|
When did version 3 come out? I'm trying to remember if my problems with the game (that I don't remember) were with v2 or v3. I keep wanting to get into Infinity but every time I look into it I'm dissuaded by something. I've never played it but I think I recall something about the squad building being kind of bullshit because what you did was have a super badass supported by idiots just to have extra actions, or something like that. Is that how it goes? I am not really well-versed enough in minis games to determine how a game will play out from reading the rules so I'm hesitant but I kinda want to pick up some mans.
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 08:37 |
|
|
Sometime before Christmas. And if you had problems with 2ed link team rules or the orders mechanics, those only changed in minor details.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
N3 came out in December. While ramboing (one big dude with lots of little ones to supply orders) is a strategy, it's not a particularly good one - especially in most scenarios. Putting all your eggs in one basket is asking for trouble.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
Man after some games I'm gonna QQ like an ALEPH player but I really don't think the Cutter is actually worth its points investment. Like it's really good still and utterly shitcans your average player but ugh it's a lot for what you get. Maybe that's just me moving away from superTAGs though more and more over the years, but I'd rather pay less and get a Dragao or a Jotum over it these days.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
Corbeau posted:N3 came out in December. What's the difference between ramboing and building a list around one of those high-cost centerpiece units like the Avatar or Achilles?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
MJ12 posted:What's the difference between ramboing and building a list around one of those high-cost centerpiece units like the Avatar or Achilles?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
MJ12 posted:What's the difference between ramboing and building a list around one of those high-cost centerpiece units like the Avatar or Achilles? A centerpiece has to have support. If you can just waltz in with your huge brick of fuckoffnium and mow everyone down, the opponent hosed up his deployment. You want to account for possible hackers, snipers (ADHL/Panzerfausts for TAGs), and if there's one obvious path, even scouting for HD models with a sensor drone. Pierzak fucked around with this message at 20:39 on Apr 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
Rambo'ing isn't really about the model that you send across the table, it's just the idea of dumping all your orders into one model to go on offense. An AD BS or Camo Monofilament mine model can rambo just as much as a Cutter or Achilles can. Rambo'ing will always be an aspect of Infinity because it's how you punish a bad defensive position. It's not inherently good or bad, though it does tend to be more common with newer players (because they don't know how to defend against it) and it creates badfeels.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
Rambo-ing is great. Then someone AROs the rambo with a Blitzen or a flash pulse and it becomes potentially not very great at all. Are models like the elite dude with the HMG and MSV going to spend several orders every turn blazing away? Yea they are. It doesn't mean there is anything broken or gaming the system about it. Infinity is like chess in a lot of respects. You could spend many turns activating the queen and few if any turns activating a pawn. It doesn't make the queen broken, the pawn stupid, and the game of chess cheese-able. They have different roles on the board. The pawn is there to get in the way and tax them, ideally you want to set it up to perform that role with the minimal investment of turns possible. Line infantry are sort of line pawns. You either keep them mostly hidden and setup to protect against combat jumps and feed orders into your attacking pieces. Or you use coordinated orders to move them up into cover and threaten AROs and then you either get to tax the other player's order pool or get lots of normal roll AROs. It usually takes a little less than two orders for an elite to kill one line infantry in cover. If the game only lasts 3 turns, and the line infantry moved once, then the elite infantry player is spending 2 orders to remove two orders while subjecting themselves to the chance of getting hit. It gets even worse if they are are throwing away the second short skill of the shoot order because they have to stay in cover while clearing the line infantry out. Especially if the line infantry spent command tokens to move into position on the cheap.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 01:49
|
|
|
Once you're in game, the real currency is orders. Not point cost. Yeah, a rambo might be able to cross the board and mow down several troopers, but your opponent probably blew their whole combat group on that (so ~10 orders). If you've lost 3 dudes, then you've probably lost about 6-9 potential future orders. If you turn around and kill their rambo with a few orders, because he's over-extended, then they've lost not only the ~2 future orders he'd generate, but also all ~10 orders spent moving him forward. This is incredibly expensive for the ramboing player, and is the main reason why people generally do shorter advances with multiple pieces in multiple locations. They're diversifying their investment. Of course if you set up poorly and lost like 6 models to a rambo on turn 1 then welp you're hosed. In my experience though, that situation only happens when someone screws up. Not even god-dice will enable it against a cautiously-deployed player. Corbeau fucked around with this message at 02:12 on Apr 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 02:09
|
|
|
Yea, eating a Blitzen on a model with only a few orders invested in it is waaaaaaaaaaaaaay different than eating a Blitzen after you've just invested maybe 1/6th of your orders for the entire game. Defensive Haramaki link teams are evil. Burst 2 BS 16 blitzen are bad bad news. Arm 3 PH14 with 2x wounds for 23 points are anything but order efficient to dig out. Nor can those contenders be ignored at all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 02:19
|
|
|
I love HI link teams in N3. They're the defensive rock that I always wanted in N2, but that nothing ever quite fulfilled in the old edition.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 03:04
|
|
|
Holy gently caress, how is it possibly this hard for them to keep a website up?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 03:30
|
|
|
Corbeau posted:Once you're in game, the real currency is orders. Not point cost. Yeah, a rambo might be able to cross the board and mow down several troopers, but your opponent probably blew their whole combat group on that (so ~10 orders). If you've lost 3 dudes, then you've probably lost about 6-9 potential future orders. If you turn around and kill their rambo with a few orders, because he's over-extended, then they've lost not only the ~2 future orders he'd generate, but also all ~10 orders spent moving him forward. This is incredibly expensive for the ramboing player, and is the main reason why people generally do shorter advances with multiple pieces in multiple locations. They're diversifying their investment. This is a limited way to look it I feel. First off, it doesn't take board coverage/presence into consideration. A 3-1 trade means you project significantly less threat with your ARO's, and in many cases loosing said threat means the winner of the 3-1 trade can claim objectives much easier. For example, in a recent tourney game I spent 7 out of my 17 orders to bring down a 3-man knights Santiago link team with McMurrough, who then died on my opponents turn. However, due to how expensive those guys I were I eliminated both a significant portion of his fighting ability and was able to stroll up to 2 supply caches unmolested. It also means that with overall less orders to spend on their side, they will have less resources to affect your order pool/claim objectives Hipster Occultist fucked around with this message at 03:50 on Apr 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 03:45
|
|
|
Cyclomatic posted:Holy gently caress, how is it possibly this hard for them to keep a website up? Seems to be going down every night now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 03:49
|
|
|
Hipster Occultist posted:This is a limited way to look it I feel. You are not wrong. One of the huge benefits of board control, though, is that you make it far more order-expensive for your opponent to do what they want to do. I started doing vastly better at the game when I started thinking about my orders in terms of "what will wind up costing my opponent the most orders for the minimal investment on my part?" My favorite is still to park a TO sniper somewhere annoying, then reveal him when my opponent doesn't have enough orders remaining in the turn to kill him. In practice, it tends to eliminate 1/4 to 1/3 of my opponent's orders that turn, since he has to avoid the sniper and probably can't accomplish what he originally intended, and then it takes away even more time during his next turn. Even if he can efficiently kill off the sniper during that later turn, the damage is already done at that point. The big take away is to keep your eyes on the prize: order economy is crucial for accomplishing the scenario objectives. Unless you're playing frontline or some generic kill-em-all scenario, just killing order-generators isn't enough; the order economy revolves around getting victory points.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 03:53
|
|
|
Cyclomatic posted:Holy gently caress, how is it possibly this hard for them to keep a website up? Always-online army builder and a model gallery that downloads ~50MB every time?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 09:53
|
|
|
And probably with some giant memory leaks thrown in just for good measure.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 16:06
|
|
|
How many orders should I aim for at lower pts levels? We're doing an escalation league and are disallowing hacking the first few rounds since most players are completely new to Infinity. Which means I don't want to waste pts on hackers so I don't have any cheap orders in the form of remotes. Consequently my cheapest units are daturazi and hungries, but the latter is irregular. The first round is 120 pts and the second round is 150 pts. I've made a list with 5 orders and one with 6 orders respectively. The missions have mostly "control terrain"-type objectives.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
10+ at 300 8 at 200 6 at 150  at 120(that is, regular orders with max 1-2 TO/AD)
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
Ok goood, I barely make it with irregulars on top.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
Alright, well that back and forth about ramboing is good to see. How does Infinity handle elevation? Is this a game like Deadzone where multi-tiered terrain is good, or is it a flat with blocking/cover kind of game?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 23:36
|
|
|
All the tiers. Snipers gotta go somewhere. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 23:39
|
|
|
Is that achieved by wall climbing, jetpacks or other special equipment, or ramps/stairs? Or all 3? This is important.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
signalnoise posted:Alright, well that back and forth about ramboing is good to see. How does Infinity handle elevation? Is this a game like Deadzone where multi-tiered terrain is good, or is it a flat with blocking/cover kind of game? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
signalnoise posted:Is that achieved by wall climbing, jetpacks or other special equipment, or ramps/stairs? Or all 3? This is important. All 3. Walls can be climbed but it leaves the climber very vulnerable unless they have special training, so ramps/stairs/ladders are recommended. There are jumpers that will pop out and put you down or just jump to your floor, but then again, others will just make their hacker mark your position from behind a wall and cover you with grenades. Flipswitch posted:Multiple layered terrain is the best (IMO) but ensure you don't have highly elevated towers in deployment zones for best outcomes. Having them near and accessible to deployment areas is perfectly fine though. And that's why Forward Deployment is good, because some rear end in a top hat always puts a sniper tower 2 inches from the DZ  
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
Pierzak posted:All 3. Walls can be climbed but it leaves the climber very vulnerable unless they have special training, so ramps/stairs/ladders are recommended. There are jumpers that will pop out and put you down or just jump to your floor, but then again, others will just make their hacker mark your position from behind a wall and cover you with grenades. The best way to handle that is beat them with a large stick. The second best way is to win initiative and pick that side.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
Pierzak posted:All 3. Walls can be climbed but it leaves the climber very vulnerable unless they have special training, so ramps/stairs/ladders are recommended. There are jumpers that will pop out and put you down or just jump to your floor, but then again, others will just make their hacker mark your position from behind a wall and cover you with grenades.  E;fb Flipswitch fucked around with this message at 00:35 on Apr 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
signalnoise posted:Is that achieved by wall climbing, jetpacks or other special equipment, or ramps/stairs? Or all 3? This is important. Honestly, it is mostly covered by bullets. There is close combat in the game, it is totally worth doing, but at the end of the day it is a shooting game. Sooner or later the sniper is going to lose the exchange, or a heavy machine gun is just going to light him up until he dies or ducks. When I play Malifaux and someone wants to get cute by putting a sniper in a tower it is basically time to roll your eyes at them. At the end of the day Malifaux is a melee game. Now, you can run into trouble if the tower is able to see a bit too much of the table. But that isn't an elevation thing so much as a line of sight thing, and you can make a really bad table with no elevation at all. Setting up a decent Infinity table is a skill learned by seeing some train wrecks. Flipswitch posted:Multiple layered terrain is the best (IMO) but ensure you don't have highly elevated towers in deployment zones for best outcomes. Having them near and accessible to deployment areas is perfectly fine though. We actually make sure one deployment zone has a really nasty sniper perch and the other doesn't have one in the deployment zone. To make picking sides or not a choice.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 02:10
|
|
|
I'm really not understanding the TAG hate from some folks in N3. They are really fast, and the ability to vault buildings without needing to use climb orders makes them super efficient in getting to where they need to go. Especially if you can drop only one or maybe two smoke grenades and have it cross the board in a straight line. The ability to see over a roof often lets them get really nice LoF, especially if you can get them into suppression fire somewhere good. Especially if they go into suppression under smoke. Their height letting them ignore the prone cover bonus for moto.tronica cargo crates is also pretty nice too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 02:20
|
|
|
Jooooooooooooooooan (xposted from mini painting thread)   
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 04:04
|
|
|
Base is still WIP   
Somebody fucked around with this message at 11:32 on Apr 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 07:53
|
|
|
Might want to timg those enormous pictures.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 08:50
|
|
|
Corbeau posted:Might want to timg those enormous pictures. timg'd them so you don't have to! 
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 11:32
|
|
|
JoshTheStampede posted:Jooooooooooooooooan (xposted from mini painting thread) Your paintjob is killer but you really need to sort out your camera.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 12:13
|
|
|
Z the IVth posted:Your paintjob is killer but you really need to sort out your camera. You mean my phone?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 13:24
|
|
|
JoshTheStampede posted:You mean my phone? Its got a lot of noise, even for a phone shot. It looks like the ISO is cranked up waaay too high. If your phone has a decent camera then you're doing it wrong, otherwise 
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 14:51
|
|
|
Looks like its a zoomed in picture. I mean, im not the Buddha of cameras, but I've taken a fair few pictures, and it looks like a zoomed in picture.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 14:52
|
|
|
It's zoomed in because otherwise I couldn't get a close shot of the model. That said, I know it's a bad pic. I have a lightbox but it never seems to make a difference.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 15:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 08:37 |
|
|
One Neat Trick: Shoot with high resolution and crop the photo
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 15:28
|
|