Dumb idea repeated from the Nomads version of the thread. A special coordinated order rule letting AD units form a fireteam while landing, or needing to spend a second token afterwards. The former feels better for flow to stop people just landing one at a time then forming the team to save a token, but maybe a team landing should cost 2. Letting some AD units form Duos or even Haris teams would be pretty fun. Place the burden of points increase on the Duo/Haris guys. And also issue it sparingly. Don't let everyone have Duo, let even fewer have Haris. Ideally only the most skilled and elite paratroopers should have the option. Hellcats was my main suggestion, but Airborne Rangers, Ragiks, Akalis, etc could be candidates.
Autotool is functionally just Remote Presence. 14 points for someone with a B2 weapon with rifle bands isn't particularly good.
I like a lot of the ideas being tossed around, especially the conversations I've read about assisted fire. One thing though: I thought you said there was no counter play? Please correct me if I'm wrong. I'm just not really following the logic you seem to be wanting to communicate. Why would you spec fire out of a good range or a link? I was speaking of the several lgls that CB has introduced to link teams. In a vacuum, the disproportionate unit cost or order expenditure may look like exactly that, (disproportionate), but you're ignoring the opportunities to hit or threaten multiple units while safely moving a full fireteam up the board with little to no consequence. That counts for a lot in terms of potential or actual objective points and acts as a substantial threat to any opponent's plans. For example, moving your team into a descent position and then using a couple orders to spec-fire a threat is a totally viable strategy. Even if you only try once and fail, you should've been able to set up an ARO counter to the jammer - meaning you can shoot and kill for free on the reactive turn. Some basic stats from a team ... ~29% isn't great odds for a lot of shooting but it also isn't the worst I've seen. Face to Face Roll Druze Shock Teams (X Visor) - E/M Light Grenade Launcher vs. Ghazi Muttawi'ah - Dodge Active Player 29.77% Druze Shock Teams (X Visor) hits Ghazi Muttawi'ah (Disabled) Failures 29.73% Neither player succeeds Reactive Player 40.50% Ghazi Muttawi'ah Dodges Druze Shock Teams (X Visor) Active Model Base BS of 12 Speculative Shot grants -6 BS Range grants +3 BS Link Team grants +3 BS Net BS is 12 Fatality grants +1 DAM Reactive Model Base PH of 12 Net PH is 12 Now, assuming you don't spend 3 or 4 orders to kill the ghazi, and you pass the turn, you can easily have a situation set up where the ghazi has to come at you're full team. Face to Face Roll Ghazi Muttawi'ah - Dodge vs. Druze Shock Teams (Mimetism) - MULTI Sniper Rifle (Anti-Materiel Mode) Active Player 19.64% Ghazi Muttawi'ah Dodges Druze Shock Teams (Mimetism) Failures 7.34% Neither player succeeds Reactive Player 73.02% Druze Shock Teams (Mimetism) inflicts 1 or more wounds on Ghazi Muttawi'ah (Unconscious) 60.07% Druze Shock Teams (Mimetism) inflicts 2 or more wounds on Ghazi Muttawi'ah (Dead) Now that's really decent odds for an ARO. And the threat is neutralized. If they choose to spend orders to cancel the involuntary move, you're still winning in a way. Finally, I hate to think about this whole interaction in a bubble. Chances are, the ghazi is protecting another unit that could be clipped with a sec fired template, meaning you're threatening more than just a 5-10 point unit. EDIT: Not trying to come across combative here. Like I said, I think a lot of this discussion is interesting. I just haven't ever seen this as a core mechanic that needs changing. I think its really cool that infinity has several different ways you can leverage skills and weapons.
That assumed good range. Remember that spec fire takes the -6 penalty for spec fire. Comparing Druze feels a bit dishonest since they're the second best spec firing link in the game right now (after Starco.) Most factions with LGLs have them on BS11 line troopers, which means even in the most ideal circumstances (5 man, good range) you're shooting on 11s.
How is that dishonest? Do you accuse everyone of dishonesty when they disagree with you? Again - I'm not really a believer in every faction having every tool (or at least having all tools at the same level of strength). I think that would make the game a bit stale.
Calm down dude. All I'm saying is that the potency of spec fire is very low outside of a few corner cases (such as Druze or StarCo). I agree that in those armies, spec fire *can be* viable for dealing with things like Mutts, but they're not representative of spec fire in the rest of the game.
lol. Resorting to mockery are we? As I've been saying ... Thanks for the concession. Nor should they be. Variation is the spice of life. Plenty of other options exist and you seem to have ignored most of what I've written so far on the topic. Obviously you're one of those who chooses to deride rather than discuss. I'll leave you to your own devices.
And here I'm wondering why? I, a new forum user, have been accused of dishonesty and been told to calm down because, I presume, my opinion differs than theirs. I don't offend easily. (Nor do I think he was trying to be offensive), but this all just strikes me as a poor defense for an argument that really doesn't need to be argued. By now we've all agreed that there is indeed counter play to the jammer. Right? Not every faction has it, which I think is okay. Others seem to think infinity should be more like chess. The fact there's disagreement doesn't mean either party is being dishonest or becoming excited. I have an awesome community of Infinity players nearby who introduced me to the game a ways back and have finally encouraged me to make a profile for this upcoming campaign. I wrongly assumed the larger community would be full of people with similar character traits. Since joining the forums, I've seen players like @AdmiralJCJF (who l've heard is a community leader), and others accused of a cheating scandal, I've seen users talk down to anyone who disagrees, rather than entertaining a discussion, and I've seen a lot of time and effort being put in to what looks like the creation of an environment that doesn't allow the community to grow. Now I'm left wondering if this forum is maintained by CB, or is it community driven? I was under the impression there might be community managers or something who would curb some of the internet's lust for confrontation and encourage a helpful community. If @meikyoushisui or other users can't make a point without trying to deride the integrity of a fellow community member, then I suggest they reevaluate the point they're trying to make.
I think most people can see the, at times excessive, conflict in the forums but in this specific scenario you seem to be taking Meikyoushisui's comments very personally. While he disagrees with you on some points I don't see any evidence of an attack on your credibility or opinions. You can be the change you want to see though in this community. The more people that behave civilly the better off the forums are.
Yeah, I don't think he was calling you dishonest, he was more saying "it's not representative of the main".
No, mate, he wrote that he would feel dishonest for making that comparison - that phrase changes the subject of the sentence to the speaker, not you - and he did you the courtesy of telling you why he would feel that way, giving you the opportunity to discuss the basis of his feelings on the subject, but... well... Now, I think you're miss-characterising, or at least making a few too many assumptions, about the side of the "opposing" side in the Jammer debate, but I've had enough of OldGregg's abuse to go into the debate of Jammers again. This forum is... not really moderated. We have a CB-endorsed moderator, but I've yet to see someone being banned or timed out.
I'm aware, I read those replies. Note he said comparing them -feels abit- dishonest. And then he elaborated on why in a clear way. And Im not really sure how the words Calm down dude really become an insult. Particularly when he goes on to outline his stance again concisely and then even agrees with you on parts of your argument.
Couldn't agree more. Which is why I began with compliments and have been open and honest, showing my own vulnerability when comments have been perceived as rude or out of line. (Meaning there’s no need for comments like that in a civil conversation). Don’t know what all this is about? If you’re being abused by a fish-man-thing, I’m not sure what that has to do with this conversation? And why do you say “opposing” side? Am I not entitled to share my opinion on the topic? Well, it indicates I am not to be trusted due to mental instability- therefore encouraging others to disregard my opinion. (Which I believe is a valid one). But apparently this is derailing the thread. I’ll move on. Maybe the upcoming campaign won’t actually be as fun as I thought it would.
You quoted me and in the second paragraph wrote about Jammers and the "others" who want Infinity to be "like chess" (which I'm not sure what aspect of Chess you mean - is it the mirrored match up, the solved game part, or the centuries it has followed mankind and the millions of people who've learned to love the game?). You are free to voice your opinions on the topic, but I have had enough of being exposed to abuse from that one single person whenever being critical of that piece of equipment. It gets old really fast. Since you were quoting me about Jammers, I responded to you about why I don't talk about Jammers much anymore. And it kind of ties in to the rest of your questions regarding the community.
@Doom you may be looking into what the average forumite thinks too deeply. Perhaps the calm down was an attempt to actually legitimately make you take pause? Edit: whoops posted just a name....
Not sure how this guy has offended you ... but I’ll reply to this piece as I think it will bring the conversation back on track: I’ve seen a lot of great brainstorming and ideating around what’s possible for n4. One thing that I’ve seen recently is some players arguing the need for more balance in infinity through taking away pieces not all factions have access to or vice versa. A player in my meta and I were talking about this and he encouraged me to look at it in a different light. Chess is a fantastic game, but many war gamers seem to drift to other, more complex systems for various reasons. One of these reasons is that imbalance, variation, and player choice are incredibly fun. Playing a mirror match every game would get stale, imo. If I wanted that, (and sometimes I do), I could easily take a break from infinity and play chess for a while. (And I do). Another great point you bring up; some of the appeal chess has for me is because it’s solved. I think every game, given enough computing power and one could be solved, but I enjoy the challenges infinity brings to the table because it hasn’t been solved yet, and has inherent imbalances. I’ve heard through the rumor mill that they will be simplifying rules and interactions in n4. This has the opportunity to be incredibly helpful. I just hope they don’t swing out too far in that direction, as I really enjoy the problem solving required for players as it stands now. I get that you’re trying to take a jab at the end there, and I’m guessing it’s because you believe I’m trying to offend you. I’m not. I’d be curious if other players think infinity should be more like chess?
If MSV’s cost is going to be balanced around terrain zones then the rules need to give some guidance on zone frequency and placement instead of treating terrain as an optional extra.
Well it's not like Spec Fire is particularly effective against units with Jammers - indeed, since 2/3 of the units with them start in marker state, it's somewhat ineffective. Moreover, it's often extremely inefficient, to the point of being more costly than just suiciding more expensive units to kill the less expensive warband. So it's not counterplay in the sense that it's particularly effective against Jammers, and it's not counterplay in the sense of being worth it.
