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

The definite N4 Comments, Suggestions, Ideas, wishlist's and Bugs that need fixing thread

Discussion in 'Access Guide to the Human Sphere' started by psychoticstorm, Aug 6, 2019.

  1. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    6,281
    Likes Received:
    7,837
    As someone who has very strong opinions about Heavy Infantry game balance in general, I do not think there's something inherently wrong or unbalanced about the expensive HI. Much like with TAGs, I think it's the under-optimized HI that needs attention and that is strictly not tied to a cost bracket.
     
  2. meikyoushisui

    meikyoushisui Competitor for Most Ignored User

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2017
    Messages:
    1,378
    Likes Received:
    1,874
    Yep. I think IA's method of putting the Tac Aware orders on the less useful/bloatier/vanilla profiles is the right move in the context of linked units. Zuyong Combi? Not good. Zuyong Combi TacAware as a link filler? That's pretty okay to me.
     
    #942 meikyoushisui, Sep 22, 2019
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2019
  3. Spellbreaker90

    Spellbreaker90 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2018
    Messages:
    88
    Likes Received:
    58
    IMHO the problem is how the order is priced in the model. I know HI have a lot more to them than a simple grunt. But a 50 point HI gives you just one order and 2 Wound while you can get 5 order and 5 wound with the same point cost from cheap grunt.
     
  4. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    6,281
    Likes Received:
    7,837
    Yes, but if you consider how to spend the next 100 points, you can get more value out of those 50 points most of the time compared with filling an order group with another 5 orders and 5 wounds. That's harder to do with 40 point HI, however, considering that a 50+ HI tends to have those skills that are flat-out better per point than pure stats where as a 40-something HI tends to have pure stats. LI also has something like that going on around 25-30 points, depending on what the LI had that constitutes those 5-10 something points of special skills.
     
  5. Nenyx

    Nenyx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2017
    Messages:
    734
    Likes Received:
    748
    With that reasoning one should always take 30 grunts and have 30 orders and 30 wounds ...
    Don't you think that it may be better to field one or two of these 50 pts HI and fill the rest with various cheap guys ?
     
  6. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    6,281
    Likes Received:
    7,837
    IA had at launch four profiles with TacAware, three of them doesn't really need it for internal balance as they would've been taken regardless and the fourth one it isn't quite enough to make it very useful (which kind of says a bit about where the sectorial is in terms of external balance).

    While I think tubes (HRL and MLs etc) could benefit greatly from having a bit more agency in the active turn other than being a cheerleader when the enemy has stopped trying to face-tank their missiles, you could take this even further and say that brawler profiles should have TacAware rather than fire support. CB have been very careful so as to put TA only on units that cost SWC (until the Gecko), but how do you effectively get a Shang-Ji or a Guarda up the table where they need to be? I still think TA shouldn't be handed out like candy, but if it was decided it becomes candy then I'd stick it exclusively on HI with Combis or shorter that start in the DZ.
    TA could also be used in such a "candy" kind of way to simulate the old MOV 4-4 when all HI were 4-2. It'd create some pretty bonkers lists with huge extra order overhead, but let's play with the thought of TA (and its corresponding cost increase which honestly makes it a lot less auto-take than it sounds) was handed out to all high-mobility HI (Zuyong, Shang-Ji, Domaru, all the 1-wounders, Guarda I think... maybe Aquila and Asuras) provided they have light weapons.
    The interesting dynamic I'm after here is that increasingly these units would start moving using models that can't fight effectively at range as the spearhead. HMG is a lot safer to move with and react to a marker or HD sniper revealing at range, but if you are incentivized to use profiles that'll be in -3 or -6 that could act as a further balancer.
     
    Section9 and toadchild like this.
  7. Section9

    Section9 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    5,919
    Likes Received:
    9,332
    Interesting thoughts I needed to drag over here:


    The thread I pulled this from was talking about Possessed TAGs, and noted that because Possessed is a Null State, you could remove some lines from the Possessed rule since those lines were also part of being a Null State.

    I really hope this is one of the N4 changes. So that the same information in multiple rules is written the same way every time.

    This is really important. @ijw, @Bostria , @Interruptor !
     
    Hecaton and Berjiz like this.
  8. RobertShepherd

    RobertShepherd Brisk antipodean

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2018
    Messages:
    1,060
    Likes Received:
    1,707
    I'm sure this has been mentioned before, but if Jump could be reworked to remove falling damage from the game*, that seems like a net positive. The interactions falling damage has with test run. experimental drug, explode, possession and impetuous orders are all things people seem to tolerate at best and are actively annoyed by at worst.


    *(e.g. a model could refuse to jump it it can't reach the destination with its available movement; retain the ability to fall safely in the super jump rules, then remove falling damage entirely or leave it as a terrain rule in an appendix somewhere for special scenario use. I'm sure there'd be other ways to do it as well.)
     
    theradrussian and toadchild like this.
  9. Leviathan

    Leviathan Hungry Caliban

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2018
    Messages:
    806
    Likes Received:
    848


    As in, models would refuse to jump off of buildings unless they could land safely? Makes sense to me. Most troops aren't so blindly loyal to stupid orders as to leap to their deaths on command, after all.
     
  10. RobertShepherd

    RobertShepherd Brisk antipodean

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2018
    Messages:
    1,060
    Likes Received:
    1,707
    Pretty much.

    There could also be other ways to do it, but basically falling damage literally only ever seems to come up as part of some janky interaction that gets raised eyebrows. Pretty clear candidate for removal some way or another.
     
    toadchild likes this.
  11. Barrogh

    Barrogh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2017
    Messages:
    1,870
    Likes Received:
    1,601
    Since we've mentioned movement, there are some old pictures in the rules that illustrate how moving through obstacles work. I would like to see them not re-used since they confuse people more than they help. For example, people still ask a lot of questions about "vaulting", but not many people instantly realize that models "turn" their base to the wall when they climb on a vertical surface.

    While we are at it:

    - remove first clause in Climbing Plus description. It does about nothing except confusing people;
    - unscrew default Climb: currently there is no legal way for a climbing unit to go anywhere except up along the wall until it reaches base contact with a ledge, or down from whence it started that climb because horizontal movement is not permitted (and even if it was allowed, in order to place your model on a roof or whatever you have there you'd still have to move unit along trajectory where its base would not fully rest on a surface which is illegal);
    - it's also unclear what happens to remaining MOV values when you move your model's base from the ground and on a wall (maybe we should do away with turning models on their sides entirely?);
    - unscrew the interaction when someone gets shot while on a wall: currently game breaks when this happens because you cannot fulfill obligatory instruction to put the model prone;
    - perhaps it's worth looking at staircases and make rules for them specifically - there are many terrain elements with them coming from official partners of CB, but they are messy unless each step can fit entire model's base. And units larger than S2 exist.

    On a side note:

    I would appreciate if people will abstain from trying to use "colourful" language while writing rules. For example, using "declare which units" when it comes to selections that can legally contain less than 2 eligible units, or "can use this Special Skill no matter whether you declare X, Y or Z" when it actually means "can only use this Special Skill if you declare X, Y or Z". While not necessarily mistakes, it's confusing.
     
    eciu and Hecaton like this.
  12. ijw

    ijw Wargaming Trader, Freelance Editor (UK)
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    5,237
    Likes Received:
    10,633
    Could you expand on this?

    I know what you mean, but it's automatic, not obligatory.
     
    A Mão Esquerda likes this.
  13. Barrogh

    Barrogh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2017
    Messages:
    1,870
    Likes Received:
    1,601
    Let's imagine we have some Climbing+ model coming into contact with a wall, intending to walk on it. At that point you need to put a model onto said wall, bottom of the base fully in contact with it. The question is, do we count that operation as movement which consumes part of MOV allowance? For example, is it free because it's not standard movement that consumes MOV? Do we consider this as if we moved distance equal to our base diameter (since new position is effectively base-to-base with old position)? Something else? I'm not sure we can make much of what's written in the rules on the matter.

    Granted, I've never seen this causing heated arguments, although people do tend to ask each other how to play this sometimes.

    I stand corrected I guess, but I didn't mean it as any sort of game term, it's more about game telling you that you must do something, but you end up in illegal game state if you do. Maybe I don't know something here and the entire point is moot, but this question actually was causing holy wars in our community more than once. Looks like people do have hard time figuring a definite answer here, even if it exists right in the rules.
     
    ijw likes this.
  14. ijw

    ijw Wargaming Trader, Freelance Editor (UK)
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    5,237
    Likes Received:
    10,633
    As per http://infinitythewiki.com/en/Distances_and_Measurements you pick part of the base (usually the leading edge) and measure how far it moves.

    So for a 25mm base it's 25mm of movement, for a 40mm base it's going to be 40mm of movement etc.

    It's different at the top of the Climb, but that's only because of the FAQ entry specifically saying that you get a free base-width when reaching the horizontal surface.
    [​IMG]



    Yeah, I think this is a subtlety of English that gets lost. Automatic and must aren't synonyms, and have different meanings. 'Automatic' means that it happens by itself, not that it happens regardless of other restrictions. So in Infinity terms it means you don't need to spend Orders etc. It doesn't over-ride Climb's restriction of never being able to be in Prone state while holding on to a vertical surface, because 'never' is an absolute term.

    That said, I agree that Climb (and Jump) in particular needs tightening up. Personally I'd also like to see most of the restrictions listed in Climb and Jump (like not going Prone) be moved to the General Movement Rules.
     
    Section9, A Mão Esquerda and Barrogh like this.
  15. LaughinGod

    LaughinGod Well-Known Member
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    408
    Likes Received:
    660
    Saw warbands discussion few pages back.
    Smoke needs to lose +3 range band. Same goes for smoke dodge. This is the only nerf smoke and warbands really need IMO ( well most of them need some case to case adjustments, like Ghazi but that is linked with other stuff in their kit not specifically smoke ). Making smoke disposable would just make keeping track of things a nightmare, and some factions would have to carry crap ton of unloaded tokens and move them around the map.
     
    theradrussian likes this.
  16. Barrogh

    Barrogh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2017
    Messages:
    1,870
    Likes Received:
    1,601
    Smoke losing +3 rangeband means rather unfortunate things when your smoke chuggers are likes of Kitsune or Al-Fasid.

    Revising means of access to it is probably the most sane idea I've seen ITT.
     
  17. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    6,281
    Likes Received:
    7,837
    And re-evaluating the PH on said models. *coughyuanyuancough*
     
  18. Spellbreaker90

    Spellbreaker90 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2018
    Messages:
    88
    Likes Received:
    58
    Yes, but that usually bring to the type of lists where you have a big killer unit and a lot of chearleader for him while usually list that play a lot of middle ground unit are penalized. IMHO regular order on the unit body should cost more the cheaper the unit is.

    For example if the base cost of a unit is 9 or lower the Order addition cost 5 point, bringing the unit to a total of 14 point.

    While if the unit goes over X, let's say 20 the cost of the order goes down to 2.
     
  19. Barrogh

    Barrogh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2017
    Messages:
    1,870
    Likes Received:
    1,601
    I'd say it has more to do with how marginal differences between ~14 pts troopers and oldschool ~24 pts troopers. You generally only take the latter when you need access to something specific they have or try building specific links.

    And when it comes to point cost changes suggestions we run into old topic of stats vs skills pricing, bloat, Fury discounts and other stuff that also gets in the way here.
     
  20. LaughinGod

    LaughinGod Well-Known Member
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    408
    Likes Received:
    660
    You still get good chance to use smoke. Smoke launchers should still keep +3 range band, issue is with throwing smoke not shooting it. And if some units like Kitsune have problems without +3 on smoke dodge, hyper-dynamics exists and is given for free AFAIK so there is your solution.
     
    DukeofEarl likes this.