As per the seminar troops will be created to make the transition to the new 15 models count easier to some factions and sectorials. 15 model cut off is an important one for balance and longevity of the game, yes its "fun" for some players to spam and take down their enemies with volume, but it is not manageable or fun for most people to receive it, on many occasions I have stated that with big model count the game system kind of breaks and we have several people even from the proofreading team that made such list and got them to tournaments to make practical examples of such lists, not everybody will be happy with the 15 models cutoff but a line must be drawn somewhere and 15 is the best balance in my opinion. Plus ti makes choosing models more important and creates a new balance between choosing a low model over a better one than simply adding models till the points stop.
I have to say, I generally speaking do find the most enjoyable games to be when forces of roughly equal parity in terms of troops on the table face off, with a variation of maybe 2-3, and I rarely if ever take over 15 minis, so this will only enhance my personal enjoyment of the game. Do I feel like as a solution it is overly elegant? No, as it is essentially a hard cap, but given the push on HI and TAGs I suspect that embracing rather than turning away from this is a good idea. Haqq and Ariadna are probably the most impacted factions, but Ariadna recently has had TAK and now has Kosmoflot, both of which are loaded to the gills with more expensive powerful troops, and Haqq recently got RTF (it's most elite Sectoral by FAR) and is getting a new TAG, so I don't see this as a problem for them really either.
You know what's good for balance and longevity of the game? Actually balancing the game instead of throwing things to the wall and hope one sticks; since they released fireteam CB has been applying bandaid after bandaid to the game, never tackling the underlying problem which is "the more troops you have the more you can play" Maybe instead of this lazy patch (after loads of these same lazy patches like Fatality for TAGs, FD for MI, the changes to AD) they could just fix the costs so warbands are not so crazy cheap they always trade up, make elite units more resilient or kill, or maybe stop cheating their own system to make cheap af hyper optimized units. Instead they did what they always do when troops are not played because of fundamental problems with the system: throw house rules at them without even thinking about how those house rules affect the rest of the system. Forcing people to play specific units not because they are good but because you can't play other things without gimping yourself was bad before and is bad now.
And your 20-order spam lists force me to take not the units I want to play (HI link or a TAG), because a Limited Insertion list can barely face the spam if lucky. So, who is more deserving of being happy then?
True. On a second thought: what alienates me most on the claw: as far as I can see, it’s asymmetric. Is there another one on the other hand?
Well, you are welcome to offer alternative solutions, if you think you're a better game developer than CB people. And while you're at it, do tell how you intend to balance a 10 actions per turn list with 20 actions per turn list. And no, 'buff expensive units" doesn't count - spamlisters will just get 1 or 2 wrecking balls and fuel them with spam, because it's "optimal listbuilding".
It looks to me that the other hand has the claws retracted, the knuckle markings on each hand may indicate they can be popped out 'wolverine' style at will *x-men cartoon theme intensifies*
I'm not a game developer and I'm not publishing games, why should I have to offer alternatives? I'm paying, it is THEIR job to offer a good product, not mine. Imagine if you hired an architect, he did a lousy job and when you complain he tells you "well, let's see if you can do it better" BTW 2 wrecking balls with order spam would not be effective if the other guy could bring medium cost guys who are worse than your big guns but got more bodies and at the same time are better than your order monkeys but with less bodies. Optimal balance would be your opponent being able to outplay you by having more bodies and either killing your big guns or depleting your order pool. You know, like a strategy game where things are priced according to their worth so if you are playing the same amount of points you'll have a fair game. Or are you agreeing that's not possible with the Infinity game engine?
I think it bears considering that the other way to balance things to a similar outcome would be to increase the cost of spammable troops, especially warbands. One point to consider if that route was taken is that this would have other ramifications: Warbands would then count as more points for scoring objectives (”good”), but would also count as more points towards retreat (”bad”). The fifteen order cap circumvents this and keeps warbands disposable and often unable to score by themselves. Not saying this is the final truth of the discussion, just that there are more facets to unit cost than simply killing power.
Weapons that are highly suited for taking on multiple spammed targets safely. DTWs don't count despite their size because all your targets have them and they trade better than elites. Units that can force DTW wielders into a BS FTF roll would be a game-changer.
I may not be qualified for this, as I only ever played one game until now, but in the end its there game. they can do with it whatever they think is fitting. And to say 15 models max is a Rule that gives you still a considerable degree of freedom. It’s another rule that balances other rules. Alternatively they could change the availabilities of certain units so that Spamming wouldn’t be possible. So your still able to play Wallace, 10+ Galwegian and what you still need to fill your points. Gives you more freedom than AVA4 for Galwegians. edit: typo
I think the troop limit could be better if was tied to the tier... 10 for low tier, 15 for mid tier and 20 for top tier In that case, no one is forcing you to play on disadvantage. But you are forcing me to do. My tools to deal with certain type of troops are insane cheap. And now i cant use them because some people "oh, he is too spammy. I dont want to play with him and (maybe) lose"
But actually you do. You force me to build 15-order lists in armies that not necessarily can do so (Invincible Army says hi, Tunguska as well). I have to get suboptimal cheap troop choices to pad order count, only so I can actually have more actions to face your spam. And if I pick less orders - no "clearing out cheerleaders" will help me actually reduce your orders - even if I'm lucky to kill an order for every order I spend, I have at most 5 orders to do so. And after a whole turn of me just trying to kill your order line, you still have 15 orders and safe attackers, while any losses I take are irrecoverable.
That is how i defend from your elites... If both play 15 and you start, you will kill my troops and i will not have the Plan B i could have with 20. That is why i usually play 18 orders list. Because my faction is clearly designed for that amount of orders. And because i like to divert enemy efforts
And now you're telling me Haqq and Ariadna do not have elite troopers that can face elites of other factions. Uh-huh. Tell me more.
No, he is telling you he shouldn't be FORCED to play those units even if they are not the best tool for the job
My elites are CRAP against your elites... Is better (and far more reliable) for me face your TO HI with a 6 points High CC Chain rifle figure that face with... i dont know, a single wounded no visual mods Ariadna HI
