1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hemos actualizado nuestra Política de Privacidad acorde con la nueva RGPD. +Info // We've updated our Privacy Policy to comply with the GDPR. +Info
    Dismiss Notice

So... N4 Hunh?

Discussion in 'News' started by AdmiralJCJF, Aug 4, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Andre82

    Andre82 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2017
    Messages:
    492
    Likes Received:
    572
    I would like to see luck being less of a factor.

    I would like major victories in ITS games to go away.

    I would like armor to be less valued.

    I would like Tags to be less of a massive risk and see more play. Honestly not sure how you would do this.

    How are remotes immune to posession but tags with pilots can betray me?

    All factions being able to score all 10 points for any mission.

    ITS approved maps.
     
  2. Tourniquet

    Tourniquet TJC Tech Support

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    426
    Likes Received:
    464
    Tinbot A grants deflector 1 which is only the -3 to enemy hacking. giving TAGs tinbots is interesting but how that would interact with pilots and operators could get weird.


    I really like this idea, and would really like to see it
     
    WarHound and AdmiralJCJF like this.
  3. Bohrdog

    Bohrdog Santathematics

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2017
    Messages:
    215
    Likes Received:
    247
    Tags need to have the bulldoze rule back. I don't know why I'm stopping for that S2...stomp stomp.
     
  4. Werekill

    Werekill Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2019
    Messages:
    116
    Likes Received:
    72
    I'm in love with this idea. Nice suggestion!

    I also favor reworking crits, like others have said. Crits auto killing leads to some rough stomps from pure luck, and they feel bad on the receiving end. Even something simple like changing them to "crits cause two wounds instead of 1" could at least improve interactivity.

    I want them to still have a large impact, but as is, they are the only mechanic that isn't interesting to the player on the receiving end. Or at least as far as I'm aware.
     
    Modock and AdmiralJCJF like this.
  5. bona

    bona Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2018
    Messages:
    67
    Likes Received:
    86
    Like many have previously stated, I’d like a living electronic rule book, but I want to take it even further. I’d like the rules, profiles, faction/sectorial AVA’s, and fireteams entered in a versioned database. The database would be the truth data that Army operates off of, the wiki is generated from, and the PDF/ebook versions are created from. That way any update to the database will update all other products automatically and consistently.

    In addition, the database could be supplied to the community to be used in apps like MayaNet. Eliminating updating the data would greatly assist app developers and encourage app diversity. The algorithm to generate list codes should be shared so that lists could be freely shared among the various apps, Army, and ITS.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
     
  6. Ogid

    Ogid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2018
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    751
    I agree with your points, hacking devices need a bit of love in general (I covered that in other posts), but the KHD need a big tweek to make the rest viable; it's like giving away an HMG that only work versus some models and give the specialist trait on top of that... I don't really understand why it is so cheap.
    I'd make 2 separate KHDs to avoid just removing the cheap KHD
    • KHD (same cost right now): SWORD 1, Upgrade: Cybermask.
    • KDH+ (cost like an AHD): SWORD 3, Upgrade: Cybermask + Breakwater, ignore firewalls, can delay his ARO declaration versus Hackers in hacking area.
     
    Superfluid likes this.
  7. deltakilo

    deltakilo Bear of Butcher bay
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2017
    Messages:
    630
    Likes Received:
    1,664
    As if TOS don't already do enough. Now they have to setup all tables according to a format? The armoury and engineering deck already rarely see alot of play at tournaments because of their setup restrictions.

    Blaming dice or claiming luck decided the game comes across as disrespectful to your opponents. I can think of maybe ten games where dice played a significant result. (I stopped counting my games around 300 in 2017) and of those games where dice were rough I still look back at things I DID WRONG. Blaming dice or luck or opponents list is the best way to let yourself off the hook and not grow.
     
    #67 deltakilo, Aug 5, 2019
    Last edited: Aug 5, 2019
  8. McChucho

    McChucho Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2019
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    16
    @Deltaki agreed. I played a game last wednesday where i didn't win because:

    a) I missed hacking an objective on 13s.
    b) A glued yasbir passed 2 damage 16 rolls from my bandit.

    But then instead of fixating myself on those rolls i thought what mistakes i did to get me where i relied on those rolls, and oh boy i did plenty mistakes.
     
  9. deltakilo

    deltakilo Bear of Butcher bay
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2017
    Messages:
    630
    Likes Received:
    1,664
    It's not that individual dice don't suck. It's that rarely they matter in a vacuum.
     
  10. Ghiacciolo

    Ghiacciolo New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2018
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    2
    Just get rid of critical hits... maybe even whit a switch to fancy dices like aristeia's
    insert a table construction phase where the table is set up whit randomized key scenery in prefixed table locations
    maybe add some punch to tags, factoring their weapons are supersized respect normal infantry equipment
     
  11. Alfy

    Alfy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2019
    Messages:
    88
    Likes Received:
    160
    [​IMG]
     
    WarHound, Section9, Ravrohan and 7 others like this.
  12. Andre82

    Andre82 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2017
    Messages:
    492
    Likes Received:
    572
    Considering the effect maps have on the outcome of matches I would at least like to see more guidelines and more examples.

    Easy cowboy, I am not blaming anyone for anything or trying to get off the hook for anything. So go ahead and cool your moral outrage. =p
    Just saying I would like to see the power of variance downplayed a little bit. Maybe then I would even get to see a player try to infiltrate past the 24 mark with something other then Grunts if the penalty for failure was not so high.
     
  13. -Ghost-

    -Ghost- Shalashaska

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2017
    Messages:
    344
    Likes Received:
    350
    Used to be able to mess with anyone. Back when engineers had to repair damaged weapons and equipment. I miss those days.
    Well, hell. I guess I've been out of it for a while. You're right. For some reason I thought tinbot gave a firewall.
     
    csjarrat likes this.
  14. Ender101

    Ender101 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2017
    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    7
    I'm hoping for the streamlining of rules and the simplification of the Hacking charts.

    I'm in the camp that I'd like to see hidden skills on the individual unit entries, some skills that simply encompass previous levels are fine (Martial Arts level 4 containing 1-4 isn't hard to remember, but trying to remember that they also have a litany of other skills baked into that one has led to a great deal of forgetting rules in my own play group as we've come in and out of the game over time).

    My pie in the sky is that I'd really love for TAGs to have a hefty overhaul. I love my big stompy robots and am apparently a glutton for punishment so they still they hit the board. I really liked the idea of giving them a dangerous hacking defense to dissuade hacking attempts. But I mostly think they need a change in approach for how they are designed, and what role these pieces are meant to play. Especially with the emergence of large silhouette heavy infantry that don't suffer the inherent negatives simply being a TAG offers while still outputting similar firepower for sometimes half the price. Should they be tougher? Perhaps Total Immunity vs strength 13 or lower so only specialized weapons are truly threatening to them? Should they be more threatening? I'm not sure, they aren't completely worthless in N3, but they are too hard to use in my admittedly less than humble opinion.

    The crit discussion is interesting. The auto-wound has led to a great many feel bad moments in my games, either my own or my opponent, so perhaps it wouldn't be bad if it changed to auto-winning the face to face roll and count as either an AP or DA round instead of an insta-wound. But then again, crits are supposed to be really swingy, so I have conflicted feelings. I love them in concept, but they are rarely enjoyable on the tabletop for one of the players involved.

    There were a lot of good changes between N2 to N3, so I'm optimistic that N3 to N4 will be a positive direction for the game.
     
    Ravrohan and AdmiralJCJF like this.
  15. Ogid

    Ogid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2018
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    751
    Hacking should be important in this kind of setting, specially for high tech factions; not up to the point to be irreplaceable but they should bring a lot of utility and interestings plays to an army, not just 1 or 2 ways to buff REMs and a few (ineficient) ways to cause states.

    About critical hits. This is a wild one but, as showed FAT2, the more dices the more obnoxious the critical mechanic get.
    If the modifiers would get reduced to +2 as some users suggested (so they wouldn't be that oppressive either), what about if only 1 dice could crit in every roll (this would require having 1 dice of a different colour)? This way every model would have a plain 5% of inflict a critical hit, the high ARM models would be more stable and playing around modifiers even when you have a big B would be important. It's not like throwing 5 dices isn't an enough advantage anyway.
     
  16. ijw

    ijw Wargaming Trader, Freelance Editor (UK)
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    5,248
    Likes Received:
    10,647
    You're thinking of E/M ammo. Apart from Hacking Device Plus being able to mark targets, Hackers couldn't mess with anything other than HI, TAGs and Remotes.
     
  17. SpectralOwl

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2018
    Messages:
    574
    Likes Received:
    912
    The penalty for failure is often three orders of walking. I'd honestly like to see Infiltration and Impersonation make the roll even when deploying nearer to the DZ to give Forward Deployment or Mechanised Deployment more of a niche, and make midfield a less sure bet for both sides.

    My suggestion here would be to make crits auto-succeed, but NOT auto-wound (or auto-apply their effects). The save stats have enough trouble staying relevant as it is, and always having them as a safety blanket against nasty effects would be nice, but crits are a fairly important counterbalance against strategies revolving around single high-stat units mowing their way through a whole army or mod-heavy AROs, and helpful for giving a player in a bad spot a chance at recovery, keeping people interested throughout the game.
     
    Ogid likes this.
  18. Cothel

    Cothel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    464
    Likes Received:
    1,252
    I am the victim of Crits. In one Limited Insertion game I lost 8 units to Crits. Crits are fine and should not be changed.
     
  19. Ogid

    Ogid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2018
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    751
    That would also work, either way it would need a rebalance because with the non-autowound some high ARM/BTS in cover wouldn't be able to get damaged by most weapons (maybe changing the rule so a 1 in a damage roll would always be a wound...)

    XDD
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
    theradrussian and Alfy like this.
  20. Pen-dragon

    Pen-dragon Deva

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2018
    Messages:
    395
    Likes Received:
    868
    I think the crit mechanic works well when the average soldier is only throwing 2-3 dice, but with the ease of getting 4-5 dice these days, I feel the effect of the crit mechanic is greatly magnified. I think Burst and Crit need to be looked at together to come up with a satisfying solution. I think it is good to have a mechanic in the game, that gives the lowliest grunt a chance, (even if it is only 5%) to hurt the toughest things in the game. That prevents the game from becoming a "haha cant hurt me!" stomp fest.

    I agree that nested skills are messy. Some sort of cleanup there would be nice. But what would really help is the merging of redundant skills, like the oft mentioned Guard and Martial Arts. I would like Guard changed to something simple and intuitive like "This model counts as two models when determining CC modifiers."

    I agree Hacking needs some serious streamlining. Consolidate all the hacking programs into the most commonly used ones and jettison the rest. I would like to see a total reorganization. Assault programs - attacking equipment, like tags, HI armors, comms devices, mines?. Assist programs - spotlight, all the REM buffs, fairy dust. Counter-intelligence programs - specifically for attacking hackers, and negating other hacking programs. Make one hacking device each that only gets programs of their type, Assualt, Assist, or Counter-intelligence. Hacking Device plus gets access to all programs. Toss out a handful of special use case hacking programs. These special programs should probably be character only, or limited to the 'hacking' factions.

    I would like some sort of expansion / cleanup on things like Limited Insertion. 10 orders per side plays a lot quicker than 15+ orders per side. 15+ is fine, but I think some sort of management of expectations is needed. I feel like Limited Insertion tried to address that issue, but I think there is room to take things further.

    I think weapons need to be streamlined. Burst 3 mid-range, call it a rifle. Shock ammo, its a shock-rifle, plasma ammo, its a plasma-rifle, All ammo types, its a multi-rifle. They do this pretty good with rifles, but more standardization with other weapon profiles could make it much easier to know what each weapon does. And please fix smg, too many advantages for too little cost. Drop the special ammo rules unless the unit is specifically carrying a 'shock smg'

    I also think the game could benefit from a little trimming of the profile 'bloat' but I have no idea how to do that without pissing people off.
     
    Ravrohan and AdmiralJCJF like this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.