The hold ARO concept would need a rework of cc, as of right now using change face is the most effective way to reach CC. I'm not saying that's bad, but I'm not sure how you would rework it. Maybe stealth prevents holds? Unless getting into cc around a corner is one of the main reasons for the hold aro. Then I'd ask why u hate JSA so much
Stealth would prevent it because Stealth would prevent an ARO from being generated for Hold to be declared with. I also must say that I seldom use Change Facing shenanigans with my Samurai and actively try to avoid doing that with Ninjas to preserve Surprise Attack when possible. It's the mediocre melee combatants that suffers, the ones you want to use just to bind people up - think of the Servant Remotes! (As an aside, Servant Remotes are steadily becoming one of my most devote melee units because most units (including the ones with "extra CC training") are too terrible to overcome Electric Pulse)
The thing I find oddest about this whole conversation on ARO baiting, is alot of people say 'I think it's broken' but then admit to using it all the time. If you think it's that broken and you disagree with it......don't use it, is winning more important than not using something you think isn't fair?
Nah. It's a matter of what is vs. what *should be*, and what you're suggesting implies not differentiating between those two concepts.
I don't think money is fair and the system that is involved in spreading it around is broken, but I use it all the time. If I didn't use it, I would be doing myself a disservice.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but Infinity as a game is dependent on the rules creating a shared experience between players. When playing a stranger, or when playing in a competitive context (or both!) the experience can deteriorate rapidly if players aren't doing their best to play to a consistent set of rules. On a more personal note, I'm a fairly competitive player. I might think that the rules could benefit from amendment, but that's a separate topic (for threads like this). One the table I will do my best to play as well as I can within and using the rules as written.
Yes, but some would say money is essential to survival in todays society. ARO baiting in Infinity the Game is not.
The issue is if other people don't have the same opinion, you're putting yourself at a disadvantage in game play. One can acknowledge that a certain game element is too powerful or poorly constructed while still making use of it.
There's a lot to unpack in that one, and I think you're a lot closer in your analogy than you think ;) It's also very dependent on what army you play and what your overall tactic is. Some armies rely on not playing quite as "honourably" as others and if you don't rely on Boarding Shotgun infiltrators quite so much as your opponent, then playing "honourably" by eschewing Change Facing "Shenanigans" is going to tip balance. E.g. JSA or Ariadna tends to rely on it quite a bit and if you're using the Gangbuster from O-12 starter you might doing these so called shenanigans whether you intend to or not. Personally I consider Proxies a lot less balanced and less honourable as a result than ARO baiting, but if we were to insist on playing honourably according to those metrics, then that'd skew balance with ISS and Aleph quite a bit with no impact on my own factions what so ever. What I'm trying to say is I think it's more important that these things are known, clearly spelled out, and, since I also think those change facing shenanigans (aside from Stealthed-Hacker-in-a-Fireteam) is quite tactically interesting, promoted by the rules.
That would be exactly the same result as getting a hold. Stealth doesn't generate an ARO and then 2nd short into LoF gives them normal roll shiots... whoops. Stealth is actually pretty useless at helping CC specialists get into CC, excepting the rare circumstance you're coming around their back arc - but at that point taking free shots is probably more efficient. You really don't face much templates guarding corners? almost anything would choose a direct template against a surprise attacking ninja, and then you've lost a ninja to kill one thing.
My Ninjas tend to be one-shot wonders that seldom go after targets with DTWs from the front. But like I wrote, I try and keep Surprise Attack available to my Ninja and while in Marker state Change Face Shenaniganery doesn't work because they'll just Delay. Instead I'd bait out Delays in order to walk around them, if possible. People have started getting good at overlapping AROs around here, though, so while I haven't played JSA in quite some time, I'm not certain it's very possible to pick people off with melee in my meta like that on a regular basis anymore.
Why would you nerf a perfectly fine mechanic and nerf CC units even more, in a game where they struggle to stay relevant? This is baffling to me. Also, why is this mechanic weird though? It's like throwing a rock in Far Cry to distract an enemy before performing a Takedown.
Yeah, CC needs to be less order-intensive to get into. It's finally about appropriately deadly (CC in N2 was a horrible waste of time and effort), but it's still too hard to get there. Exactly. ========= Now, snagging a quote from another thread: Emphasis mine, and I very much agree with that point.
Another possibility for consolidation: make U-Turn and Hack Transport Aircraft function the same way, whichever way that might be.
I think about this issue a great deal, and it's a really tough one to address because order/ARO structure is so integral to the entire game, but also because current balance hinges somewhat on certain troop types relying on tactics that take advantage of this structure--whether we are talking about defensive DTW troops, or offensive CC-specialists. Two potential strategies are still on the workbench for me. 1) A universal ARO option for any model could be to declare a 'predict'. This isn't a 'mine-triggering' ARO, instead it is like a delay but you must declare it up front and then pass a WIP-6 check. If you fail, you lose your right to ARO completely. If you pass, you get to take it. Predict can be used under the same kinds of conditions you outlined for 'hold'. The existence of this rule will mean that players typically won't commit to a ZOC shenanigans move if they are risking an expensive model against a cheap DTW trooper, neither will Ko Dali stand inside a smoke template perforating every enemy model within 8" with no repercussions. But in some other cases, you still stand a chance of using the 'ARO-skip' to gain an advantage if you are behind and need to take a risk. 2) Buff defensive hacking devices, and make sure more factions have them--giving the device a supportware program that bestows the SSL1 skill temporarily to a model within your hacking area. If you don't feel you'll need this or can't find uses for it, just don't take the device, or use it for other things. However, if you are worried that your opponent will get a CC specialist into b2b with your TAG from around the corner, before you can hit it with a flamethrower/sepsitor or something, there is a play you can make to help deter your opponent.
I neither think we need to further encourage Muttawiahs to stand inside small 4x4" buildings with only a single door entrance, ready to hose down any one trying to deal with them nor any other cheap, disposable, troops for that matter, nor do I think more complicated ways of rolling dice is further needed. It should be noted that Ko Dali won't stand in smoke with no repercussion, she doesn't have a silent ranged weapon. Expanding the Warning rule would be a better middle ground by simply removing some of the conditional limitations. Remove the condition that the unit needs to be inactive during the order and add that a unit may use Warning both when an enemy shoots a friend inside ZoC and when an enemy commits a non-silent attack within ZoC. I.e.: REQUIREMENTS To perform a Warning! the following conditions must be met: The trooper cannot be activated by Order or ARO in the same Order. An allied trooper inside his Zone of Control or the trooper himself must have been targeted by an Attack. An enemy trooper inside the trooper's Zone of Control must have committed an Attack So; instead of making stuff complicated when someone attacks you from the rear; if you survive, you get to spin around. Also has the benefit of being able to track an enemy trooper that's really close instead of them Moving into the TAG's dead angle for the inevitable second round of shooting.
Throwing some ideas I had. First I think we don't want the game to be more complicated, even if it means a more balanced game, the complexity is already turning away too many people (and I mean good and nice people I would enjoy to play with) ... Some of the rules that should really be streamlined / simplified - Fireteam composition : I dream of going back to starting N3, end of N2 when FT were X models of the same type. Add some wildcard if you want to add some flavor but please no more "soup" of 3 or more different troopers profils ... it's really painful to remember when playing with or against. It only increases the level difference between player that spend time thinking about how to min / max their FT composition and other. And I don't like the game to be too much about optimized list. - Fireteam rules : some think the FT rules are OP. As a vet player I don't think so but I understand how it's obnoxious for a new player to face a kamau sniper in a 5 men link + it's super counter intuitive way to work. What about regrouping FT and coordinated order rules ? Like FT members can just perform a coordinated order for "free" (just spending an order, not a command token) ? Also that way you don't just have a guy with a big gun and some cheerleaders accompagny him. + the obvious : - Less weapons / skills : Ojotnik / red fury = spitfire special amo (eventually -1 dam if you really need it ...); regroup antipode, pupets or MA and protheion etc ... - No more skill within a skill : i.e X skill giving you Y skill. Still can't find a logical reason for the Knights to be stealthy against hacker because they know how to handle a sword ...
I totally support this! In fact, it's something I've been thinking of as well and it has many advantages. I might add a few bonuses, like getting to choose if you want to fire the same way as in coordinated order, or instead use full burst with the leader (and nothing with the rest). Another one could be having something like "shared LoF" in reactive. What do you think?
Yes to that. I agree that Wildcards makes Fireteams fun. I get that with variations of count-as etc. the sectorials are more interesting. I would limit it strongly though. Single Wildcard per fireteam, max. 1 "count-as" in Fireteam. This will keep the power aspect of current fireteams, and will make them easy to interpret. And Special Fireteams should not allow to swap units with count-as or Wildcards. This is just creazy.
