Carbonite calls, @Section9 , it would like to have a word with your Tiger about how unstoppable it is.
Now we do, and we just don't use that rule anymore in fact, since it's pointless to attack buildings. The only real benefit is to create a narrow passage - something you don't need to begin with, since it's easier to just walk around the scenery or shoot from another angle. Or use spec fire. Why would you use orders to do some hole through a wall for little benefit ? And by the way, your real life examples are always very interresting, but remember the technology in infinity has nothing to do with it. In a world where plasma weaponry is a thing, i wouldn't be surprised if civilian grade buildings were about as strong as wet paper vs military weapons. There are no materials that can handle plasma, only force fields can (but in game, plasma is not even antimaterial, balance issue i guess)
Well, in reality materials do funny things sometimes. The excessively low tech construction material used in Afghanistan, consisting mostly of hay, mud, water and goat blood, becomes very resilient against weather and tank rounds, the latter because it's not hard enough to reliably trigger the fuse but plenty thick enough to stop its kinetic energy. I still wouldn't rely on them for protection, but simply shooting at those walls with modern rounds wasn't very effective. @Nenyx partly I think Tesseum CAN handle plasma, and partly I think it's a case of the size of the charge and effect. Keep in mind that a 40mm Tesseum round fired on a magnetic rail isn't going to be anti-materiel in this setting, plenty armour piercing, but not anti-materiel. Also, do we even know what material is used for making the plasma? I assume aluminium or something like that...
Agreed, you should pick either level and enjoy the perks rather than adding a weird edgecase scenario that only works if you go second and does weird things with what a marker state is.
Tbh I don't think it's that bad once you get Holo 2 down. It opens up some nice tricks for some armies, if only in the beginning of the game - but who said it isn't important part of matches? There are some oversights in the rule, but overall it wouldn't bother anyone if going a year without official clarifications wasn't a thing.
Nicely said, Superfluid. I've also found it pretty rare for Infinity players to be dishonest and also seem better behaved than in other games generally, but I still strongly agree that rules should be watertight - there's just no good reason for them not to be. The measure of success for any game's rule set is that it be written so that the game rules are absolutely clear, assuring all players at all times what is and what isn't correct. Clearer rules mean infractions are easier to identify and prosecute, which reduces cheating. Clearer rules are easier to comply with, which makes games more relaxed and enjoyable for casual and competitive games. And clearer rules are easier to change, so if we don't like them, we can more easily and fairly alter them in our locale, or to enhance narrative campaigns, special missions and especially tournaments. What should never happen is for players to end up relying on their interpretations of the rules, or argue amongst themselves about what the rules mean, or suggest that one interpretation is more legitimate or more desirable or better than another interpretation. Unfortunately, that is happening with Infinity, but it shouldn't be. Rules are not art - it should not be possible for players to find alternate 'readings' of the work. There should only ever be one reading.
? Tigers aren't hackable (obvious exception of the AHD). The Zuyong is stopped by Carbonite, which is probably worth a points discount somewhere. @Wolf , you need to be careful with what you wish for. I've played a game that had precisely defined interactions with explicit examples of how each rule interacted (reprinted in all the rules that were interacting). It's called Star Fleet Battles, and the rulebook is 500+ pages, not counting fleet model descriptions and scenarios. Games basically come down to who remembers the rules the best, there's not a whole lot of tactics in it.
Yeah but then what is the point of a Lu Duan? Actually don't answer that, there's not even really a point rn
I'm considering it for JSA - it can pretend to be a bunch of bikes during deployment to scare people. But if we're ignoring the H1 + H2 thing... Holo2 lets me deploy the model and echoes at the limits of coherency and deny a big area with the threat of HFT (the only one in the sectorial) or Repeaters (1 model in centre, 2 models at opposite ends of my 8" ZoC, with threat of a further 8" ZoC for Repeater... that's the entire middle of the table *possibly* inside my Hacking Area). Alternately, in active turn I can move to draw LoF and provoke an ARO, then move a second time when the ARO'er chooses to hold rather than shoot blindly. It makes it a REM with a pseudo Cautious Movement ability.
Regarding other rules - Whilst not a rule, I'd like to see an end to SWC on Lieutenants. Or, at least, SWC on Line Infantry Lieutenants. SWC should be used for purchasing an advantage, like a better gun/s - SWC on Lts should be reserved for Lts who significantly benefit from their profile, like multi-wounds or ODD or other resilience-boosting skills. They shouldn't be implemented on chump Keisotsu and Morat Vanguard. It just feels like a thematic penalty being applied will-nilly to some factions and not others, and directly impacting game mechanics.
Just saying, but a Kanren hiding as a few celestial guard LTs is worth giving up FD for in some lists and same for Saladin in Haqq. Yes, Section9, I meant that you were missing hackable trait in your comparison between Zuyong and Tiger. You came to the conclusion 2W was worth some 5 or so points in that comparison but missed that HI has a 10+ discount due to being hackable (highly relevant now with Tunguska threatening to completely kill off HI lists again, we'll see how things develop)
Fair points @Section9. I have a couple of replies: I agree that it's highly undesirable when games end up like that. Games that have greater depth in pitting the skills and imagination of opponents tend to use a relatively static rule set that's comprehensively understood by both players - one follows the other. If one player doesn't understand that something can be done, that makes for 'gotchas', a less engaging and a more frustrating game. We all need to know how the rules work before we get into making meaningful strategic and tactical decisions. The best and most enduring games are the ones that are easily learned but take a lifetime to master - iGo, Shogi and chess are the prime examples. Again, of course that's undesirable, but I'm not proposing more rules or more rulings as a solution to the shortcomings of our rule set. Most of Infinity's core principles could be clarified with a single sentence or two that would lead players to the correct conclusions where difficult or unexpected rules interactions need to be worked out in situ. That's not a big effort and wouldn't bloat the rule set.
But removing it would make some lieutenants *incredibly good*. There seems to be a pretty universal penalty for CH: lieutenants (which is a good thing, IMO) and in the case of the examples you've presented, Morats are immune to LoL so you should always bring a lieutenant you can spend orders on if possible, and in the case of JSA, highly aggressive lieutenants + cheap CoC is both thematic and has pretty deep implications for list building. I already take huge issue with no SWC on the Farzan in Hassassins, given how cheap they are for marker state CoC.
Between people making remarks about ghazis, Tarik, order spam, and now CoC farzans, sometimes I look at my Haqq collection and feel like asking myself, "Are we the baddies?"...
Man, I must be losing brain cells or something (and I'm not even drinking!), I'd completely missed what you were getting at. So, your analysis of the points system leads you to think that going from 1W to 2W is ~15 points, concealed by a pretty massive discount due to being hackable? (It's been a long time since I tried to break down the Infinity Points system, so I just don't remember anymore) Well, the process of learning Infinity used to be filled with Gotcha moments. "Wait, you can attack me from my own deployment zone?!?" "Wait, you can Hidden Deploy a TO Camo dude?!?" "Wait, Killer Hackers do what?!?" etc. Barring the issues from translating Galician(?) to Spanish to English. As you well know from translating Infinity into Japanese, translation is far more art than science, despite what Google thinks it can do.
Not sure about your brain cells, but on the topic of wounds; yup. I can't put my finger on exactly how much it costs, but cross-referencing Reverend Healers and Moblots my best guess is revised to roughly 7 points (for cheap 2W HI) with Hackable being a 5 point discount. While this sounds low, I'd argue that this is in reality not low since the points cost concentration in units with this extra wound is a significant price to pay.
