapp ODD on Kirpal and make Pheasant HI (I'm guesstimating at most +10 points and mandatory +1 BS and +2 PH) and you'd be getting much closer to functional second-rambo, but they need this Myrmidon Officer treatment of having proper, valuable, defensive abilities. This doesn't change the fact that Kirpal is likely to either be dead or not be deployed when the LT goes down, of course.
Well, CoC worked differently in N2. You could bring Singh on whilst in LoL and cancel it. Right now, dropping the skill and giving him AD:5 in its place would make some sense.
In my opinion, AD5 is pure bloat. If it was smth like +3 PH to Combat Jump, kinda like it is with Superior infiltration (S.Inf is actually +6, but whatever), then it could be more interesting. AD5 as of right now is probably a cheap upgrade, and its effect (when it procs) is not really exactly negligible on some tables, but then there's how often people use AD4 over AD2. I don't see people being happy about getting a slightly more expensive Combi Akal with more CC tax and extra AD bloat instead of (admittedly shizo and thus unused) CoC trooper.
I haven't run any numbers on AD5, nor do I suspect it's possible, but I'd guess that it's "free" just like Doctor+ and Akbar Doctor compared to the lower level variant. That also means there's no chance in hell of Pan-O getting it (although occasionally hell freezes over and the next high-quality AD troop that's coming that is more substantiated than just a wishlist item is the Shooting Star, we'll see next year, though I highly doubt they'll have more than AD4).
There was a long-running thread from the old forum that had some decent arguments about pre-measuring, and theres no doubt the game still works if you want to play it that way. Plus, it almost goes without saying that avoiding the difficulties of visual estimates and the practicalities of managing models on a tabletop will certainly change the strategic emphasis. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by 'gamey meta-knowledge' though; I guess you mean that estimating unit positions is open to abuse somehow - can you explain your complaint a bit more?
Yeah, I'm no fan of the three-turn limit either; it feels like a hack to me. Most of my games seem to naturally run out after three turns pretty quickly anyway, and it doesn't really feel like it needs to be restricted. The 2 hour time limit in ITS feels sufficient. In my Magic: the Gathering club (which seems to have more than its fair share of highly intelligent, but also markedly oppositional members ...) we spent about a year playing around with scoring systems and time limits for matches. We ended up playing the DCI rules and limits - best of three games per match; 50 minutes, plus five full turns, and were interested in why it worked best. We think that if the time limit is known upfront, then you can both work with that - so simply having constraints creates a competitive format. For example, if you're losing the first game, you might concede it earlier than you otherwise would to give more time to try to win the next two, etc. And you have to factor in the time limit when you're building your deck, because if it runs as slow as say half an hour to play one game then you absolutely have to win that first game, because there's no time to recover if you lose it. So the DCI limits in MTG seem to work very well, and the whole competitive game gets structured around it, but in ITS the 3 turn limit feels rather forced to me. Why not just cut off at 2 hours?
There is no game duration specified by ITS, it's purely organiser's preference (and I suspect venue availability).
I stand corrected. I did say "The 2 hour time limit in ITS" but meant "the 2 hour time limit I've seen commonly played in ITS events". That does feel fine, whereas the Game Rounds limit (which I mistakenly called 'turns') as specified in ITS feels forced, to me at least.
Regarding the Tohaa's Taqeul, that is easy to forget since there is no model to represent it; you need to proxy it and the profile isn't what you'd call awesome in the first place (it isn't bad either, just expensive).
@Durandal As someone who didn't play N2 i still agree with all you're points about the rules. Many areas of the rules clearly need improvement. I've given my thoughts on the matter in abundance in rule threads so I won't repeat them here. Although I see pre-measuring as personal preference. First of all, eye balling and guessing ranges on a table is a skill. It may not be a skill everyone values, but it is undoubtedly a measurable(no pun intended) skill. Some people are going to be better at it than others and i have to assume practice can improve this skill. And obviously game designers get to decide what skills they want as part of their game. My personally preference... I'd like to remove guessing ranges as well. However, it does become more complicated when it comes to perimeter weapons. Either way I prefer things that speed up games allowing more time for what I enjoy. Which is strategically moving my troopers around to kill my enemy and complete objectives. But if someone else prefers to include guessing ranges as part of their enjoyment there is very little I can say. I'm not sure I understand either. I can't tell if he's simply referring to the practice and experience of a skill he doesn't value. Or perhaps he's referring to whatever contributes to that 'skill' in a more gamey/sinister manner. Using terrain markers during deployment, the length of your arm, other measurements in the area, knowing your own table, or whatever else I can't think of atm. I'm certainly a fan of removing anything that relies on gamesmanship to function fairly. I'd prefer time limits over turn limits myself purely for fairness. Having turn limits for a competitive match is only fair if all players actually get to complete all their turns. Which doesn't work when tournaments also have time limits attached to games without timing individual players. So 2 hour match times would be fine with me as long as each player had an hour to play their 3 turns. Punching a chess clock would suit me just fine. But i realize it might take some forethought to figure out how it should work. Infinity's ARO system might leave room for abuse. I'd have to give it plenty of thought first. I don't like the idea of time carrying over from game to game. It's bad enough players gain VP advantages from playing weaker opponents. I'd hate to see that advantage grow exponentially in the form of extra time. And worse still, playing someone who refuses to give up on what seems a lost cause. No one should ever feel pressured to give up early. Especially when lucky crit streaks can change games. .
Meta-knowledge in a game is any knowledge that transcends the prescribed rule set or that sits outside the limits of the game environment. Metagaming is any strategy that uses said knowledge to get a leg up on the opponent. Now, to be certain, there will never be a game not called Kriegspiel that entirely does a way with metagaming and meta-knowledge. Folks not wanting to find a ref means we have randomizers to determine task success (thus letting folks with statistical knowledge make better decisions). People wanting to play quick games without a prescribed scenario and pre-built lists means that we have point systems (allowing folks to analyze and cross-reference profiles to get the most efficient combos). And ain't nobody got time for twin-board hex-and-chit double-blind games (with a referee), thus we tend to have a god's eye view of the board state, possessing knowledge far in excess of what a typical military commander would have. But where all of the above is meta-knowledge with a purpose (mostly, to make wargames convenient for normal humans), range estimation is rather more of a relic in what it tries to achieve. You tend to find it as a hold-over attempt to create a "fog-of-war", which is a noble endeavour, but one that often feels more rooted in the peculiarities of Little Wars' "shooting system" (i.e. using a toy cannon to literally shot at opposing troops) than it does with trying to accurately simulate the kind of information a commander would and wouldn't have in most games. Range estimation is meta-knowledge because (especially in games representing modern or futuristic battlefields) range would be one of the few things that wouldn't be unknown. Thus, setting knowledge of it outside of the game environment doesn't really help to either grant the simulation more verisimilitude, nor does it really do what the other metagame concessions do in making the wargame itself more accessible. It isn't so much that range guessing can be abused (although it can be. See: people knowing perfect board positions to prevent bad AD scatters in 2nd Edition), but that being good or bad at it sits external to the simulation of small unit tactical engagements in the far future. Being able to see the difference between 32" and 33" should make you a better amateur carpenter, but seems like an odd skill for simulating tactical prowess in a wargame. Certainly, when I guess ranges better than my opponent and thwomp them with good use of ranging, I don't feel like a more skilled commander, merely a better gamer. For a game that actually does a better job than most of creating a state of informational asymmetry within the simulation (use of tokens/markers, hidden deployment, hidden list components, etc.), lack of pre-measuring is kind of glaring in that it seems to be trying to create a fog-of-war, but it does it outside the simulation and links it to a metagaming skill that has little actual bearing on one's tactical and strategic prowess. Given the level of data commanders and soldiers should have access to given the game's setting, it is also one of the last places I would expect to find this kind of rule being used to create a fog-of-war situation. I don't dislike a lack of pre-measuring because it can be abused or because it is a skill that one can hone and improve to gain an edge. I dislike it because it feels like a dissociated mechanic from the simulation of the game rules and using ones prowess in it doesn't feel like being a better commander, simply being better at a skill that would (should) have no bearing on the game itself. There are some games where the lack of pre-measuring can be used to enforce the simulation (X-Wing being a game of daring dogfighting and nailbiting minute-to-minute maneuvers actually plays in to this well, even if memorizing those templates is still a metagaming skill), but I don't think Infinity is one of those games (and indeed, I can name very few where I think it works well mechanically).
Among other things, it's a skill that some people have and others don't, and which has very little to do with playing the game. A tile setter or carpenter ends up with a very calibrated eyeball, as do aircraft mechanics. But some people don't work in a field where being able to tell where something is within 4" (the N2 range bands were every 4", not every 8"), which makes range estimation a skill that really matters on the tabletop but has not a damn thing to do with the game rules. While you should be able to pre-measure based on Infinity's tech background, my reason for not allowing it is purely gamey: people keep pre-measuring to get the perfect position and don't play quickly. Refusing to allow premeasuring means that you don't see the "no, I don't want to be there, I want to be here, no, I, no, I, no..." analysis paralysis in game.
I'd like to see more factions use more irregular units. I think it's a genius bit of game design, the regular vs irregular resource management and is something that is entirely unique to Infinity, and it's a shame that realistically only Haqq and Ariadna have to balance it. I think it might be interesting if, instead of having nearly all factions create easily entirely regular lists, it might be something that fewer factions get to enjoy rather than the norm. Additionally forcing more units to be irregular in a list is a great natural way of balancing order spam lists. You want bodies? Sure, but they come at the cost of flexibility. 20~ regular orders just shouldn't happen. Maybe we're going this way with the introduction of NA2, so the ratio of these types of lists is changing by simply adding more factions, but that doesn't alter the chemistry of the OG N3HS factions.
THIS. I've seen (and done) it many times, premesuring doesn't really speed up gameplay, you spend a lot of time setting up the perfect movement/charge/whatever.
Your reply makes good reading, thanks @Durandal. As a lifelong software engineer by trade my personal demon is Overbearing Need for Grammatical Precision, and the typically relaxed usage and meaning of the phrase can make me a bit twitchy; but no problem - I like your definition well enough Nicely said. Your point is that making strategic and tactical decisions about positioning is distinct from estimating those positions more or less imperfectly the tabletop, and you think the game would be better if it were more theoretical with less visual estimation. For what it's worth, my misunderstanding was just that positioning units to stack Modifiers seems such a fundamental tactic that I regarded it as intrinsic, and so by definition not the meta-game. That's only semantic though, and I take your points generally.
