Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 I-bounty-hunt-the-elderly wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
Because those trial rules are also mandating them add new models when there are still units/models that don't even have dossiers?

Add to it that these "trial rules" smack of things that got rumored for N3/HSN3 and it just seems more and more like they're desperate to do anything outside of actually balance their game.

What? Putting in new abilities for existing units which are considered sub-par is the very definition of balancing a game. Why are you putting trial rules in quotation marks? Rules have been added to a yearly tournament pack set of rules rather than to the core rulebooks.

EDIT: What, in your opinion, is the balance issue that they are ignoring? Your strength of feeling would indicate that it's a very serious imbalance, but most people I know consider Infinity a tightly balanced game.

You're kind of refuting yourself when you say things like:

TAGs are generally considered to be a poor choice in most ITS missions due to the emphasis on specialists+order efficiency.

It's been that way for quite some time, so it's not exactly a shocking or new revelation. Why did it take this long for TAGs to get this?

If they were so on the ball about game balance, they would have y'know...actually done something about it before now.

So you don't like what they've done, because they should have done something earlier?

There a Raicho pilot dabbing on the previous page, and everyone is too busy touching the poop to notice. Stop touching the poop.

 Knight wrote:

I have high doubts the new piloting rules will change the meta. I am curious to know, how much the pilots in the bootleg line sold and if sudden appearance of pilots isn't related to probable poor sales of that line. Personally would much prefer to see appropriate TAG to get the specialist rule and simply wouldn't have bothered with pilots. As it is, manned TAG seem to have gained a nice benefit, especially those who would prefer to be in mid - close range. Speaking from PanO side, most of my TAG want to be in long range, making any attempt at the mid - close range a rather questionable idea. Should I get there I have simply amazing WIP 10 specialist before any MOD to it are added. It's not a situation I'd like to find myself, even, if it's something I couldn't have done before. If I'd had a choice to decide, I'd rather see the missing profiles (Bagh Mari HMG for instance) than something I really can't see myself using at current time (TAG/crabbot).

Well we hope they will change the meta, but not trying it will not give us any answers on changing or not the Meta, TAG specialists is a big nono from the fist ITS were LTs were specialist and LT TAGs over dominated the ITS, it has been tried found broke and amended, the tiny S1 bots are not that bad, they give a specialist option at a cost, but are less vulnerable in being out than a normal pilot.

The new mercenaries do appear to be great, although it does feel a bit Cygnar-ish to run mercs in my army once again. I have mixed view about the ITS winner allocating where those profiles will go after the end of the season.

They are an experiment, its conclusion will show its results.

They've been tinkering with ITS ever since Paradiso. No one will probably soon forget how quickly they've changed it after they've seen the madness that is Avatar and Achilles as lieutenant - specialists or the IMP/Avatar abuse. Certain changes in N3 have been attempted to make a healthier game, order spam, preference of cheap bodies over elites, camouflage spam, changes to TAG to be less aggressive and so on. If Infinity was that tightly balanced game those changes wouldn't have happened, that's my counter argument, but they did. Some people consider or considered N2-3 TAG/HI to be fine, people are free to have their view, as am I to have my.

Yes, that is why the game is so balanced, find issues and fix them, it is the first time I see somebody complaining that a game developer does their job, patching their game, nothing will be perfect game balance comes from finding issues in your system, see what is used and what is not used and why it is used and address it in a timely fashion.

 Knight wrote:
I have high doubts the new piloting rules will change the meta. I am curious to know, how much the pilots in the bootleg line sold and if sudden appearance of pilots isn't related to probable poor sales of that line. Personally would much prefer to see appropriate TAG to get the specialist rule and simply wouldn't have bothered with pilots. As it is, manned TAG seem to have gained a nice benefit, especially those who would prefer to be in mid - close range. Speaking from PanO side, most of my TAG want to be in long range, making any attempt at the mid - close range a rather questionable idea. Should I get there I have simply amazing WIP 10 specialist before any MOD to it are added. It's not a situation I'd like to find myself, even, if it's something I couldn't have done before. If I'd had a choice to decide, I'd rather see the missing profiles (Bagh Mari HMG for instance) than something I really can't see myself using at current time (TAG/crabbot).

I think it's pretty clear that they've realised people aren't taking TAGs and its reflecting on sales. When they released N3, one of the things they said they were doing was moving the pwer behind TAGs to linked teams. It's pretty obvious it swung too far that way, as people seem to have just stopped using them.

That being said, I do like that change. If someone who is trained to spot a target from an advanced position (forward observer) is skilled enough to push a button on a console, a TAG pilot should be more than qualified. It also brings the mount/dismount into play outside of people using Expel, where you might actually want to dismount from the TAG in a hostile zone to get that button pushed.

Personally, I'm interested. I like TAGs, but they can eat up a huge amount of your list and dictate a certain playstyle. I like the idea of having my TAG pilot get out in the middle of a fight to take a console, then make a mad rush back to the TAG for safety. It's a desperat emove, but sometimes that's what can win you the game and that kind of cinematic action is what I love about Infinity.

 -Loki- wrote:
[I think it's pretty clear that they've realised people aren't taking TAGs and its reflecting on sales. When they released N3, one of the things they said they were doing was moving the pwer behind TAGs to linked teams. It's pretty obvious it swung too far that way, as people seem to have just stopped using them.

TAG were having trouble in N2 after ITS appeared, not everyone were playing TAG - lieutenant but removal of that rule did basically killed interest in them. N3 definitely didn't help, in addition to the power of the link teams, the HMG's ranges got changed and a lot of them lost the up close AoE ability.

Personally, I'm interested. I like TAGs, but they can eat up a huge amount of your list and dictate a certain playstyle. I like the idea of having my TAG pilot get out in the middle of a fight to take a console, then make a mad rush back to the TAG for safety. It's a desperat emove, but sometimes that's what can win you the game and that kind of cinematic action is what I love about Infinity.

I think I'd be interested as well, if my TAG were manned. It definitely appears to me as an attempt to add "cinematic element" in the game, however no one in my boring meta plays the game for that.

 -Loki- wrote:
That being said, I do like that change. If someone who is trained to spot a target from an advanced position (forward observer) is skilled enough to push a button on a console, a TAG pilot should be more than qualified. It also brings the mount/dismount into play outside of people using Expel, where you might actually want to dismount from the TAG in a hostile zone to get that button pushed.

Personally, I'm interested. I like TAGs, but they can eat up a huge amount of your list and dictate a certain playstyle. I like the idea of having my TAG pilot get out in the middle of a fight to take a console, then make a mad rush back to the TAG for safety. It's a desperat emove, but sometimes that's what can win you the game and that kind of cinematic action is what I love about Infinity.

Speaking for myself, I've never understood why manned TAGs just don't get given the "Hacker" skill set. As you said, an actual TAG pilot should be more than qualified to be a specialist.

Wasn't it the expansion of hacker 'powers' that also helped kill off TAGs too?

Especially for manned ones, with the 'expel' program?

The TAG thing is pretty multi-layered.

First, the switch to N3 saw most HI get far cheaper (and more effective with a MOV increase putting them just 2" off of full TAG movement) while TAGs saw little to no price decrease despite suffering from a similar point-to-wound inefficiency that HI suffered under in 2nd Edition (and 1st for that matter).

Next, a great number of people (even in casual environments) play using the ITS rules and guidelines. This automatically devalues a lot of high-value units, and especially devalues TAGs. Anything that stands in the way of creating effective button-pushing hordes tends to get pushed aside in ITS conditions. Sadly, making TAGs specialists outright proved to be a step too far back in 2nd Edition. That said, the environment has changed quite a bit and Lt. TAG specialist in N3 may very well not be the same dominant force they were back when HI had no teeth.

Finally, in a game where every shot fired has a 5% chance of not just ignoring armour but dealing a wound outright, the prospect of putting all your eggs in one basket with a TAG isn't always a great idea. As it is the d20 is a very random die with a high potential for deviation and even without the crit rules as they stand the d20 can result in some pretty startling upsets (though it does share this with a great many single-die resolution systems). But with the crit rules as they stand armour is significantly devalued and points spent per wound is usually a more important measure. TAGs rely a lot on their massive armour stat to survive, but it can be ignored by a shot as easily as an LI's ARM 1. In a game where any unit has a good chance of dying even to basic small arms, armour-based survivability with a high cost (in terms of points per wound) can seem subpar to many, especially when HI can get most of the way there for a fraction of the cost (and likely have specialist profiles to boot).

TAGs aren't dead by a long shot. You can do just fine with 'em and the new suppression rules combined with their mobility can make them great on an offensive push with a bit of support. But with ITS remaining its push-button-and-pray self, it will continue to devalue high-cost units over a horde of low-cost button-pushers. Making pilots specialists may help this out a bit, but it certainly wont fix the underlying issue of the button-pushing horde anymore than a band-aid like Limited Insertion did. Either way, a great many TAGs could probably use another look in terms of costing compared to their "little" HI brethren.

Would TAGs benefit from a "can't be crit'd" special rule, or would that be too much?

 Alpharius wrote:
Would TAGs benefit from a "can't be crit'd" special rule, or would that be too much?

Too much, some can only reliably die only from Crits (from basic rifles) and this does not change the missions are won by objectives and not by wiping out the opponent.

 Alpharius wrote:
Would TAGs benefit from a "can't be crit'd" special rule, or would that be too much?

I'm not saying that's a bad idea, but I could imagine the shouting if CB touched the crit rule and didn't get rid fo the auto wound aspect wholesale.

I think it would actually make sense for them to get that rule, especially if they don't count as specialists/can't press a button in ITS missions.

For their costs, I don't think it would be game breaking either.

It has been tested, but you can test it yourself, especially in area control scenarios.

 Ronin_eX wrote:
Finally, in a game where every shot fired has a 5% chance of not just ignoring armour but dealing a wound outright, the prospect of putting all your eggs in one basket with a TAG isn't always a great idea.

That is the underlying conclusion I had, TAG simply don't fit that well in the Infinity system.

You can do just fine with 'em and the new suppression rules combined with their mobility can make them great on an offensive push with a bit of support.

I'd rather not do this, CB introduced a lot of small and point effective heavy weapon teams who can easily out range the TAG on suppressive fire.

 Alpharius wrote:
Wasn't it the expansion of hacker 'powers' that also helped kill off TAGs too?

It didn't help, then you have the new E/M - isolation rules. Isolating a vital HI is bad enough, but a scenario where a TAG is isolated and all I have is an AVA: 1 Machinist to fix it. That's really bad deal CB is trying to sell/convince me that it's "fine".

 Alpharius wrote:
Wasn't it the expansion of hacker 'powers' that also helped kill off TAGs too?

Especially for manned ones, with the 'expel' program?

Not really. Hackers are readily dealt with. Fire. Chain Rifle. Harsh language. It was the total lack of viability of TAGs in the ITS scenarios that did it. Why spend 1/3 of your army budget on 1 unit/1 order when it can do nothing to help one achieve objectives. You need as many orders as you can get too, due to the way one achieves objectives.

Making TAGs immune to criticals doesn't address this either. Giving TAGs a path to being a specialist is a start. Giving TAGS a special TAG order in addition to a regular order might help too. Or revise the way objectives work. I've seen player fail 5-6 WIP rolls in a row. Frustrating to say the least. It is a bad mechanic as it currently stands. Of course I've been a critic of the current ITS scenario format for years. Bah. There are other ways to play that don't make taking a TAG the equivalent of chosing to lose.

I'll say that I much prefer grabbing objectives in Malifaux, which simply requires the spending of an AP. There's no getting there, then holding your breath as you flip to see if you actually do get it.

In a recent Infinity tournament, it was interesting to see people go for objectives. As a Haqqislam player, the naturally high WIP meant that I didn't have to worry too much, but even still I needed to reroll once or twice. Watching the PanO players cringe as they rolled just didn't seem right.

Honestly, consoles and antennae could be made to be a long order skill to take but require no roll. Hackers get to do it as a short order. Anything targeting an actual model or HVT could be left as whatever roll they are, but consoles and antennae are pretty universal and each factions hackers should be equally good at taking them and each factions other specialists equally average.

Malifaux also has asymmetric objectives much of the time. You may need to walk up to one of your opponent's models and deliver a message for an objective while your opponent may need to literally get one of their models killed to frame them for murder.

Infinity is more traditional in that the objectives are often symmetric. I personally like the YAMS system which introduces a bit of asymmetry where you're just as likely to need to peacefully escort a civilian as you are to simply slay your opponent's stuff. TAGs have a use there.

The focus on specialists in ITS has been a rather controversial choice that has only favored units like Hackers and made TAGs rather questionable. This TAGline system is a step in the right direction even if I'm not a fan of the "specialist" system anyways.

Malifaux's system of "insignificant" models IMO is better. Basically everyone can perform the mission objective unless they have the "insignificant" modifier often relegated to things like dogs, rats, mechanical spiders, etc. Infinity could just adopt a system where some models like Pretas, Hungries, Antipodes, Kuang Shi, Baggage Bots, and some others are incapable of performing the objective.

 Knight wrote:
I'd rather not do this, CB introduced a lot of small and point effective heavy weapon teams who can easily out range the TAG on suppressive fire.

It is list, table and TAG dependent of course, and it certainly wont take the meta by storm but with good positioning a TAG is still pretty hard to knock out of suppression fire position (assuming your terrain is tall enough to give them some selective corridors in a similar manner that most S2 troops take for granted). Not something to take to a tourney (where you can't guess terrain makeup), but in home games, where you can better assume table makeup (and do something other than ITS, in fact this is a fantastic place to start in general ) they can still work out well enough.

But I play Yu Jing, and we have a 59 point model that does everything a TAG can but with more mobility and often a more flexible armament to boot. So needless to say, I don't run TAGs much.

I hope someone at CB is reading this thread and making notes,

These suggestions have all been made before, here in various threads, and on the official forums. ITS scenarios first emerged for the 2013 ITS. The arguments you guys (and I) make here are the same that others have been making for the past 3.5 years. Except the Malifaux comparisons, because 3-4 years ago Malifaux was a trainwreck. CB is trying to fix things with the ITS, as we are seeing. But the scenarios are the problem... N/m it's all off-topic, so I'm done.

The Yu Jing "TAG"? which unit Ronin_eX, the Dao Fei hacker? or the Su Jian?

No more news for a while, I think.

 Absolutionis wrote:


The focus on specialists in ITS has been a rather controversial choice that has only favored units like Hackers and made TAGs rather questionable. This TAGline system is a step in the right direction even if I'm not a fan of the "specialist" system anyways.
.

I remember thinking the same when the Specialists first came into the game, and there being some cynicism at the time that it would have helped the sale of specialists and things like remotes. I guess it's a different thing to balance in terms of how people play the game in different ways. I think certainly if you play more YAMS or 20x20 it's much less of an issue.

Like the Malifaux idea, maybe that would be a different way to approach it?

 Red Harvest wrote:
The Yu Jing "TAG"? which unit Ronin_eX, the Dao Fei hacker? or the Su Jian?

Su-Jian all the way. Just enough armour to be worth a damn in cover without going overboard on cost, front-loaded movement profile for quick run-and-gun play (in movement mode) or TAG-level BS in combat mode. It packs effectively three wounds and comes armed with a gun for every occasion. It can climb walls, it can go prone, it can make 8" cautious moves, it can use that beautiful PH 14 score to actually dodge things.

Kind of hard for a TAG to compete with something that brings the same firepower and survivability to the table for 26-29 less points while being more flexible and manoeuvrable.

This makes me glad I stick to deathmatches for most games (although, I would play with objectives in Malifaux, as they're integrated so fully into the fabric of the game). Some people tend to dismiss simple deathmatches as brainless, but I've always thought that the simpler your task, the purer the game.

Therefore , I hope any TAG fixes don't unbalance the game outside of ITS. How is N3's non-ITS balance doing these days, anyway? I'm a little out of the loop. Is there still a sense of "it's not your list, it's you" in non-mission play or has the focus on designing for missions upset things a bit? Does anyone even play enough deathmatches to know?

I'd like to see a rule where a command token could be used to auto pass a WIP for an objective. Perhaps limited to one per turn.

I would not want to see Infinity move to the same kind of tournament setup as Malifaux. I personally dislike it's whole thing where you see the full list of scenarios, you and your opponent might not pick the same ones, and you build your army specifically tailored each round. It often left me feeling like I and my opponent were playing different games on the same board.

 -Loki- wrote:
In a recent Infinity tournament, it was interesting to see people go for objectives. As a Haqqislam player, the naturally high WIP meant that I didn't have to worry too much, but even still I needed to reroll once or twice. Watching the PanO players cringe as they rolled just didn't seem right.

I thought having the old Auxilia specialist to be neat solution to having mostly lower WIP specialists. They're not great, if you get only one of them on the objective, but rolling twice is better than having higher WIP. With potential AVA limit of two or three of them per sectorial it also wouldn't be an issue when spam is taken into consideration. Gives hi tech faction a benefit and keeps it up with the background.

Red Harvest wrote:Not really. Hackers are readily dealt with. Fire. Chain Rifle. Harsh language. It was the total lack of viability of TAGs in the ITS scenarios that did it. Why spend 1/3 of your army budget on 1 unit/1 order when it can do nothing to help one achieve objectives. You need as many orders as you can get too, due to the way one achieves objectives.

Most of the guys in the local meta brought a hacker for mandatory protection bubble, that was just for their HI hitter. However as you said, TAG are expensive and when you feel that you need to spend more just to keep her on the table, the question is raised of why would you field her in the first place.

.Mikes. wrote:I hope someone at CB is reading this thread and making notes,

I dread to know the content and purpose of those notes.

Bootleg did not sell that bad. On the other hand quite some people wanted pilots for their TAGs instead of always proxying them.

Well, I couldn't save the Caskuda, so I'm sure I can't fix TAGs either!

Although you did try!

And the Caskuda will always live on in our hearts and display cabinets, until it gets a change to bestride the battlefield once more.