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. Armihaul

    Armihaul Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    1,429
    Likes Received:
    1,081
    but we were talking about isolation and suppressive fire, and in there, the part in bold (emphasys mine) is not there for suppressive fire.

    but one version refers to "the troop's state changes" and the other "the troops state changes to...".
    the cybermask is a diferent case, with different wording, that's why I didn't bring those rules (or the camo, I was just answering Hecaton)

    Maybe in N4 this kind of interactions should be checked too.
     
  2. ijw

    ijw Ian Wood aka the Wargaming Trader. Rules & Wiki
    Infinity Rules Staff Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    6,811
    Likes Received:
    13,823
    I must have missed something, I thought marker states were being discussed.

    Suppressive Fire is not equivalent, there's nothing to stop a trooper re-entering the state, just like you can re-enter it while in Loss of Lieutenant.
     
    A Mão Esquerda likes this.
  3. Armihaul

    Armihaul Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    1,429
    Likes Received:
    1,081
    That's what I am saying. Seems that there is people that understands that an Isolated trooper cannot enter suppressive fire with his order.
     
  4. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    9,661
    Likes Received:
    11,971
    You've lost me. How is "the troop's state changes" different from "the troops state changes"? Also, as far as meeting Hecaton's argument, it is ineffectual because the English version doesn't describe an ongoing event, it describes a thing which realistically happens only once per game per unit at the end of one order and never again.

    Cybermask is mechanically the same, which is why it is appropriate to compare the two. It uses a skill to enter a state, Retreat! takes the user out of the state and the state's cancellation clause doesn't prevent the use of that particular skill, nor the category of skills it belongs to (analogous to how a Pistol is not a CC Weapon just because it can be used to make CC Attacks, Cybermask is not the Impersonation category of skills just because it can be used to enter Impersonation-2 state).
     
    Hecaton likes this.
  5. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    9,661
    Likes Received:
    11,971
    To wrap this around to the topic at hand:
    I'd like to see States have the "Activation" header removed.
    Instead, "Prerequisites" should be introduced to put limitations on when the state can not be entered, or how the state is forcibly entered if it doesn't get activated by a skill. Makes the states much more robust to change.

    Example.
    Impersonation-2 state Activation removed and changed to
    Prerequisites
    * The user must not be Impetuous or in the Retreat! state or any other state which specifies that it cancels Impersonation
    * The user must not be in base to base contact with an enemy trooper.
     
    Section9 and Berjiz like this.
  6. Armihaul

    Armihaul Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    1,429
    Likes Received:
    1,081
    the "to X". In spanish version is "the troop's state changes", there is no "to X" like in english.

    Cybermask is different, because 2 things: 1.- the english and spanish version are equal, no changes. 2.- of what IJW said, becoming frenzy forbids further use of impersonation, but there is no such a thing for SF.
     
  7. ijw

    ijw Ian Wood aka the Wargaming Trader. Rules & Wiki
    Infinity Rules Staff Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    6,811
    Likes Received:
    13,823
    That appears to remove any way of actually entering a state, which doesn't seem useful.
     
    A Mão Esquerda likes this.
  8. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    9,661
    Likes Received:
    11,971
    Sure. That's the point. You'll need to declare an actual skill whose effect states that you enter the state, such as Basic Impersonation skill which has the following line "Allows the user to deploy in the Impersonation-1 state.". Edit: of course, you'll need to adapt certain skills so they actually have a similar line to Basic Impersonation or Suppression Fire to activate the state as an effect.

    You do realize, I hope, that the Impersonation state doesn't actually restrict who can spend an order to enter the state, right? It just says "Expend an order" and then trust that the player understands that the existence of the Impersonation skills implies that you need them to enter the states, which goes against permissive rule sets.
    Unlike Suppressive Fire which explicitly states you must use the Suppression Fire Entire Order skill to enter the state (which also makes that line redundant)

    Also, before you respond, take a moment to think about what your response means for Inferior Impersonation which has no way of entering the corresponding state because Impersonation-2 doesn't have an activation criteria outside of being Discovered while Impersonation-1
     
    Hecaton likes this.
  9. darthchapswag

    darthchapswag Shandian Strike Team

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2018
    Messages:
    104
    Likes Received:
    167
    So I think we've concluded that N4 needs to clarify how states interact. Personally I believe (for N4) that becoming isolated shouldn't impact SF just from a fluff sense.

    Now to return to N4 ideas, I was thinking about Sixth Sense being slightly altered (due to its interaction in fireteams mainly).

    My three suggestions:
    • Responding with an attack to an attack from out of LoF shouldn't apply to templates.
    • The -6 mod foreturning fire through a zero vis zone should become -3 rather than completely negated.
    • SS negates the -3 mod applied by mines, etc.
    You already get a bonus from SS against templates (ignoring the -3 to dodge) which should allow you to gain LoF for the next ARO or get to safety. And the RAW lean towards my suggestion by referencing FtF.

    I'm aware this would make fireteams slightly more vulnerable to template weapons when bunched up but I always thought that was the point of fireteams; you trade strength and efficiency against the risk of concentrating your forces in a vulnerable area.

    Sidenote: Positive effect of this (for the masochistic IA player that I am) is that explode becomes somewhat less awful
     
    Section9 likes this.
  10. ijw

    ijw Ian Wood aka the Wargaming Trader. Rules & Wiki
    Infinity Rules Staff Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    6,811
    Likes Received:
    13,823
    Unfortunately the bit that was completely missing from your post was that you want to add entering the state to the related Skill. As it was, your post didn't make sense.
     
  11. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    9,661
    Likes Received:
    11,971
    At what level of detail does a suggestion need to go to to make sense? If this was the rules forum, then some amount of accuracy is necessary, but I kind of figured that implying making all states that aren't forced on a model be skill-specific for activation would also imply that the relevant skills would need some amount of cleaning up as well.
     
    Hecaton likes this.
  12. ijw

    ijw Ian Wood aka the Wargaming Trader. Rules & Wiki
    Infinity Rules Staff Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    6,811
    Likes Received:
    13,823
    The issue is that you didn't imply that activating states becomes Skill-specific, you just removed it from the states.

    Anyway, now you've explained it it makes sense, and I don't want to derail things even further.
     
  13. yoink101

    yoink101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2018
    Messages:
    451
    Likes Received:
    480
    Just to derail everything, suppression fire is kind of lame at this point. It's usually really easy to get around or ignore. Also, camo and smoke are insanely potent tools.

    An interesting solution would be to make suppression fire able to shoot through both visibility and camo. It should suffer the penalties of shooting through a zero vis zone (-6) and surprise shot. It would mean that suppression is actually a useful defensive tool and would do a little bit to mitigate the ability of armies to simply ignore defensive placements when they advance to grab objectives at the bottom of turn 3.
     
  14. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    5,612
    Likes Received:
    5,310
    You obviously remember N2. Yeah, SF mode as some sort of low-powered counter to smoke and camo would be great.
     
  15. SpectralOwl

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2018
    Messages:
    1,283
    Likes Received:
    1,864
    Something I'd appreciate is removing the abilities of visual modifiers from terrain and skills/equipment to stack with each other. Would let people play with terrain zones without every Camo or Mimetism troop farming easy -12s.
    It's a step in the right direction, but I'd really like to be able to start the game in that state- most of my recent problems with those types of troops stems from the fact my Sectorial has no Minelayers, and so I have exactly jack against those shenanigans before I take my first turn.

    Edit; additional thought. Why not make Sensor automatic? Walk into ZoC of a Pathfinder, lose the state. Also add the ability to draw LoF through Zero Visibility Zones if the target is in the Sensor Area and every faction gets a low-quality Warband and Skirmisher deterrant.
     
    #1295 SpectralOwl, Nov 8, 2019
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2019
    Section9 and Berjiz like this.
  16. armazingerz

    armazingerz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2017
    Messages:
    258
    Likes Received:
    198
    Some ideas, I know many of them means huge changes:
    - I think there should be 15-16 factions max, but 15-16 well designed ones: with their own playstyle, properly balanced, regularly updated and many tactical options. I don't see the point of having 37 factions while X sectorial is like Y sectorial with minor differences, a half of them feel abandoned most of the time or some of them feel a very restricted playstyle/list building.
    - Of course, there are too much units. 25 should be more than enough for a faction/sectorial.
    - Generic armies should be balanced. If they have access to every unit in their sectorials it will be almost imposible to balance them. If they have a non restricted list building there will be very bizarre lists. Unit AVA should be narrowed either.
    - I think movement on second part of the order should be removed, it slows the game and complicates the game a lot.
    - It would be very positive an overall 12 order limit. 15+ order lists take too long to be played, and even if you are fast you can't control how fast your opponent reacts your orders.
    - 10 order groups are extremely punitive with newbies (and no so newbies alike), please change this.
    - CC has a ton of rules and special skills to be so unencouraged. I think it should be streamlined.
    - I think cube, unit classification and many states complicates unnecesarily the game. You can't have so much situational stuff in mind
    - Speculative fire feels useless most of the time
    - As I said often, too many barely different AD ranks, it happens with many other skills.
    - People forget immunities and kinematika too often. A regular problem is not a players fault.
    - Marker states like CAMO complicates playing the game a lot, I would revamp this. They crash with other rules all the time.
    - Doctor: waste orders to get orders back, often not available where needed, etc... same goes to engineer. This kind of profiles often get into the list "because they can accomplish objetives", I think that's a tricky way to fix core problems. Same goes for Retreat.
    - Rules allowing deploying in enemy DZ makes imposible to defend in a game where odds are quite against defender already. Same goes for impersonation and hidden deployment.
    - Never seen FO used
    - Ghost, just take a look how long are G: rules.
    - Cheap wounds are just like cheap orders, they feel so unfair.
    - Rules like multiterrain are just bloat
    - Regeneration and automedikit are untrustable, so you don't take it in consideration for your tactics
    - Religious, veteran... you know
    - Too much ammos, and too much barely different weapons (and growing)
    - Some useless hacking devices.
    - Too much states and way too much Markers.
    - Setting up the table is not properly covered when it's SO important.
    - Seriously, we just dislike at least a half of the scenarios
    - Fireteams and coordinated orders, too much rules and interactions.
    - Rules like biometrical sensor. So situational, not worth to be in the game, neither pay any point.
    - Please remove the bloat from the profiles.
     
  17. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    9,661
    Likes Received:
    11,971
    Picking out a few ones here.

    Number of factions - would you make a distinction between sectorial and faction? E.g. is your "golden ratio" something like 2 sectorials each?
    10 order groups - how is it punitive? Too many orders per group? Too few?
    Kinematica and Immunities - maybe the problem with particularly Kinematica is how often or seldom it is allowed to be used?
    FO - Do you think the problem is the skill or just a range band issue? I.e. would it be fixed if it had, say, all of its range bands flat +3 from current?
    Scenery rules - completely agree with you!
     
  18. colbrook

    colbrook Black Fryer

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    7,129
    Likes Received:
    12,923
    I've a feeling Code One night be quite appealing to you.
     
    Abrilete and meikyoushisui like this.
  19. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    5,612
    Likes Received:
    5,310
    We've known this for a long time.
     
    meikyoushisui likes this.
  20. Brother Smoke

    Brother Smoke Bureau Trimurti Representative

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2017
    Messages:
    956
    Likes Received:
    1,464
    Disagree with all of these, unless it's specifically for Code1

    I don't see how. If you follow the order sequence (fist short order - ARO - second short order) and realize it all happens simultaneously you should never have an issue

    I disagree. There are factions that really struggle to make lists under 15 orders effectively, and even then people should be able to take different approaches. Should people be incentivized to take less orders? Absolutely, but a hard cap of 12 is not the way.

    I don't quite get the logic here, can you elaborate?

    I agree it should be streamlined, one chart should be enough

    Interesting take, I believe cubes are definitely here to stay since they are a core concept of the setting, but it's true they don't do much as is, and classification is definitely wonky

    Have you ever played/played against a spec fire list? I assure you it is not useless

    Agreed, many leveled skills should be streamlined

    That's not really a fixable issue, seems to me like forgetting you have certain skills happens to all of us at one point or another

    Disagree. The marker state system is part of what got me into the game, and the N3 changes pretty much made it as good as it gets IMO

    I often use doctors for doctoring and engineers for engineering and so does everyone in my group, I believe they work as intended (hell, now that I play O-12, everyone takes engineers without fail). If they were to get wip boosts I would be okay with it though. Retreat is a completely different beast, not sure how it fits here

    There is plenty of counterplay for that kind of thing. Mines, perimeter weapons, DZ defense units, link teams, etc.

    I used to use it all the time but it's definitely become less attractive as other options come around. It certainly needs some kind of buff

    Agreed, but that's more or less the whole "streamline levelled skills" list

    Don't quite get what this means, units with extra wounds come at a premium, and cheap orders are usually really easy to remove

    Agree on these, definitely need attention

    I don't know, these are some of the rules that work as intended. Don't see an issue

    More or less agree

    Big time agree

    That's subjective, I love a lot of ITS missions others hate and vice versa

    Agreed

    Weren't you just complaining about impersonation and marker states? this is literally the answer

    Agreed
     
    Abrilete and meikyoushisui like this.