Discussion in 'Access Guide to the Human Sphere' started by psychoticstorm, Aug 6, 2019.
What is about the Rui Shi core that gets people riled up when compared to an Aquila core?
Better burst, range and mobility for a 3rd of the price. It's ridiculously overkill once you apply the assisted fire supportware, especially in a sectorial who has access to smoke.
Durp I missed the aquila was limited to the multi rifle variant. That said is it just the weapon that swings it or is smoke the factor?
The added burst
and then some! It honestly feels like the result of Infinity Draft, where Dashat player first picked Mcmurrough and only missed on Ghazi, netrods and posthumans.
Like, straight uprgaded Libertos with AVA2 is enough to kickstart any army to the top and everything else is also amazing to the point of broken.
The only saving grace is unwillingness of people to collect models from three factions and a lot of samey bounty hunters into the soup army, so there wont be THAT much Dashat plagueing all metas around the world.
Supportware and Burst is what brings it up too high, also cost. The Rui Shi core costed 68 points before the nerf to Fireteam composition rules and only about 90 post-nerf.
I don't think smoke access matters a lot, anything you won't beat with BS18 B5 MSV2 you won't beat while also imposing a -6.
I mean maybe, I haven't found it so (it feels a lot like a ragtag mercenary company to me, which seems the intent). Maybe it's really too strong, I dunno, but I was more commenting on how telling someone who would objectively appear to understand the game better than the great majority that an argument surpasses their understanding, seems a bit cute.
While that's probably true, I think it also sells him a bit short TBH. Like a lot of good players when I've seen him do well he's appeared to bring a very well thought out list that tends to take other players off guard, and practiced close to mastery, as well as just playing the game well in general. It's sort of a human trait to add a halo effect to people doing well I think, but I feel like that maybe sells short the effort they often put in over others that may not get the same results too.
What's interesting I think though is what perceptual skews that might introduce. Like, I've noticed many very good players of wargames tend to view them as more balanced than average players. If you can win with a potato or the best list equally, does that tend to make you feel like they are more equally balanced than they are to the average player? I'm not sure, but it doesn't seem unreasonable. On the other hand expertise is literally better understanding of balance too obviously. I guess balance is relative to the player, and that's why these discussions often end up very circular.
How about making HI immune to crit? That would devalue crit and make HIs more worth taking.
Talking as a wargamer in general, not as an Infinity player, I'd say it's obvious the better the player, the better the capacity to assess if the game is indeed balanced. It comes down to being able to separate the "bad" side from the "hard to play" side. In many modern wargames - the cardboard kind, one side is noticeably more difficult to play than the other. The better player will find more games to be balanced because they are capable of playing all sides effectively.
And of course, when you have a metagame, an army being good or bad is not necessarily an absolute concept. Again, only the experienced player who goes to a bunch of tourneys can separate the "this army is bad in this meta" from the "this army is total crap". While on the other hand, absolutely everyone can say "this army is crap when I play it at my LGS"... They just don't usually put it that way.
Ah, yeah, I'd forgotten about him losing XImp. That was a pretty big change.
Which then leads to the question of why HI are immune to Crits but TAGs or REMs aren't.
As far as Total Immunity goes, CB deliberately chose to make the rule do what it's name sounds like. That is generally a really good decision from a gameplay perspective, makes it easier to remember what effects a rules has. The problem is that being totally immune to all the special weapons types is too good. I agree that Flash Pulse should still be able to affect models. No matter how many drugs you are on or how many backup systems you have, getting your eyes/cameras burned out (or at least temporarily overloaded) should still be an issue for you. Fixing this may require the re-introduction of the Blinded state.
I'm liking the idea of a Crit being an Auto Strength 20 hit. I tried finding something it would work with and can't think of much. At first there was an Ah ha moment with Monofilament but then I realized it's a dmg20 hit vs. 0 ARM. But then of course it's ends up being the same as it is. It even works with different Ammo types.
Eh, remove the 12 point better than most factions line troops bounty Hunter wild cards and I think dashat would suddenly not feel so egregious. It almost feels like an experiment on how soup you can make fireteams and not totally mess up balance.
Seriously, most factions wild cards are special characters, or elite troops and often limited in application.
Dashats like, eh. Take one of something and 4 bounty Hunter for core link bonii! Get some good bounty Hunter rolls for extra bonii!
It'd be thematic if you had a Lucien Forza core with bounty hunters that you could wild card in other troops like rui Shi or zuyong and bring the fire team options in line with most other sectorials.
There's a few things - the combination of MSV 2 and MML2 and the +3 bonus from a 5-strong fireteam really pushes it over the top, in a way that Dakinis or Unidrons can't reach. It's the fact that it has easy link chaff to support it. And then there's the fact that it's using a faction (Yu Jing)'s toys better than they can.
I think people would be bothered a lot less if they had, say, some sort of unique HI bounty hunter profile with a unique, powerful Booty table.
Sure, but there's also the "Factions my army can beat are fine, factions that can beat my army are overpowered, my faction is underpowered" factor going on there. And that's one of the ways that I disagree with @Hachiman Taro , I think that the more I play Infinity the more I realize the ways in which it *is* unbalanced. If someone is winning regularly, there's a perverse incentive to say "Of course the game is balanced, the only reason I'm winning is because of my superlative skill!"
And on the other hand, if that same player can play multiple different armies and still have the same win% it's a lot harder to argue that the game isn't close to balanced.
The only perfectly-balanced wargames are Chess and Shogi, where both players have exactly equal forces and table mobility. But compared to a lot of other tabletop minis games (GW and PP specifically), Infinity is a lot better balanced. Player skill matters a lot more than choice of faction.
I guess what I was saying is that we all have unconcious biases no matter how smart or skilled we are, thats just part of being human. Makes us defensive sometimes but its true.
They just get further confirmed if you only listen to your own experience, so we have to listen to others (even though they are fallible too) to keep us in check.
Not amazingly profound but easy to forget too.
Do you feel there’s a faction/sectorial that’s better than all others? Note that I’d argue that in a multifactions game like Infinity, balanced does not necessarily mean every army has exactly the same chances of winning. An army can be arguably better than most, it’s fine as long as it has a strong foil. It then becomes a metagame choice: do you play the better army? The foil? Or go one step up and play the foil to the foil? As long as these principles hold, the competitive game could be fine, even if it can be a more annoying on the casual side. I have seen some consensus that a few armies are weaker in Infinity, but not that any one was better.
I play a few armies. (CA vanilla, Morats, Haqq Vanilla, RTF, PanO Vanilla, NCA, Varuna, MO, Foreign Company)
And there are some i would bring to a tournament and alot i simply wouldn't. (It depends on the missions being played as well of course) I still love the others and have fun with friends in casual games but it does say something about the game (and maybe the ITS missions).
Depends on what those armies are. Good players are better at identifying which armies are powerful.
Statistically? Vanilla ALEPH.
The problem is when, loosely speaking, rock beats both scissors and paper. Some factions in Infinity are like that.
My general observation has been that the more experienced and confident in themselves a player gets (which is not necessarily the same thing as becoming better, but it closely correlates), the less likely they are to be willing to make really firm or unqualified claims about balance across the game. I think this is because you don't typically reach that point of self-confidence without confronting and overcoming your own boogeymen repeatedly - a confident player will usually have had multiple experiences where they've been walloped by something, and then gone on to figure out what they can do to overcome the problem when they play it again.