Any version of gameplay mechanics will get some people to complain about it, so it shouldn't be a factor is designing them. The specifics of their in-game effects and consequences should always be the primary factor. Partial statistics available suggest that Moiras are actually taken, when they can utilise their strengths without getting exposed to template threats - as HMG or MSR, probably linked and utilising long fire lanes. Nokken and Locusts, another fragile units protected mostly by Mim (-6), and what's more, specifically tasked with midfield operations in mind, also see some use. It might be that the risk is more palatable, when it's a single unit, not a fireteam. There's also the fact that PanO has little alternative to those two - there's Uma (who has Camo for more protection) and Blade (which has the same problem). Another unit that suffers from it are Jayth; moderately expensive, designed as a CQB singles or Haris, but folding like a wet, 90-pts tissue to anyone with a Chain Rifle or any kind of shotgun. To be fair, cutting some DTWs from the game wouldn't help them much, they are a solution in search of a problem. I liked the Impact Template shotguns, because they were interesting, and my group never had serious arguments about template placement. I can see the need to balance it, maybe lowering the damage by 1-2 on template mode, but it'd at least mean that Mimetism is more likely to make a difference, when on unit being the main target of a shot.
My biggest worry with cutting out a lot of DTWs is that it would in effect nerf a lot of defensive set ups. I get that DTW spam does make a lot of otherwise interesting unit archetypes basically non-viable, but I'd also want some systemic change to tone down the power and prominence of offense.
I think you may be on to something with the template observation, but there are a handful of MI that are viable and used. Recosting and/or profile tweaks should make a few more useful, either by making the glass cannon-ness of them worth the risk or by making some a little tougher.
Unfortunately it’s a LOT harder to take away something than to add something. Taking away DTW or changing them drastically will have a lot more problems than adding something to MI.
Both directions are hard to pull off if they're being done top down, applying any changes in general. It's easier to go at it on a unit-by-unit basis. Regarding shotguns it's a bit easier, since we know how it worked before and can compare. The issue is to find common ground in our impressions about it.
True, but explaining them to newbies was some work. Which made me say they were unintuitive, and express my understanding for the N4 change into Direct Template mode. BTW, you could also invoke the N1/N2 method, when initial target was an FtF case, and if the attack was successful, the following targets were affected by a Direct Template attack originating from the impact point on the original target.
Yeah, I’m not in favor of the old rules. I like simplification. Not for the sake of it but if you can do it and still work well, then do it. The old way was NOT simple. Right now, the issue is that MI die just as easily as LI but for a higher cost (generally). So, players are not taking many MI. I know a few that say they won’t take something over X amount unless it has 2 wounds, NWI, or a vital skill, in my meta. So that generally leaves out MI because they at that cutoff cost. The only thing I can think of, using current rules, is to increase the ARM. Right now, an ARM3 troop has a 50/50 chance of going down to a rifle. Going to ARM4 would not be horrible. Especially if they only have 1 would and nothing else. No NWI, Dogged, or even Mimetisim. Edit: also, personally I think ARM should be Equipment. Not something that defines what type of troop you are or a Stat.
A nice thing the "new" shotgun rules have added is a DTW that does not have intuitive attack, only other weapon are riotstoppers.
The best light-touch intervention to start with is dropping templates from optional-DTW weapons (like shotguns) by 1 or 2 DAM. This makes a player face an actual choice between using DTW and direct-fire. Much like modifying the overly-powerful HMG ranges from N2, this small-ish change to the game would have a subtle but broad balancing effect. That will not deal with dedicated-DTW spam as well though. I'd rather see -all- DTWs drop by 1 DAM. A 1-DAM nerf to guaranteed-hit-unless-Dodged template weapons would not be game-breaking or even unit-breaking given the low cost of these weapons in troops' point calculations. Dealing with the slightly overpowered presence of DTWs is probably the fix the game most desperately needs.
Templates also ignore Cover, the majority of ARM that lighter units can access, making their effective Damage three points higher than it looks on boards with N3 levels of scatter- worth remembering.
Since I started at N4 launch I am curious of this. Do N3 and N4 tables have different levels of scatter and clutter terrain? Where N3 tables more dense and “close quarters combat”?
As always, take with a grain of salt as I'm going mostly off my own experiences here, but scatter was both more necessary and frequent during prior editions as Cover required a third of the Silhouette to be obscured in order to claim it, and it wasn't automatically granted by high ground. This meant you usually covered boards in bins, billboards and the like so that minis of different sizes could claim cover as they advanced. With Cover now being granted by keeping a pinky toe behind a building, people seem to have gotten a fair bit lighter on the scatter, mostly keeping things to larger pieces so that cover isn't omnipresent. Certain boards back in the day actually had entire DZs where TAGs like Maggie couldn't claim cover sometimes due to how big an object needed to be to grant it, though that was usually on subpar table designs.
I would like to see a general -3 damage on shotgun and chaingun type templates (not hit mode, and not flamethrowers). It feels a bit off that a scattershot at a target 9" away in cover does more damage, more reliably, than a solid slug. Getting damage numbers down to where "passing the armour save" for ARM 3-6 is a valid tactic also makes skills like Courage and Religious more relevant.
It has always (i.e. since N1) been equal as for the damage value, with Boarding Shotguns and Heavy Shotguns getting AP effect on the "hit mode". You're trying to apply RL logic and circumstances to Infinity - and they are not applicable, at least not 1-to-1. For example, back in N3 (can't recall whether it was the same way in N2) the shotgun template spreading from the original target was fluff-justified as a proximity-fused flechette round, not your old-fashioned shotshell. But the bottom line is - do not try justifying Infinity rules by real-world firearm / tactic / computer references, as these are imperfect analogs.
What about treating a shotgun template the way the HRL works? Require both shot types to roll, and the choice being weather to negate cover or not. Granted, that leaves light shotguns in awkward place, but it does help reduce DTW proliferation some.
I would be fine with that. While Haqqislam loves light shotguns, the auto hitting templates in N4 really made Naffatûns suffer in comparison.
I never chime in because I don't get in enough games but have been playing a lot more lately. As a Hassassin player I like this. Sure it will nerf some of my Fiday shenanigans but I can stomach that.
Which is exactly how it worked in N3 - both weapons' template modes were Impact Templates. This is what some of us are advocating here. Changing it back and reducing the template mode damage by 1, the same way it works with HRL, would be great.
The hard part with N3 was the ranged effect of the teardrop. I was just thinking of keeping the small teardrop template for range but making it a roll. Place template, roll to see if it hits.
