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. toadchild

    toadchild Premeasure

    Feb 22, 2017
    Likes Received:
    I would actually be quite happy to see premeasuring in Infinity. While accurately guessing ranges is a skill, it's not a skill I think adds an interesting dimension to the game.
  2. WiT?

    WiT? Well-Known Member

    Dec 28, 2017
    Likes Received:
    Good god, can we like upvote this post somehow. This guy speaks the truth. While the whole post is fantastic and I am in total agreement with most of it, I'm wanting to bring more attention to this part;

    Edit: I've come back to this post to add a focus statement.

    1. The value that certain stats, abilities and attributes (such as "generating an order") have in the eyes of CB and of the player community are very different.

    Some major areas that I'm referring to;

    - Wounds are too expensive, and 'substitute wounds' like symbiont armour are too cheap.

    - That random secondary stats such as PH or WIP are too expensive

    - That ARM is pretty useless and expensive until it gets to a really big number

    - That Corvus Belli is gaming their own points system rather than fixing it. For example, adding Hyperdynamics to stuff because the amount of PH for a good dodge stat is too high, or adding NWI+Shock instead of a second wound because Wounds are too pricy.

    - The cost of upgrades to a model are too high vs the cost of just adding more orders.

    For example, a Celestial Guard (Boarding Shotgun) is 13 points, but a Bao Trooper (Boarding Shotgun) is a whopping 23 points. The important differences between those troops are +1 BS and MSV2. That shouldn't add nearly 100% to their price! If these troops were way closer in price, players would have a meaningful choice between taking the 'bare bones order generator' or paying a small amount to make it do something interesting.

    2. The balance between "shoot stuff" and "asymetrical abilities" such as smoke, camo, jammers or mines, is way too far in favor of the 'tricks'.

    These tricks are so easy to use that they are just powerful weapons and not really tricks at all. So we have models that have cheap and powerful abilities vs models that have points invested in expensive stats, which leads to a lot of abilities and bugger all of the other models seeing play.

    Original Post;

    If there is one major shift in N4, something that stops it being the N3+ that I assume it will be, it should be this idea of 'flattening costs'. Take a Zanshi, add 1 BS and 1 ARM, and it costs twice the price. Thats total horseshit. And to nobody's surprise, that doubly expensive unit doesn't see any table time.

    As the order system rewards playing the ceiling and the floor for power and cost, those middling units are already handicapped and can struggle to justify themselves. But its doubly so when you consider how expensive all those random stat shuffles and bloat gear get when they are given a flat cost that doesn't look at synergies (or just as important, lack thereof) within the profile.

    If the price of an order was raised, or the costs of gear were considered in context, I reckon we'd see a ton of profiles become way more playable. If a Fusilier was more epensive, a mid tier unit such as a Bolt wouldn't look so bad in comparison. Likewise, if you got an MSV2 combi rifle trooper for like 12 points instead of 25 we'd see that piece of gear be more diverse than it is currently.
    #102 WiT?, Aug 8, 2019
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2019
    Berjiz, Wyrmnax, Hecaton and 4 others like this.
  3. Nathonicus

    Nathonicus Well-Known Member

    Mar 16, 2018
    Likes Received:
    So I see your point, and I do respect that point of view.

    However, I think the converse is also true; some people are very good about mapping out an entire turn of moves ahead of time. (not me). If you can premeasure the battlefield, the people with that skill have an advantage that I think takes away from the 'fog of war' aspect I like in the game.
    bladerunner_35 and WiT? like this.
  4. Ogid

    Ogid Well-Known Member

    Sep 10, 2018
    Likes Received:
    I talked in other posts about the HI and TAG thing so I wouldn't repeat myself here, but in general terms I agree, these models need to get some buffs (or get less affected by states, criticals and special ammos).

    However my point, ideas like the quoted are growing in me while thinking in the next edition. Maybe 10 order combat groups are too large and are favouring too much the 8 dudes who don't know how to use a gun plus the good of war who will use every single order and the cheap good of war waiting for the first one to die... Maybe reducing the combat groups number (to 5 or 6) would help to create lists less reliant in a Rambo (or limiting the number of orders a model can expend)

    Maybe even changing the turn order so each player could expend less order at the same time could create a better experience.
    For example:
    Turn 1:
    • Player A uses 6 orders (player B reactive)
    • Player B uses 6 orders (player A reactive)
    • Player A uses 6 orders (Player B reactive)
    • ... continue until all orders had been used.
    Obiously this would need some "pass" mechanic so low order count lists aren't forced to ends his activations always first.
    This way both players can addapt better to the other, instead of the good old: "I play all my actions while you defend the best you can, and then it's my turn to beat you to bits"

    I don't mind premeassuring or not, but there are mechanics that create problems when you can't premeassure like perimetrals or mines..., it would be nice to see changes thinking in those (and removing wordings like the perimetral one that cannot be fullfilled without premeassuring)
  5. Ieldin Soecr

    Ieldin Soecr Well-Known Member

    Nov 23, 2017
    Likes Received:
    For the new Edition I would like to see mostly small changes, as I think the basic rules are good as for now. Most of it should focus on balance, cleanup, clarification, etc.

    • Points Rework: CB should use the edition break to future proof their points system. Stuff is now so optimized that 1 point for a skill/stat increase can feel to much. I would like to see the Points increased across the board to open up new design space: Like a standard game becomes 600-900 points but all costs are also multiplied by 2-3 (So an Fusilier is 20-30 points base). With this they could reprice stuff that now should cost <1 point (like +1 CC) better.
    • Weapon Rework: Split weapon type and ammunition completely so that weapon types only set the Range, Burst, Damage and Special rules, and the ammunition sets the damage effects. So instead of the Heavy Pistol having shock, it has normal ammo unless stated otherwise, for example like this: Heavy Pistol (SHOCK). This makes it easier for new players to remember what ammo the different weapons have and cleans up the weapon range of all the duplicate profiles. It also allows an easier introduction of new combinations (Like Combirifle (STUN)) as they do not have to write new fluff for everyone of these.
    • Damage Rework: In addition to the above the damage of weapons should be looked at. Currently only the range from 11-15 is used (with exception for FAT1), so there is still allot of designspace that can be used to create some interesting weapons (Like a B5 DAM 9 Needle gun or something). In addition all Template weapons should loose some DAM (1-2 points). With this the are still more deadly against enemies in cover but not in the open. Same goes for all cheap side weapons like Assult Pistol, SMG, etc. that currently are more deadly than a Combirifle but cost a fraction of the points.
    • Crit Rework: I agree with some of the previous posters, that crits could need a small rework. While I generally like the mechanic, but I would like to see the effect for crits split for active and reactive turn. During the active turn they work like now, as they are normally only a bonus to an already save situation (4 Dice on 13 against 1 on 2 -> I will win the roll, crits only save me the bother that he makes all ARM saves) or the reward for taking a risk. Its in the reactive turn where I find them annoying, as they are pure luck for me. There it should still auto win but not auto wound. In addition it could inflict the stunned or Imm-1 state, which takes the attacker out for a while but does not eliminate him.
    • ARM Rework: Just a small thing but maybe ARM/BTS rolls could be reworked so they act like every other roll in the game (Rolling equal or under the target value instead of above). The ARM attributes would be 20-30 and the DAM would be a negative MOD to the roll while Cover would still be a positive one. I often notice that new players are confused by the switch in logic between ARM/BTS and other rolls.
    • Movement Rework: Currently movement feels very restricted when including Climb and Jump. Maybe they could be better integrated by transforming them into Short Movement Skills with some restrictions, like only half movement or something like this. With this they become more viable options for trooper without C+ and Superjump (Normal trooper could then climb a short distance and then still shot).
    I agree with allot of points brought up by previous posters regarding rules streamlining, condensing, etc. Some critical issues for me would be things like:
    • Merging similar designed rules: Prime example for me is G:Marionette and Antipodes. In both cases you got a controller and 3 creatures/bots. So instead of having two rules that in essence do the same and taking up two pages, while only be used by one unit each, just make one out of them.
    • Streamlining rules for multiple active models: Currently, in all cases multiple models can be activated at the same time (G:Sync, Fireteams, Coordinated Order), some basic rules are explained for all of them separately instead of having them in one spot and only referenced (Like the general movement rules). These are things like that they all generate one ARO, how to handle CC, Skill declaration, etc.
    • Rework Smoke Dodge: At the moment Smoke Special Dodge is only a side note under the smoke ammo and generates some wierd interactions and exceptions. Instead it should become its own skill that explains exactly how it works and is the only way to get a F2F roll when using smoke. It could have restrictions that the template has to be centred on the model and would not work with Fireteam Bonuses. You could still throw smoke normally but then you would not get a F2F roll against attacks, making it a more interesting decision.
    • Rework Impetuous: At the moment Impetuous gives a huge Buff (a Free Order on models that want to use it and huge point decrease), while having only a small drawback for these models (No Cover is harsh, but most of them do not need it, as they are cheap Throwaway troops). So, instead of being able to chose the second short skill freely, they should be forced to move a second time unless they have reached base contact with an enemy. This would make them harder to handle, as they would be forced to run longer distances, and at the same time remove the free Smoke throw they often get.
    #105 Ieldin Soecr, Aug 8, 2019
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2019
    Berjiz, Henshini, AdmiralJCJF and 3 others like this.
  6. Lareon

    Lareon Well-Known Member

    Nov 23, 2017
    Likes Received:
    My two cents on crits. It should be bad to transform them in a conditional hit?
    * If you crit and the result already won the ftf roll, it's an automatic wound that bypass the armor;
    * if you crit but the roll is not high enough to win the ftf, the roll is an automatic win, but with a normal Arm/bts roll.

    In this way crits lose the power it currently have, but they will still be useful and sought in the field.
  7. Vanderbane

    Vanderbane Well-Known Member

    Sep 14, 2018
    Likes Received:
    As I’ve mentioned a couple times, I’m in favor of focusing our attention to clean up and clarify the ruleset with minimal changes to the game meta (vide supra). Not going to delve deep on that here, but suffice it to say I’m mostly interested in defining what keywords actually mean, and the order of operations to better structure the game.

    Yet, I’m seeing many neat ideas here focused on rules to shift the game meta so I’ll play along with that. Here’s my suggestion: can we reframe the conversation about the meta from:

    “I think this should cost less or more” or “I think orders should do this but not that” to the more direct discussion of

    “Here is the goal we wish to achieve, and this is a meta rule change that might address that goal”?

    Because a lot of the suggestions I’m seeing are multiple ways to address the _same_ problem. I’d argue we need to suss out what the problems are with the current game meta we want to address, and _then_ determine what kinds of things we’d like to try to fix that, not the other way around.

    An example. I see suggestions about reducing order pool size, limiting single units on how many orders they can consume, increasing the relative cost of cheerleaders vs. HI/tags, and limiting total number of units. Seems to me these are all trying to address the same issue, which to my eye is people are worried about single unit Rambos going on a rampage. Implementing all of these would change a lot about how the game feels but largely overlap in purpose.

    Additionally, since we aren’t identifying the problem we are trying to solve first, it’s not obvious that the same problem could be addressed in radically different ways. For instance, we could strengthen ARO pieces: increase burst in ARO to half of the active turn burst (round up or down) or units that don’t spend orders in active turn gain markmanship Lv2 to suggest they are on overwatch duty or snipers always have Overclock might help with that. We could have units that use lots of orders in active become “exhausted” and have a new state marker associated with that. There's lots of ways to solve a problem.

    The other disadvantage of focusing on the fix and not the problem is we miss rules suggestions that are at cross purposes. For instance, crits tend to matter more for the low burst defensive piece (some of you might reflexively disagree with me on this - if so, we can start a thread on why I believe this to be correct). So reducing the effect of crits actually _helps_ rambos be a better strategy.

    My point with this example is I think our best role in this conversation with CB is to help them figure out _what_ needs fixing first, then give CB some suggestions about how to fix it.
    n21lv, Ogid, SpectralOwl and 7 others like this.
  8. Solar

    Solar Well-Known Member

    Dec 4, 2017
    Likes Received:
    Pre-measuring makes games take an eternity
    Cthulhu363, n21lv, Wyrmnax and 7 others like this.
  9. CabalTrainee

    CabalTrainee Well-Known Member

    Apr 27, 2018
    Likes Received:
    We should also get rid of the current 6th Sense skill for N4.
  10. Armihaul

    Armihaul Well-Known Member

    Nov 24, 2017
    Likes Received:
    Why? 6th sense is the only tool against smoke for some sectorials
    Lesh', eciu and Ayadan like this.
  11. theGricks

    theGricks Well-Known Member

    Dec 15, 2017
    Likes Received:
    My thoughts on the changes:
    • Crits: Keep it simple, we dont want increased complexity. Keep the Auto-Win, but provide for an unmodified roll against damage (No arm/bts). This provides interplay, but keeps the power.
    • Jammers: Make them Comms-Equipment. Done. then we have interplay with Hacking devices and more importantly a new target for AHD, and midfield AHD.
    • Hold ARO: Include Discover in the actions you can hold for. Shoot/Dodge/Discover. This will still provide infiltrators and impersonators their chance to run around behind units or run across an opening, but provides more positive gameplay to the defender. Discover at this time is a worthless aro option.
    • TAG's: Provide all TAG's Fatality Lvl1, Tactical Awareness, Veteran L1.
    • Defensive/White Hacking Devices: Allow them to affect anything they can roll against. Let them "Defend" their factions hackers. If they are on the repeater network and a KHD wants to hit the EVO, let the DHD provide negatives to that.
    • EVO Hackers: I love them. Keep them the way they are.
    • AHD/HD/KHD: Keep them. I love it.
    • Weapons and Damage Type: Provide a simpler means. My thought is (Weapon Name)/(Damage)/(Hit Type ARM/BTS)/(Ammo Modifier AP/DA/Shock/ETC). This comes out in the format of Viral as Viral Rifle/13/BTS/DA+Shock, for a Shock Rifle/13/ARM/Shock, Breaker Rifle/13/BTS/AP. This will reduce the keyword ammo types by at least half while keeping their abilities. If we want to add keywords for Immunities, then we could break those up into Categories, and make Type for the most part simply flavor. Category/Type/DMG/Hit Type/Ammo.
    • MSV3: Is this really that necessary?
  12. CabalTrainee

    CabalTrainee Well-Known Member

    Apr 27, 2018
    Likes Received:
    It at least needs a full rewrite.
    Ayadan, meikyoushisui and Tourniquet like this.
  13. Click2kill

    Click2kill Well-Known Member

    Apr 13, 2018
    Likes Received:
    I don't think crits are the problem, but rather the introduction of Fatality Lv2 that has made crits the problem. Crits were just lucky throws, but with Fatality Lv2, its a strategy now. It encourages bad play with the incentive you might make a game changing play.

    Rework Fatality Lv2 and you fix crits.
    Berjiz and daszul like this.
  14. dlfleetw

    dlfleetw Well-Known Member

    Mar 23, 2017
    Likes Received:
    I would go for a hybrid of sorts: Movements and ZOC is premeasurable.

    Ranges aren't (Shotguns need a look regardless) able to be premeasured.

    Most people do wavy tape measure in the first place. Just make moving a known thing and move on.

    The gameplay value is really only negative otherwise.

    Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk
    Xeurian likes this.
  15. Tourniquet

    Tourniquet TJC Tech Support

    Feb 18, 2018
    Likes Received:
    Because it is a god awful rule that removes a lot of counter play and dumbs down the game quite a bit as positioning and ARO decision matter a lot less.

    It either needs to fired into the sun and replaced or completely overhauled. As for shooting through smoke being the only tool against smoke, just replace it with something else, or make the smoke penalty less punishing.
    CabalTrainee likes this.
  16. siri

    siri Well-Known Member

    Nov 30, 2017
    Likes Received:
    I just think with the quantity of new armies and sectorial the factions are becoming more and more similar.

    * I really want as I said before engineers, doctors and hackers have a bigger approach in the game. Status change, ( +1 ph) or arm update ( +1 arm or/ bts), enhance move, visor lvl x, something like meta chemistry.
    * statuses like in aristeia - poison, enervating.

    And the most important things:

    - define what/how is PBI
    - put all rules clear and together
  17. Section9

    Section9 Well-Known Member

    Nov 24, 2017
    Likes Received:
    :explanation needed:


    One downside to crits is that the mechanic removes some player agency (that is, the feeling that the player is in control of things).

    Something that may reduce the feeling that you cannot do something if critted is for the target player to roll to confirm the crit (or rather, for the target player to roll to 'save' against the crit).

    That was one of the big differences between 40k and Flames of War, simply who rolled the die to see if a tank's armor got punched. In 40k 3-7e, the shooter rolled a die to add to the gun's strength, while in FoW the target rolled a die to add to the tank's armor value. In both cases, if gun's strength was greater than armor value, armor was penetrated.

    Though I admit I generally like the existing Crit mechanic.
  18. Iro

    Iro Unidron, Dron, Dron, saca los cuernos al Sol~~

    Nov 23, 2017
    Likes Received:
    Summary of what was read: You want to play another game.
  19. Kiwi Steve

    Kiwi Steve Well-Known Member

    Mar 20, 2018
    Likes Received:
    I've always thought the smoke/msv mechanic was a bit counter intuitive:

    - I can't see you through the smoke so I ARO at -6
    - the camouflage/mimetism I couldn't see that you had (because I cannot see you through the smoke) makes you even harder to see so -3
    - I was surprised because I didn't know you were there, because you were hidden in a camo state that made you even harder to see (even though I already couldn't see you because of smoke and couldn't see you more because of the camp I also couldn't see) so -3

    Net result -12 = -6 (because I can't see you) -3 (because you were hard to see) -3 (because you surprised me as I didn't see you there)

    I could add cover to this, but this might be -3 because the bullet hit a physical obstruction (although that might be the +arm of cover).

    Shooting through smoke wouldn't be so powerful if it at most netted -6 (or -9 in cover) as it didn't stack with other visual mods.

    This could be considered for new edition.
    Silas7, Xeurian, n21lv and 5 others like this.
  20. D_acolyte

    D_acolyte Active Member

    Aug 6, 2018
    Likes Received:
    KHD made hackers valuable it does not make hacking a TAG harder or worse. Only 1 TAG has a repeater. The fact that programs to possess TAGs are common, effective and can be done in the ARO makes taking a TAG a liability to your own force.
    theGricks likes this.