Blargh. Damn furries! Guess that's what I get for not having played my Ariadna since N2... There was a time, probably 6 years ago or so now, when CB was playtesting N3. CB didn't know the rules to N2 anymore, and they said so. They were playtesting N3 a good 18 months to 2 years before it was released. Was a rough time to get an 'official' ruling on things at tournaments CB attended! Yet another simplification that probably should have been kept. Could be.
On the one hand, I'm a big fan of combining very similar rules, and would love to see a rewritten rule with a new name that can cover both. On the other, the Transmutation rule predates the Blackjack's addition to the game by a year or more.
I'd like to see the numbers for Airborne Deployment tweaked to make it more useful. AD is great for running interference or if you have access to Specialists, for objective grabs; but having to roll on PHY means a measly 55/60% success rate which is way too unreliable to be usable Who doesn't just walk their Combat Jump troops on from the edge? Dunno whether CB have deliberately designed AD to be as unreliable as it is, but I'd think adding about +3 to any trooper's PHY would make AD Level 3 and Level 4 (Combat Jump) more playable at a stroke. Any thoughts?
Presuming you're replying to my post IJW: Factoring in Controlled Jump's +3 PHY buff requires also factoring in your opponent's Hack Transport Aircraft at WIP -6 in an automatic ARO Face To Face. Like I say, who doesn't just walk their AD troops on from the board edge?
No. I don't actually use AD troops much at the moment, but when I do it's about 50/50. Hack Transport Aircraft vs the +3 MOD has such a low impact that you can pretty much ignore it unless there are multiple high-WIP Hackers on the other side of the table. It's about risk/reward - you take the (relatively low) risk of the PH+3 Roll to gain the reward of large positional choice.
Also the order investment. I'm not fond of the huge swing rolls of AD3+ and Infiltration on expensive troops. It's must worse for Infiltration rolls, naturally.
I can't remember the last time i didn't have an EVO accompany my AD trooper. But I'm a huge fan of using AD4. The positional gain is sometimes massive imo. Avoiding AROs and hitting what i want from the range i want is valuable to me. Having my opponent know I'm not afraid to use it is a bit of a double edged sword but nice at times. As @ijw says, it's risk vs reward. We take risks every time we throw dice on a BS Attack. Investment is still tied to any orders spent moving before we throw those dice. AD4 is just another roll of the dice to me, but one I'm happy to make if i feel the risk is worth the reward. The biggest problem i have with AD3 is table layout. Sometimes a table is severely limiting in terms of drop zones. I will say i look at normal infiltration rolls differently. They do not get a bonus and their positioning is not dynamic like AD. The reward for rolling on infiltration is much smaller and as such i rarely ever use it. EDIT: I meant AD4
The point is: you have the choice. If you use an AD4 for example (a common skill for many armies), you can either use AD2 or AD4 depending on the situation. Want a safe but limited landing ? Use AD2. Want to do some gambit that can turn the tables ? Try AD4. Moreover, only standard HD, HD+ and EVO (or maybe defensive/white, but who use them ?) can try to hack the AD. Your opponent may not have them (or they were killed), and KHD/AHD won't help. Sure, missing the PHY roll may be frustrating, but on the other hand, having a 55/60%, upped to 70/75% with supportware, chances of landing a troop behind your opponent, out of lof, and in position to kill a key troop (a revealed or guessed Lt, some easy cheerleaders, a key specialist ...) can totally change the game. It's risky, but very powerful. I don't think it needs any further increase.
Oh, when you give your opponent the allowance to premeasure they don't return the favor? I've done games with and without. It doesn't as much change the game as much as shift the focus. It can speed up or slow down the game depending how you do it. When I'm playing with my nephew we use a knotted string that has colored sections for 4", 6", 8", 16", 32", and 40" which makes the game go fairly fast. Its only fair if its permitted to both sides though Your second statement is very true. In any competitive setting I'll happily live with my own mistakes. I don't feel a need to push the game in one direction or the other, both ways to play are enjoyable
We have a small community so it's never come up. Hadn't spent any time thinking about it. You quoted three statements. Do you not like the idea that wargaming attracts socially akward people? That it attracts competitive people? Or that competitive people would be better off with games that aren't dice based? Personally I use AD 4 sometimes. I eyeball the situation coming from the side and if using AD 4 is safer than what they have to fight thru I use it. As far as counter-AD goes, I've been critted a bunch of times recently so it is getting annoying.
Fair enough, I did quote three. I was really just referring to the first. The idea that wargaming tends to attract socially immature people is not one i agree with. Many activities include people I wouldn't consider mature. I haven't noticed any higher percentage in wargaming.
Well, it might be based on the area. It's certainly been my experience. I was one of them when I started. Making a lot of local friends through it has helped me a lot though.
Which only reinforces that they could have made what is now Lo-Tech and alternate form of Transmutation. Rules be digital. It means they can be changed and updated. And you can't make an argument that it would invalidate the printed books - because FAQs and other rulings already do that...
Rule they definitely need to change is that half-witted Shock ammo ruling. Have I mentioned that yet?
RE:all this talk of Low-Tech vs. Transmutation, there is an important distinction. Low Tech A is a reduction of 1 from BS and ARM, and 3 from BTS after receiving a wound -- this is consistent across both Blackjack and Puppets. It's cheaper than a second wound due to the stat decrease. Transmutation doesn't work quite like this -- the Fractaa loses PH and MOV, but gains ARM and BTS. The Dog-Warrior gains MOV, CC, PH and ARM. I imagine these bonuses and reductions cost/save less points than they would on a strictly 2-wound profile. I agree the rules are bloaty, but it's more that Low-Tech is a specific "type" of Transmutation.
Both of them function in the same manner, they just swap from Profile A to Profile B. The costing comes from the quality of the profile.