|
Yeah, I don't know if I've ever seen an ALEPH list that didn't have a gently caress-ton of Myrmidons. The ZoC "abuse" is as follows: model A is in ZoC of model B, but not in LoF. Model A expends an order, the first part of which is Idle or Movement or whatever. As soon as this order is declared, model B MUST declare his ARO (because Model A is not a camo marker, so B cannot delay). But because A is still out of LoF, the only ARO B can declare is either Reset or Change Facing. Model A can then execute the second half of his order (which could be to move into base-to-base contact with Model B without having to risk getting shot as he approaches). Where this can get really nasty is if the thing blocking LoF is smoke (a zero-visibility zone) and Model A has MSV2. So Model A has LoF to Model B, but not vice-versa. So the second half of B's order can be to make a BS Attack and there's jack (and poo poo) Model B can do about it except Change Facing. Now, that said, Change Facing works like Dodge, only with a -3 modifier. So it's not like Model B is totally screwed, it just means he can't shoot back. That's what people mean by "no risk" - no risk of Model A dying due to ARO. Model A might miss, Model B might still dodge, or even get hit and pass an ARM roll or whatever. It's not the "instant and risk free death sentence" that people make it out to be. It's also REALLY loving specific - you have to be within the other model's ZoC and you have to be out of its LoF. If your opponent isn't completely asleep at the wheel, this can actually be kind of a pain to pull off, because even if Model B isn't getting a useful ARO, another of his supporting models might. And even if you manage to do that, the enemy model always gets a chance to Change Facing (which remember is a Dodge at -3). Further, when using it to get into close-combat, you actually end up burning an extra order to do it (because instead of your order being Move+CC, your order is Idle+Move, then you have to burn ANOTHER order to make a CC attack). So not only is it not guaranteed, it's an inefficient use of orders. In other words, it's kind of hard to pull off, not super effective, and not nearly as "abusive" as people make it out to be. A much nastier thing is to bring on Van Zant from your opponent's own board edge, then use his AP Rifle in the +3 range band from outside an opponent's LoF and ZoC. In that situation, there is NOTHING the opposing model(s) can do except make an ARM roll. That's why you make sure your cheerleaders and rear-guard troops cover your backfield - because having ANY trooper have LoF on him gives everyone else at least the ability to Change Facing through the Alert ARO. Ilor fucked around with this message at 05:01 on Oct 21, 2015 |
#
¿
Oct 21, 2015 04:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 06:05 |
|
|
Genghis Cohen posted:Wait what? Surely being shot in the back allows you to always change facing at -3 PH in N3? Are you saying that only applies to templates or attacks from within ZoC? But in actuality, these kinds of shenanigans are really hard to pull off against an opponent who knows anything about Airborne Deployment. A good opponent will have one or more cheap troops watching the backfield corners/board edges to keep this sort of thing from happening (either using their ARO to shoot your AD trooper as they enter, or using it to Alert everyone else to turn around, such that the AD trooper's next action is opposed and probably fatal). The ZoC "abuse" thing is the same. Mostly it's people making mountains out of mole-hills, like how "crits destroy the game", or "Total Reaction bots are game-changingly over-powered," (never mind that every time I bring one it gets blasted to smithereens) and (my personal favorite) "un-targetable Tin-bots are worth rage-quitting over."
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2015 18:23
|
|
|
Mugaaz posted:Had a real bad game yesterday. This game can really be frustrating when you're new. Just got absolutely loving wrecked by weird rules poo poo. That said, you've learned a valuable lesson here - don't have your dudes facing their cover. It makes them easy to sneak up on. Similarly, if you've only got one guy who can see an enemy trooper who is in a position to threaten multiple friendly models, you're almost always better off having that guy make an Alert ARO. At least then everybody else will get a chance to react to the enemy's next order. Mugaaz posted:Second one. Have Squalo on top of a building in supressive fire. Opponent moves a grunt unit that is behind the Squalo, but fairly far away. Triggers an ARO from my sniper. I declare shoot. He throws smoke at the base of the building the Squalo is on. This is not a face to face roll I guess? I kill the model, the smoke bomb goes off on the floor, but I guess since they are infinitely high that means the smoke goes up then over the wall of the building to cover the Squalo in smoke making him blind. But essentially it sounds like he sacrificed a cheap dude to smoke out your Squalo for a turn, probably so he could move some other stuff without it getting suppressed. Valid tactic. That said, Corbeau is right; using camo HMGs and edge-case smoke rules on new players is pretty hard-core, and probably not a great way to introduce people to the game.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2015 07:35
|
|
|
Genghis Cohen posted:I believe it would have been -6 because change facing is -3, with a further -3 for FtF ARO against a surprise shot. Camo markers have Stealth, so he would not have the opportunity to Change Facing for a move inside ZoC and outside LoF. Genghis Cohen posted:This is all correct, bear in mind though that dodging/change facing or anything else which isn't 'shoot' would break the Squalo's Suppressive Fire state. Genghis Cohen posted:Mugaaz, these are all tricks based on a precise understanding of the rules. Your opponent was maybe a bit of a berk to just spring them on you, if I were playing a new player I would at least have explained as I went into the orders what I was going to do, and probably warned you to not stack up your models in a line behind a building (this is an incredibly common mistake for rookie players to make). On the other hand, that's the guy you want to learn from as those moves both sound like efficient ways to take out models, and he probably understands the game well.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
It's like Carlos said in their BoW intro bat-rep: their guns are loaded with liberty, their bullets are full of freedom.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
Stay out of my Haqq, you filthy CA-playing species-traitor.  EDIT: ...and pay no attention to the fact that my next army will probably be the Shasvastii...
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
Flipswitch posted:Especially the Govads.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2015 03:48
|
|
|
Laphroaig posted:Behold, the most dreadful price for a terrible product
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2015 04:24
|
|
|
Just finished assembling my new Janissaries. God drat I love those minis!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2015 04:32
|
|
|
Selnaric and I played a 20x20 game last night, his Caledonians vs my Haqqislam. We fought it to a draw. It was a lot of fun, with the balance of the game swinging back and forth. If you guys haven't tried the 20x20 system yet, give it a look. I think it's less specialist intensive than ITS, which makes for more flexible lists.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
http://infinitytheforums.com/forum/topic/34306-the-20x20-infinity-mission-system-version-20/
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
Irregular troops really only present a problem when there are lots of them. Keep in mind that just because an Irregular trooper can't contribute his order to the pool doesn't mean that he can't spend other Regular Orders from the pool. So if you need to rambo Musashi all over the field cutting down your foes, knock yourself out.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
jodai posted:It has a very unique feel to the gameplay and I look forward to learning more about pretty much every aspect.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
Congrats on best single mini. I've seen the pics of your punisher-faced Intruders on the Infinity forums - they're pretty rad! And yes, you can spend multiple command tokens to re-roll WIP failures for both engineers (I think so long as your target has G:Remote Presence) and doctors (for sure so long as your target has a Cube). But unless your game-plan is going perfectly or it's late in the game and you've got them left over anyway, Command Tokens are usually too valuable to drop this way. But getting a TAG functioning again in a scenario like Supremacy is probably a good expenditure just because it's so many points in a zone.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
Genghis Cohen posted:Thank you, but since I haven't ever posted them on the Infinity forums, it was probably someone more talented.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2015 21:17
|
|
|
Corbeau posted:Am I looking back through rose-tinted glasses, or are the official forums steadily getting more obnoxious? I'm finding it progressively less worthwhile to read threads there just because of the petty bickering. I think if they could just probate King of Squid for being a poo poo-posting blowhard, things would probably settle down to "mostly cool."
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2015 06:11
|
|
|
Wow. Pretty much all of those are rad as gently caress! It's only a matter of time until I am facing those new Rodoks in BlackIronHeart's army.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
Flipswitch posted:I've played against em linked a few times already and they're fuckin nasty. Super Jump is pure aids when it shines. Esp with the B4 LSG or just HMG.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2015 23:57
|
|
|
I'm OK with the Domaru color scheme, but what impresses me most about them is the shape of their helmets. That's such a cool and distinctive silhouette. I must have that new Ragik hacker, though.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2015 00:27
|
|
|
So I am assembling the old-school Haqqislam "chicken bot" Remotes that just arrived on my doorstep yesterday, and I've gotta say these particular miniatures make me want to stab myself in the face. They are super-fiddly. I've already broken one of the legs, and I see much pinning of aerials and whatnot in my future. Sigh.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
Still, it sounds like a fun tournament, and for a good cause, too!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
Genghis Cohen posted:Does anyone have any experience with the Ariadna Traktor Mul units? I have never faced them, and my mate who I'm teaching Infinity (he's coming along nicely) wants to use his. I just played a game against them a few days ago, and they are pretty nasty. In addition to being baggage bots, they are armed to the teeth. Their biggest problem is the relatively short range bands. The Katyusha is a murder-mobile against Link Teams or troops packed close together, but its big drawback is the fact that it has no non-template profile - so if you're standing next to an unconscious Ariadna trooper (which my Hawwa with Boarding Shotgun was doing by design), the Katyusha has no response but to dodge (which it does at -3 for being a Remote). The Uragan has no such limitation, however, and its Total Reaction makes it particularly brutal.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
We've been playing a lot of 20x20 missions lately and loving it. It's made for some really interesting (and very close) games. I even managed to win one after getting tabled (let's hear it for playing to the objectives!)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2015 02:59
|
|
|
That FAQ is awesome. Answers a number of the questions that have been raging on the forums of late (especially the whole "when do you measure ZoC for AROs? discussion).
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2015 04:18
|
|
|
MRRF is a pretty solid Sectorial with lots of interesting choices. They have some pretty baller options for link teams.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2015 16:45
|
|
|
In a way I see his point - hacking is entirely predicated on someone being in your ZoC. LoF is completely immaterial. So if your HI trooper comes blasting around a corner with his first short skill and he's really close to that magic 8" mark, you need to know whether he's close enough to hack, otherwise your ARO declaration is illegal. This is made doubly difficult by that throw-away line in the description of the hacking device whereby it allows you to know instantaneously if a model in your ZoC is hackable, which pretty much requires you to measure in order to determine whether you need to reveal that information or not. Hell, you could even argue that this applies to the active turn, which is crazy-talk but well within the rules as written. When you guys (successfully) argued that you measure ZoC for AROs before declaring them, this is the kind of poo poo you signed up for.  Had it gone the other way, you'd have had to guess and hope for the best, just like you do by AROing with a direct template weapon. It might have sucked in those occasional corner cases, but at least it would be consistent.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
Hipster Occultist posted:What corner cases does it open up? I'm not experienced enough to really get a grasp on exactly how this ruling is so divisive.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
There's a thread in the terrain section (I think) of the Infinity forums where some dude has made a "universal" base marking PDF. Print that sucker out and it will have everything you'll ever need for pretty much any game you'll ever want to play. A bunch of different base sizes, markings at both 60-degree and 90-degree increments, etc. I typically put my mini on the sheet, mark where the lines cross in pencil, then paint a line there with my thinnest brush. Super easy.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
Sir Teabag posted:Maybe it's because I'm still inexperienced and coming from a 40K background, but I keep seeing all the neat toys that PanO can bring and I want them all. It makes figuring out how to expand my budding collection difficult because everything seems so cool.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2015 07:03
|
|
|
Corbeau posted:Also, there's another terrible dumb rules argument thread on the official forums so I spent 15 minutes making a thing and now feel compelled to share:
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2015 08:09
|
|
|
Genghis Cohen posted:I find the level of negativity on the official forums very surprising - I would say, objectively, that the Infinity rules are in a better place than a year ago, the player base has certainly exploded in number, the new models are nailing it, etc. Also, the Flash Pulse has "Technical Weapon" as one of its traits. This means that it uses the WIP attribute in order to make its attacks. In this regard, it is similar the "Throwing Weapon," which uses PH instead of BS.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
A Real Horse posted:I've been looking around the wiki and reading the rules online, but was hoping there were some other things. Especially podcasts to have going while I build the minis. Or good battle reports on youtube or something like that. A Real Horse posted:Also, does it work to proxy minis from 40k for Infinity? Like, for just a couple of games? A Real Horse posted:Really, any general advice for starting Infinity would be appreciated as well. Also, once you've played a few timers, I highly recommend the 20x20 mission system (which you can find on the Infinity Forums, and probably also through Google). They are nicely balanced and all but a handful of the primary and secondary objectives are very beginner friendly. Getting yourself used to objective-based play from the beginning will help if you want to play competitively later. It's also just more fun and interesting than "kill 'em all" games.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2016 06:40
|
|
|
Going to my first ITS tournament this weekend. Lifeblood, Beacon Race and Biotechvore. Probably going to get smashed, but it'll be fun none the less.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
So my Ghazi Muttawi'ah box just arrived today. When I first opened it, I was like, "drat, they gave me the same chick twice." Then I looked more closely; using the same base torso, you can build two completely different-looking minis. Then I looked at the way the male Ghazi's second leg fits onto the leg-torso main piece. Clever partitioning, superb fit, really fantastic design work here. tldr; holy CRAP are these minis are awesome!!!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2016 02:51
|
|
|
Crossposting from the minis thread... Gettin' prepped for an ITS tournament tomorrow, painted a whole mess of stuff partway, finished a couple more. Of the two minis I did completely finish, one is my converted Ghulam with light grenade launcher:  I'm really happy with the way she turned out. I was super-stoked that the teeny-weeny Haqqislam symbol on her beret came out well.  The other mini I finished was my HVT (High Value Target), a mini that gets used in ITS as a potential objective for your opponent. This one is "Fusilier Angus" from the Dire Foes pack, the same one that came with the SpecOps mini I decapitated for the conversion above.  Here again, the Haqqislam insignia on the beret worked.  My favorite part of this one is the smarmy mustache. He just looks like someone you want to shoot. Hopefully I'll remember to take some photos of all these minis in action at the tourney tomorrow. Wish me luck!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2016 07:23
|
|
|
Holy poo poo. I just won my first ITS event. Granted it was a 4-player round-robin so it's not like I bested a massive swarm of dudes. But for by first time outta the gate, I'm pretty happy with how it all turned out. I made a few boneheaded mistakes, had a good streak of high rolls for ARM rolls (I was using a list chock-full of HI). Of course those high rolls were not so good when my Janissary with Boarding Shotgun was trying to shoot a Gecko like 4" away. Seriously, I needed a freaking 19. What do I roll? A whole bunch of 20s. The guys I played against were super chill and very friendly, and brought interesting, challenging lists. All in all it was a really fun time.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2016 03:38
|
|
|
My opponents/scenarios were Biotechvore against a double-Gecko Corregidor list (yikes!), Beacon Race against an Aragoto and Remote-heavy JSA list (crazy fast and all up in my grill more or less immediately!), and Lifeblood against Steel Phalanx (with the new Achilles!), and like I said, all the games were fun and challenging. I played Vanilla Haqqislam. I don't have a huge amount of stuff yet (only been collecting/playing for maybe 6 months?), so my lists were a lot of heavy infantry. Here's one of the two:  Haqqislam────────────────────────────────────────────────── Group 1   10  0  0 GHULAM Hacker (Hacking Device) Rifle + Light Shotgun / Pistol, Knife. (0.5 | 20) HUSAM Rifle + Light Shotgun, Panzerfaust / Pistol, Knife. (16 / 12XP) MOV:4-4 CC:13 BS:13 PH:10 WIP:14 ARM:2 BTS:0 W:1 Holoprojector L1, Hacking Device, Engineer, Minelayer SHIHAB REMOTE HMG / Electric Pulse. (1 | 25) FASSED AP Rifle, Panzerfaust / Pistol, CCW. (36) NASMAT Electric Pulse. (3) JANISSARY Akbar Doctor (MediKit) AP Rifle + Light Shotgun / Pistol, CCW. (41) JANISSARY Boarding Shotgun + 1 TinBot A (Deflector L1) / Pistol, CC Weapon. (0.5 | 32) NAJJARUN Engineer Rifle + Light Shotgun, D-Charges / Pistol, Knife. (17) ASAWIRA Lieutenant AP Rifle + Light Shotgun, Nanopulser / Pistol, Shock CCW. (48) GHULAM Doctor Plus (MediKit) Rifle + Light Shotgun / Pistol, Knife. (16) GHULAM (Forward Observer) Rifle + Light Shotgun / Pistol, Knife. (13)Group 2 1 1 0 GHULAM Rifle + Light Shotgun / Pistol, Knife. (12) HUNZAKUT Sniper Rifle, Antipersonnel Mines / Pistol, Knife. (0.5 | 21)2.5 SWC | 300 Points Open with Army 5 In Biotechvore, my Janissary Akbar Doctor saved my bacon. He pulled my SpecOps back up out of unconscious, and she then ran over and repped my TR bot out of double unconscious. That was 41 points put back on the table in the last turn (I went 2nd), which was enough for me to squeak out a victory. Ilor fucked around with this message at 06:19 on Jan 17, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2016 06:15
|
|
|
ThreeLefts posted:If anyone has any insight into my rules query that'd be rad; I don't mind keeping it out of the enthusiasm of people new to Infinity so if anyone has an opinion on the rules interaction just pm me. I'm torn on this one, only because the rules say that Super Jump "alters" the user's Jump skill, meaning that the skill you are declaring during your order is "Jump," not "Super-Jump." And by that reasoning, so long as the Seraph and the Auxbot are declaring the same order (Jump), they both execute it. It doesn't matter that it takes them different amounts of time/resources to complete it, it is the same skill and so to my thinking the declaration is legal. So yeah, the Seraph can jump and shoot while the Auxbot simply jumps. The more dodgy use of this is not Jump+BS Attack but rather BS Attack+Jump. In that case, both the Seraph and the Auxbot shoot, but in this case ONLY the Seraph can move, as the Auxbot cannot perform the second half of the order, and therefore under the standard rules for G:Synch becomes Idle. Sort of an edge-case, but seems legit.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2016 15:47
|
|
|
Yeah, but you don't declare orders; you declare skills. The skill you're declaring (Jump) is one that the Auxbot can accomplish, even though it takes it longer to accomplish for the Auxbot than it does for the Seraph. But yeah, it's definitely an interesting question. Hey, I have an idea: Post it on the Infinity forums and see if you can get anyone to rage-quit over the ensuing argument! (I'm looking at you, non-targetable TinBot!)
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 06:05 |
|
|
Verr posted:-How far exactly can one "vault" over obstacles? Clearly an S2 profile can vault over a similarly scaled fence, but can a S7 TAG vault over an entire shipping container if their move clears the object? Assuming the TAG is taller than the shipping container. As for using vault to end up on top of an obstacle, this is a little bit of a gray area. By RAW, any time you are moving vertically, you must use either Jump or Climb. There is a specific exception to this for scenery objects that represent stairs or ladders, over which you can move without invoking Climb. Apart from that notable exception, you need to Jump or Climb to get on top of stuff. But more important is the rule that you can't stand on something smaller than the width of your base (i.e. your base is not allowed to "hang over" an edge). This is very important for stuff like TAGs, because their large base size means they have a hard time standing on top of a lot of common scatter terrain (like cargo containers). These rules actually cover most terrain interactions pretty well. They might produce wonky results every now and again, but for the most part they make it pretty clear what you need to do to get from Point A to Point B (as well as whether Point B is even a legal destination).
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2016 19:11
|
|