September>December 2024: Nuclear winter has struck, leaving room for the N5

Oh sorry my mix up.

 

Yeah, I think I said it already. Vanilla nomads lost few if any important units, but we no longer see tons of fluffy units and many units that would have become perfectly viable if the auto-includes (i.e. morans, moderators, Jazz) got reduced AVA or a bit higher cost. Also, not particularly strong, but interesting and entertaining team comps like a demonist+gator, or skirmish spam, or double tag with stigmaton are now impossible.

 

It's the Kyojin Killers in Shindenbutai. Their lore even describes them killing the toughest megafuana.

 

Ah! Ok that makes sense then. Man I'm going to be very irritated if the YJ beasthunter is not in White Banner!

 

Remember the days of yore, when it seemed like the bulk of posters here fully embraced the need for bloodletting? I mean, on everyone else, of course.

 

LOL yes but only things I don't want!

 

We were talking about Essentials been plastic.

It seems there were posts that did not load on time.

 

Everyone has their weird flex pick that they like to spice up their lists. Paring even Vanilla down to the size of an N4 Sectorial is going to remove a lot of people's weird customisations and make lists samier across the board. Personally I'm happy about Character and Mercenary numbers going way down, which will go a good way to making armies look and feel more cohesive while still allowing for the motley crews of mercs in Sectorials that fit the aesthetic, but unhappy about how Kestrel was handled- it could have very easily been a well-received modernisation of the PanO concept, if CB stopped trying to market it entirely to new players unfamiliar with Infinity instead of the substantial playerbase they kicked the rug out from under.

(seriously, one article explaining how the players whose armies got cut can actually use Kestrel would have done so much for community reception. Or pairing JSA with an ALEPH or O12 release, instead.)

 

The main Shinju conflict is that of Pano vs JSA. With JSA doing a 'double traitor' move in order to become their own Hyperpower so pairing the JSA with something else would have not make much sense.

And regarding how those players whose armies got cut... shall we remember the incredible lenient rules of ITS?

 

The Shinju conflict is a current development, unless it was in Endsong (which wasn't available at my FLGS). Shinju could have just as easily have been written as a joint Japan-Concilium development, given O12's imminent homelessness at the hands of STALKER anomalies, at the same time providing a space for a new frontier ALEPH or O12 Sectorial without cutting down on the already constrained PanO.

No, man. Just... no. You may be able to use a chess set to play checkers, but that's no help if you actually like and want to play chess. I always used my NCA for high AVA on units like Hexas and REMs backed by high-power HI, while MO and SWF (and very likely Kestrel with its Black AIR linkability and lack of scoring heavies) are very focused on on their active Fireteams- a playstyle I simply don't enjoy.

 

A/ No. We know about the proxy rule, but that doesnt allow me to play the army i want. Yes i can play Z using X miniatures, but it doesnt have the same playstyle or sinergies than X

B/ Would you happily play a full tournament against 100% proxied factions without complaining? That's what your are suggesting

 

Is this any different to playing against an army of customised minis?

If you look at any proxied minis as alternative sculpts, Akilis for Banshees, Regulars for Fenics etc then is it much easier to process?

 

As long as it is painted I will be perfectly happy. In fact, I do prefer to play against a 100% proxied army that is painted, than against a non-painted army with 0% proxies.

Additionally, mind that people tend to use proxies who make sense. For example, they use a TAG for a TAG. Or a sniper miniature for a sniper profile, and so on.

Finally, if you put against me, let’s say, a Tohaa Army, I wouldn’t be able to recognize not even a single miniature on them even if they're the originals ones. And this would be true to any army I don’t actively play and own. One of my locals is an Ariadna player, and apart of specific models such Margot and Duroc or the Loup-Garous or the desperados I am literally unable to distinguish the “20th century looking guy with a rifle” next to the another “20th century looking guy with a rifle” standing half the table apart.

People tend to distinguish profiles by their general aesthetic look, I am sure you could field 4 light infantry “nomads guys” next to a heavy armored female nomad model with a missile launcher, and most people who are not familiar with the nomads miniature line will understand and recognize them as “moderators core with a ML Riot Girrl”… even if what you’re using is 4 Corregidor alguaciles models and the female Mobile Brigada ML. (This, in fact , I am sure has happened to me)

 

Yes, if it's painted and the proxies make sense (which is not very difficult).
Actually, one of my regular opponent mostly play StarCo and Dashat, with like 70% proxies, and it looks great.

 

Ok. Im gonna play Steel phalanx with my Military order miniatures, is that what you are ok with? The proxy rule say nothing against

(and i saw plenty of players doing that, the worst i remember a newbie, he bought some aleph and was using them to play aleph, but every miniature was representing another one, Hector was aquilles, V1 aquiles was patroclus, agema as atalanta, atalanta as scylla... and so on )

I dont have problems if you just proxy one or two figures

 

First and foremost November 18th ha
s not come yet so why would an official proxy guide be posted yet?

Secondly how do people see/ what people think of an official proxy guide? would it stifle innovative proxying or help players?

 

proxy guide? NO

Playable armies? YES

 

You know that you are not answering the question.

 

I think my previous message is clear enough.
Yes, if it's painted and if the minis make sense (like a heavy HI being displayed by a heavy HI, a warband by a warband, etc...).
And (apparently almost) no one will use the Atalanta mini to play a Scylla if Atalanta is in the list. That's a specific, isolated, cheery-picked anecdote, not a valid point against proxying.

 

What you’re describing here are two different scenarios:

a) use a cohesive looking army to proxy another with a cohesive plan. Such as for example saying that your KoJ are Hoplites, your Trinitaries are Agema, your Crucifiers are Thorakities, your Teutons are Mirmydons… and so on.

B) Use a plethora of mismatched models to look as mismatched profiles of the very army, creating confusion. As Atalanta is a sniper toting model, which makes absolutely no sense to be used as Scylla, a hacker, for example.


I have no problems with A) as I said,

B) is a different scenario, and in the case of B) I would suggest the player that maybe Atalanta model is not the best proxy ever for Scylla for the reasons I have exposed before. Buy if he has no alternative proxy because his collection is lacking or because any other reason, I won’t make it such a deal that stops us from playing.