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 am wondering whether the Cypher advantage/disadvantage scheme is balanced or not. I'm not sure, anymore, myself. It might be, but I want to know what others think.


When I first started playing AT-43 the Cypher advantage that "every Overseer has access to all Routines, regardless of category," seemed very powerful for the obvious reason that Infantry Overseers could run the Creation Routine and create Type * AFV's in base-to-base contact with themselves every turn for 4 LP.

Thus "Hekat spam" was born, which apparently players vociferously complained about (this was before my time), and then the Routine was questioned, and eventually Rackham ruled that only Company Commanders were allowed to use the Creation Routine. I will not delve into the explanation as I find it infuriatingly illogical, but there it is and that's how the rule is currently applied.

Therefore, the Cypher advantage is probably better stated as "The Company Commander has access to all Routines, regardless of category," because it's only the Company Commander in a Cypher army which actually ever gets to utilize this advantage.

1) An Infantry Overseer in a Cypher army will never be able to use any AFV Routines. He will have no vehicles in his unit to ever run an AFV routine upon.

2) An AFV Overseer in a Cypher army will never be able to use any Infantry Routines. He will have no infantry in his unit to ever run an Infantry routine upon.


Then we get to the Cypher disadvantage:

"Cypher armies may not wager LP on the Authority test."

Considering how important first turn, or forcing your opponent to take first turn, can be in a game of AT-43 this seems like a very weighty disadvantage. It's almost punitive.

If the Cypher advantage was truly applicable to all Overseers in a Cypher army, then I see the logic of this balancing act. If the Therian player can Create Type * AFV's off his Infantry Overseers ad nauseum, then it's really important that his opponent get those first shots every round to try and kill the Created AFVs quickly, or to snipe the Overseers early to prevent them from ever being Created in the first place.

This not being the case, however...I'm thinking that the Cypher disadvantage should perhaps be something different, maybe?


The way I see it right now, Cypher advantage effectively works out to:

1) Access to the Creation routine on any unit in the company (versus an AFV CC only being able to Create on other AFV units excluding himself)

2) Ability to run Hyper-Nano twice on any unit

3) Ability to run Transfer twice on any unit

4) Ability to run Reconstruction twice on any unit

This does seem like a fair bit of added power...but is it still worth giving up the LP wager?


Thoughts?

Cypher is the only faction I play for Therians. 100% Cypher all the time, and this has nothing to do with the faction advantage and disadvantage balance.

I play Cyphers because I like the faction write up and it allows me to use the toys I want to play. While unlike the other original factions all Therian subfaction armies allow two vehicles per platoon, for three of them one of those is a mandatory * choice, and I just don't like Hekats. The only other faction allowing 'free' build of vehicles is H/Babel and that has a messed up infantry section; a mandatory *** infantry and only one ** option without sacrificing a vehicle slot. Allowing for how Therian armies revolve pretty much around the ** infantry this list is too restrictive. Other than Cypher vanilla is the only option, and vanilla has two downsides; no * infantry at all and only one vehicle slot.

Now admittedly I painted myself into a corner because my Therian army wass Taimat and a couple of Golaith units and a Baal as garnish to a force consisting of the massed Wraith Golgoths and Storm golems you get from six Damocles boxsets. I principally bought those for the Fire Toads, some of the Steel troopers and the terrain, the Therian army I got was a happy addition. I like my Therians but the UNA core army is the prize.

So admittedly I play Cypher also because it fits the army I was practically given, I could have changed that by selective buying of other units, but haven't bothered as everything else fits. In fact the only downside to the cypher army organisation is that I have limited access to *** and * infantry. So it takes a large army to bring out all the toys, but then again they are not needed, I also have such a large army, five platoons, no problems, enough for Storm arachn and both types of Goliath in my army at full muster. Ultimately if you only had wraith Golgoths and Storm Golems Cypher is ultimately your only army. When you add Goliaths and other vehicles and infantry it is still the natural choice. My Therian army has everything except * vehicles, assault Golems and storm arachn, and the Rackham sale has seen to the last ommission as of today, the others I never wanted. saying that with a couple of units of Storm Arachn I will have enough non ** infantry to make a viable H/Babel list at 4000AP+.



So my armies are chosen and the advantages havent been looked at yet. Well not really. While I don't use the faction advantage much, I don't fear the disadvantage either. Remember what you do when you dump 6LP on an authority test, you go first, with one unit. Its still you go i go alternating activation. you only get, or in the case of Cypher and Nova are almost certain to get the second shot. To take 'advantage' of this put pressure on two points. with two nasty confrontations on the battlefield your opponent only gets the drop on one, you get the drop on the other. This reduces the advantage down to a simple choice of which point of contact is more crucial.
Cyphers help here, remember in the background they are the Baal Golgoth fans. they share with M.Ind, A-Volution and vanilla ONI the advantage of being able to take two *** vehicles in a single platoon. setting up a double punch when you have two Baals is easy. Baals are nasty reletively cheap for heavy vehicles and easy to repair.

This is the blunt approach, of course you can and should set up the two prong attack in other ways.

the second reason Cypher disadvantage doesnt hurt is because unlike other factions Therians like going last. With exception of med teams, and yes admittedly they are an over-represented exception, Therian routines are the only defence that occurs after the fact. Med teams can bring you back, so can Therians, * Cog striders can too, but thats one vehicle type, not an army. If you do take a nasty hit routines can normally sort it out, yers its expensive but thqats what LP are for.

This comes to the this point, with most armies you have far more LP than you know what do do with, especially as virtually every army of any size has an undercosted >>>>> leader. the only time I see less than a >>>> hero leading an army is you guessed it: a Baal Golgoth horde. Anyway, most armies (poor Karmans) have enough LP to give everyone cover and enough points over for all the other orders you might need, such as the odd split fire and still dump 6 points on authority. Simply because if they dont they know they will likely have those points left over at end of turn anyway. Therians can actually use those points, especially with Cypher allowing all routines.

You make the understandable mistake of thinking Hekat spam, fair enough. I dont partly because I know its a double helping of cheese and partly because I dislike Hekat models so much I have none to spam. still all those points come in real handy, restoring heavy weapons and relays, repairing Golgoths, repairing more Golgoths and of course repairing Golgoths. This is where Baals come in handy, most factions get a point of repair a turn on the big stuff. you get a point of repair per routine used, got several overseers and you have got several points of repair on your lead units. Baals become very hard to take down when they regenerate 2-3 points a turn. Jusr remember though that it can also be worth it to focus that protection on a lesser Golgoth instead.

In that in addition to the six Wraith Golgoths I have no choice in owning I also only have two Baals, but I did try out a test of two platoons of Cypher with four Baals, two looking suspiciously like my Dotch Yaga. I just wanted to see what happens if Cypher really cheesed out and played both sides. Sure Cyphers 'lost the initiative' but to the poor OpFor this can mean what to do with the units hiding out of LOS after first wave got reduced to irradiated remnants in small glowing craters. So you get the first move, so what: go ahead punk make my day.

You dont need to go to extremes in fact a better Therian player doesn't look at the Baal Golgoth except as a fun toy. Incubus Golgoths are far nastier, you got the range your not going anywhere, so never move, just unleash pain. I don't have any Incubus Golgoths in my army either and certainly not the cheese on insect legs known as Babylon Zero. No you get the quiet killers in the Therian list Assault Goliaths, Assault Medusae, Wraith Golgoths, lots of 'average' units with a decent pricetag, good survivability and guns good against any target. It doesnt matter if the enemy takes you by 'suprise' flesh or metal these core Therian units have the tools to take you on. Many of the Therian units are multi combat role, good for reactive play, especially when they are overlooked in fear of the two big gun units like Bane Goliaths.

Cypher is instinctively an unsubtle army, heavy hitting, routing spamming, vehicle hording and all that lot. But behind that is a huge amount of versatility beyond those of other armies which propmote their versatility through the front door. This is why Cypher is subtle after all. The opponent expects a simply smash through the front, you give it to them, but its the well timed logistics and the double punch that really hit hard.

Cairnius wrote:2) An AFV Overseer in a Cypher army will never be able to use any Infantry Routines. He will have no infantry in his unit to ever run an Infantry routine upon.

Nice how you leave out the fact that a Cypher AFV Overseer Commander can use the Infantry "Transfer", "Dash", "Hyper Nano" and "Reconstruction" routines on any infantry unit in his force.

What the advantage also allows you to do is have an Infantry Commander who can Reconstruct an infantry fighter in any infantry unit and let it Repair 1SP per round on one of your AFVs and that makes for a Omicron Baal with two Repairs per round and all for a single LP. Seeing that you want the Baal to get close for the Flamer this is a great bonus.

In any size of game my Baal has never fired the flamer.

Its nasty, but the other gun is probably the nastiest in the game, it has a long range and the Baal needs to stick close to friendly overseers who can repair it. So the flamer nice though it is is no reason to move forward. Besides it still has a deterent effect. Get within 25cm of this monster and you are going to be crispy fried.

The only way I can lose a Baal is if the opponent overkills and pours all their firepower into it, for about two turns. I am happy when that happens repair it a little to linger on and make sure the Baal gets a few shots of itself out. Meanwhile because it has absorbed just about all long range heavy firepower there is little left to threaten much of anything else. I lose a Baal, the opponent by this time has lost substantially more.

Saying that my Therians have never played Red Blok, with the Blok needing to close range I am sure there will be plenty of opportunities to have a cook out.

Orlanth wrote:. . . . . and the Baal needs to stick close to friendly overseers who can repair it.

Only the army Commander Overseer can affect the Baal with Routines and he can do that from the other side of the board (hiding inside a container if he wants to).

The Baal Flamer might not be anything as bad as the Vandal Mortar but it will still kill most infantry on a 2+. I push the Baal forward with its Rush movement in round one and have it parked next to an objective or two taking out AFVs and any infantry that get to close.

Orlanth wrote:This is where Baals come in handy, most factions get a point of repair a turn on the big stuff. you get a point of repair per routine used, got several overseers and you have got several points of repair on your lead units. Baals become very hard to take down when they regenerate 2-3 points a turn.

As Cairnius notes, that's not how Cypher works.
Each Cypher Overseer has access to both sets of routines, but the standard rules of routines means each can only use them on his own unit, with the exception of the Company commander.
In a cypher list, the most (routine) repairs you can do to any one AFV per turn is two, just like any other Therian faction. One repair from it's self, one from the company commander.
The only difference in the case of Cypher is that that company commander may be an Infantry overseer.

And if the company commander IS an AFV, the most repairs it will have per round is 1.

I am with you halfway. Yes a cypher vehicle overseer cannot repair a Baal unless it is the Baal itself or the commander.

However an infantry overseer can. Let us look at the wording of the Cypher advantage " every overseer has access to all infantry and armoured fighting vehicle routines no matter his category."

This is pretty clear. Golem overseers can use AVF routines, Golgoth overseers can use infantry routines. this much we cannot disagree with. the no matter his category can only be read to imply that the restriction on who you can cast it on is waived, after all commanders and non commander overssers are two different categories.
as faction advantages over-ride normal rules this should not be a problem. Vehicles cannot take objectives. Sure, you tell that to Frontline. You cannot use those routines on someone else. Sure, you tell that to Cypher.
This rule is an over-ride like all special faction rules. Thus if my Storm Golem overseer has access to vehicle routines, which it most certainly does, who does it use the on?

The only answer that makes sense is to say, any vehicle.

Cairnius' wording is better if you keep to the concept that only commanders can effect other units. Perhaps Rackham are just sloppy in their wording, but until FAQed properly we can only go with what is written as it is a specific faction rule.
until then limiting rules as they stand. to me this mean an infatry overseer can use infantry routines on itself or vehicle routines on an adjacent unit. after all its not a commander so it should not have global range. Let us look at the wording of the vehicle Repair routine: "An armoured fighting vehicle regains 1 SP. The armoured fighting vehicle and the location repaired are chosen by the player." As normally this would mean part of your unit for an AFV overseer casting the routine, so an infantry overseer emulating this must be in squad cohesion with the vehicle, i.e. within 10cm.
That how we play it anyway, the infantry overseer gets in close and repairs as if the vehicle were part of its unit. Same wirth all the others. the only time the wording gets iffy is with Fusion, and that has been FAQed to be exclusively for the Commander only anyway. So in fact the interpretation we use makes sense.

The only thing you cannot do outright is use special characters routines as they are not listed as infantry or AFV routines. So a Baal Golgoth cannot Body hack, or use Combat Teleportation, for which we can be grateful.

In a non Cypher list, an AFV Overseer has access to all AFV routines, does it not?

But it cant use them on units other than it's own, can it?

You are mixing two separate rules into one. One routine rule is that Overseers only have access to the routines for their category.
Another, entirely separate routine rule is that each non-commanding overseer may only affect his own unit.

Cypher only alters one of those rules, the one about access.

All Cypher does in reality is let the Commander run routines not of his type.
All other Overseers get no benefit from Cypher.

Orlanth wrote:yes a cypher vehicle overseer cannot repair a Baal unless it is th Baal or the commander.
However an infantry overseer can.

This is internally inconsistent. How can Cypher grant infantry overseers the ability to run repair on AFV's not of their unit, but not grant other AFV Overseers the same ability?
For that to be true the Cypher advantage would have to say "infantry overseers can run AFV routines on AFV's not of their unit." But it says no such thing.

It doesnt need to say that.

it already says what it intends.

EVERY OVERSEER

So clearly not just the commander.

HAS ACCESS TO ALL INFANTRY AND AFV ROUTINES

So they can use them all. As infantry cannot repair other infantry etc they must be usable somehow. The only logical answer is to use the power on an adjacent unit that is close enough it would be legally spaced if it was part of your own unit.


This is basic RAW.

it doesnt matter if it doesnt otherwise make sense.

The game rules are very clear that vehicles cannot capture objectives.

Frontline and Flux faction advantages say they can.

you can draw one of two conclusions:

1. Faction advantages overiride the rules.

2. The Frontline and Flux faction advantages are against the rules and should be ignored.

Now you likely wouldnt argue option 2. Its clear that the faction rules override the standard rules and causes no problems by doing so. So by the same logic Cypher routine rules override standard routine rules.

Sure the rule is messy, but its very clear on its intent when it says EVERY OVERSEER.

Its not like AT-43 is clear of messy rules, there are plenty around.

I believe quite strongly that Rackham intended for Nova to be able to block orders, as it happens they only block routines as orders are reissued. Not because it says orders can be re-issued but because it doesn't say they cannot, unlike routines. Frankly there are many many messes like this. We need our own workable solutions that fit the RAW after all Rackham is piss poor at fixing them.

Orlanth wrote:EVERY OVERSEER
So clearly not just the commander.

Correct.

Orlanth wrote:HAS ACCESS TO ALL INFANTRY AND AFV ROUTINES
So they can use them all.

Correct. Just not on units other than their own.


If it's rules as written:

Why have you had to invent that Cypher allows non commander infantry Overseers to effect AFV's?
Why have you had to pretend that although it allows non commander infantry Overseers that ability it doesn't allow non-commander Overseer AFV's to effect units other than their own?
Why have you had to go completely out of your way to invent a rule where Overseers can effect unit's other than their own as long as they are in Contact with it?

So to be sure: if I take a standard Therian list against you and bang a load of infantry units together I can reconstruct 5 times into one "contact" unit?
No I can not, because the rules say Overseers can only effect their own unit, and Cypher does not change that.

Your argument about Flux and Front-line perfectly demonstrates where you are going wrong.

The rules say:

An objective or a tactical position is controlled by the player
who has the most infantry fighters (with a minimum of one)
within 10 cm of it. If it is a tie, none of the sides controls the
objective (or the tactical position).

The Flux advantage says:

Flux advantage: Flux armored fighting vehicles can control objectives.

We do not "need our own workable solutions that fit the RAW" here, because there is a rule, and another rule which alters it. It is exactly the same with Cypher.
The rules say Overseers only get the routines for their class, Cypher says they get all routines. That is all. Nothing more, nothing less.
You may add as much as you wish, but you are only making stuff up at that point.

Orlanth wrote:As infantry cannot repair other infantry etc they must be usable somehow.

Not "must", only "I want them to be".

Out of interest, do you find that when you repair your Baal 4 times in a round, you often win?

I agree with SuperCollider here (and so does Rackham Entertainment).

The rules state that Cypher Overseers have access to all routines. The rules don't say that they can use them.

"Access to" and "Using" are two seperate things that you can't swap whenever you feel like it.

The following is a rule that has always helped me a lot: "Just because the rules don't say you can't do something that does not mean you can do it"

AT-43.CO.UK wrote:

Cairnius wrote:2) An AFV Overseer in a Cypher army will never be able to use any Infantry Routines. He will have no infantry in his unit to ever run an Infantry routine upon.

Nice how you leave out the fact that a Cypher AFV Overseer Commander can use the Infantry "Transfer", "Dash", "Hyper Nano" and "Reconstruction" routines on any infantry unit in his force.

You are too quick to argument, good sir. Read what I wrote again.

When it comes to Cyphers, differentiating Overseers and Company Commanders is absolutely essential. Company Commanders are Overseers but Overseers are not Company Commanders.

So, what I said is correct. AFV Overseers in a Cypher army will never be able to use any Infantry Routines. The AFV Overseer is not a Company Commander.



To Orlanth:

I posed this question about the Cypher advantage and whether or not it was balanced with the disadvantage precisely because the "advantage" only applies to the Company Commander. Most faction advantages I can think of are Company-wide, or have very wide potential effects on the Faction's units or opponents:

UNA Cent Com - EVERY unit gets a free Sergeant. Saves a lot of AP and LP. Does give opponent more potential VP in a kill mission, but most AT-43 vets eschew those so this is pure, awesome advantage.

UNA M.Ind - ALL vehicles get repair.

UNA Morningstar - ALL officers can be Medics.

COGS G-Nocrat - ALL unit leaders are Medics.

COGS T-Regulator - ALL units may Rush and shoot.

Karmans Libra - ALL Medics may bring back one fighter per round

Karmans Nova - Spend LP to cancel ANY enemy ability that uses LP

Red Blok Frontline/Karmans Flux - ALL vehicles may control objectives

ONI MercForce - ALL units generating RP get double the amount

ONI R&D - ALL vehicles weapons with no SP may still shoot

ONI V-Sway - ALL units are immune to Overwatch fire


Then we look at Cyphers, and spell out the Advantage to what it actually means:

Therians Cyphers - Company Commanders have access to all Routines regardless of category.

Their advantage is given to a SINGLE fighter in the whole company. Who that fighter is may change, of course - but it is still only one fighter at a time.

This advantage can effectively be spread out to other units, if the situation allows...but not necessarily in a very unique way. A Cypher AFV CC can run "double routine" in conjunction with an Infantry Overseer on those infantry units...but so could an Infantry CC in a non-Cypher army, for example. The Cypher players get much greater leeway in terms of upon who those double routines are run, but if we look at possible outcomes it's not that much greater than in other, non-Cypher armies.

If you look at the Cypher DISadvantage, however, that screws the whole Company, which is why the advantage and disadvantage seem out of proportion to me. I think you're downplaying this disadvantage, Orlanth. Perhaps you don't play against particularly savvy opponents...but if I always had first turn against a Cypher player, I would most likely force my opponent to go first, Delay, and then Double Activate on my next turn.

That's a huge tactical advantage in AT-43, to be able to do that EVERY turn. Seeing as how we can build out Companies last, the second I know that I'm playing a Cypher player I'm going to make sure I have a high-LP Company with a lot of units (without making them too weak to sustain taking heavy fire for more than a turn) so that I can max out my opportunities to Delay and Double Activate.

He's a Therian - he's gonna have fewer units that I will. I'm going to get his whole Company onto the table well before my entire Company, which makes the last couple activations in a Round all mine and a turkey shoot, forcing the Therian to play defensively. He's going to have more of an opportunity to run double Routines to fortify the units I'm hitting, but I get to focus my firepower extremely effectively because his units are all out there and so I can very carefully deploy mine to maximize firepower on his units one at a time while making sure I have cover from his units that I'm not currently concerned with.

Delay and Double Activation at the beginning of every round is a big deal. That's what the Cypher disadvantage effectively hands to any opponent.



This is why I *think* the original intention for the Cypher advantage was to allow specifically for AFV spam - sure I, as the Cypher player, am going to cede the initiative to you every single turn the entire game, but I also get to Create Hekats and Succubuses all around the table. Sure, you get a massive advantage in terms of setting up your lanes of fire and concentrating firepower on single units of mine, but I can keep throwing new units at you for as long as I have the LP to do so.

That sounds like a balanced advantage/disadvantage setup to me.


Now, talking about the Cypher platoon pattern has nothing to do with this conversation, no offense. I almost started talking about that myself in the OP but omitted it because I'm not willing to say, for sake of a game design discussion, that the Cypher platoon pattern has anything to do with the advantage/disadvantage setup as it currently stands. Maybe if the advantage worked the way I think it was originally intended to work then yes, I could see how having two Type ** AFV's along with the intended advantage is actually a massive advantage. Not only do you get more Type **'s per platoon than any other Therian faction, you also have the ability to throw a lot of Repair routines on them. Ouch.

As it stands, I agree that the Cypher platoon pattern may be preferable to some due to the way it handles AFVs, but I was discussing a straight question of balance between advantage and disadvantage, not whether the platoon pattern worked into this. If we look at other Factions, I tend to feel that the disadvantages are appropriately weighed against the advantages,

For the Therian Cypher faction, I tend to feel that the disadvantage is too punitive when compared to the relative benefits of the advantage, considering how the advantage has been clarified through rules discussions and rulings by Rackham.

Cairnius wrote:

AT-43.CO.UK wrote:

Cairnius wrote:2) An AFV Overseer in a Cypher army will never be able to use any Infantry Routines. He will have no infantry in his unit to ever run an Infantry routine upon.

Nice how you leave out the fact that a Cypher AFV Overseer Commander can use the Infantry "Transfer", "Dash", "Hyper Nano" and "Reconstruction" routines on any infantry unit in his force.

You are too quick to argument, good sir. Read what I wrote again. AFV Overseers are not AFV Company Commanders.

When it comes to Cyphers, differentiating Overseers and Company Commanders is absolutely essential. Company Commanders are Overseers but Overseers are not Company Commanders.

Hahahahahaha!
You wrote that AFV Overseers can never use infantry Routines. I replied that an Cypher AFV Commander can use them. So I'm right and you are wrong. (insert smiley face) You better read your own post again and then look at mine.

Supercollider wrote:
Why have you had to invent that Cypher allows non commander infantry Overseers to effect AFV's?

Logical consequence, the rules said 'every overseer' they omitted to say how.

Supercollider wrote:
Why have you had to pretend that although it allows non commander infantry Overseers that ability it doesn't allow non-commander Overseer AFV's to effect units other than their own?

Because Rackham sucks and cant write rules, one way or another the 'every overseer' had to make sense.

Supercollider wrote:
Why have you had to go completely out of your way to invent a rule where Overseers can effect unit's other than their own as long as they are in Contact with it?

To keep the interpretation fair. The alternative raw is that Cypher overides the rules and overseers act as commanders. This would be grossly overpowered.

Supercollider wrote:
So to be sure: if I take a standard Therian list against you and bang a load of infantry units together I can reconstruct 5 times into one "contact" unit?
No I can not, because the rules say Overseers can only effect their own unit, and Cypher does not change that.

I have no problem with that as you would need three Golgoths to do it, the units overseer and the commander. There is a price to pay.

Supercollider wrote:
Your argument about Flux and Front-line perfectly demonstrates where you are going wrong.

Actually its where I am going right, but carry on.

Supercollider wrote:
We do not "need our own workable solutions that fit the RAW" here, because there is a rule, and another rule which alters it. It is exactly the same with Cypher.

However this is because the rule chance is simple enough even Gav Thorpe would be able to word it correctly, let alone Rackham rule writers. The point was that it confirms that the core rules can be overriden by the faction advantages.
We dont need to be told how its overriden because its simple enough. we are not told that only vehicles within 10cm qualify because we can work that out by ourselves.

However we are nevertheless 'making things up' because we are told that vehicle control objectives, we are not actually told the mechanics. We are just left to assume they do so as infantry. Noone whines and says they cannot control within 10cm because those are rules for infantry and vehicles are not infantry. We just take the intent of the rule and apply it fairly.

Just as we are not told vehicles contest objectives the same way infantry do, we are not told that the 'every overseer' can use all standard routines can or cannot use them. The difference is that more care was required in this case.

In both cases you needed to work it out by yourself to some degree, its just that the latter is far more ambiguous and involved overriding more rules and it appears at first glance. The vehicle objectives rule has to assume vehicles act as infantry to be workable, the Cypher advantage has to assume overseers act in part like commanders. You can accept one, but not the other, fact is in both cases you are having to add stuff to what is actually written. In fact in a very real way the Frontline and Flux advantages are house ruled, there is NO confirmation at what range and how vehicles control objectives. we just know they do, accept they do and carry on from there. You can accept this so why not accept interpretations to get the Cypher advantage to work as obviously intended.

You see each faction has one special ability, but it isn't limited to overriding just one rule. There is nothing to say, this special ability affects this rule. If the special ability has knock on effects on several rules then it does just that.

Supercollider wrote:
The rules say Overseers only get the routines for their class, Cypher says they get all routines. That is all. Nothing more, nothing less.
You may add as much as you wish, but you are only making stuff up at that point.

The core is if they have the routines they can use them, somehow.
If I need to make anything up its only because often Rackham rules suck.

Rackham made its intent clear with the wording of the advantage, and we know the advantages override core rules. There is a glitch that makes the rule unworkable. the options are fix the glitch or scrap the rule. scrapping the rule would be a symapthetic cause if this was a one off but the truth is many many rules in AT-43 even core ones need a complete overhaul, some need house fixes to be balanced. other need rewriting just to make sense and play fairly.

Even Rackham admits this from time to time in its own way. Notice how the scatter rules are quietly changed, but not officially FAQed. We are encouraged to use the 10cm scatter 'house rule'.
The unit organisation cards need changing, it is very unclear what happens if you have duplicate units , sure we get officially unofficial fixes, but no clear FAQ. As the cards are essentially a core component of the game, what to do when you have two units looking the same and thus ghaving identicle cards is not the sort of thing you ought to miss out a rule on. After all it occurs twice a turn in the Damocles boxset because the Golems and Steel Troopers are split into two units. So this is hardly a fringe unexpected 'we should have caught this one if we playtested long enough' omission, its a core rule ommission. If Rackham can blow stuff like that it is very reasonable that we have to try some creative interpretation when it comes to other stuff. Omitting what to do with the card activations would be like the next edition of Warhammer omitting the rules for the movement phase.

Supercollider wrote:

Orlanth wrote:As infantry cannot repair other infantry etc they must be usable somehow.

Not "must", only "I want them to be".

Out of interest, do you find that when you repair your Baal 4 times in a round, you often win?

Fair point, you noticed my claiming that I avoided using Baals too often, but the rule is fair. The Baal is tough but if I want to repair it four times it means there are two overseers clumped together really close by. Artillery can give those overseers are real bad day. So you have to effectively immobilise the Baal in cover so the overseers get cover, even then artillery takes its toll. Artillery is the biggest killer in AT-43 even if you tone down the rules and allow cover (as we do). Clump together to minimax routines and you end up losing a lot of infantry to opportunistic fire. Concentrating is the last thing you want to do, 4 repairs a turn or not. Furthermore those overseers have infantry units kept out of the fight which they act as doctor.
So all in all no I dont try and abuse this, in fact I spread the love about and tag team infantry and vehicle units close together rather than swarm around individual high profile targets. I dont find that unfair.

AT-43.CO.UK wrote:I agree with SuperCollider here (and so does Rackham Entertainment).
The rules state that Cypher Overseers have access to all routines. The rules don't say that they can use them.

Well if Rackham agree with that they are just confirming they are morons. They wrote the rules, so if they are broken should fix them.

pointy asuide let us look at the rules literally, as you are doing. Fair enough if you are exacting enough the words to say that access to doesnt mean use - which is a ridiculous concept for a game rule then let us look at the exact wording.

Get your therian codex out and look at page 45 and the AFV routine rules. It does say normally only AFV overseers get them, but direct rules tell us Cypher infantry also get them. It says 'routines only effect the overseers unit' somerthing you hang on to. But with some exceptions the actual routines themselves identify the target only as 'the unit'. We have already established that Creation can be used for a Cypher infantry commander. reaopir wouldnt work on its own unit, but what about Dash and hyper nanonucleus. Now while infantry have similar named routines we can establish that they are a seperate list of routines. Both dash an hyper nanonucleus only effect 'the unit' without further specification.
So by pure wording allowing for no further interpratation a Cypher unit vehicle or infantry with an overseer can hyper nanonucleus twice two reroll its failed damage twice, and Dash twice a total of 80cm. the latter has problems as you would need to cast twice while rushing and the timing for that is odd. So lets wirthdraw that and simple input that as infantry can Dash and access vehicle Dash rules - read them there is nothing to say a Cypher cannot use it on itself, then Cypher infantry can dash 50cm by coosing which Dash routine (it has two available) that it will use.

Now the rules on page 45 say infantry overseers cannot take those routines, but that we agree is overriden by Cypher special rules. taken over-literally however there is nothing to say cypher overseers cannot use those routines except in very specific cases.

Now I do not believe Cypher infantry get a 50cm dash, its not how i interpret the rules. but that is where pure literalism leads and why it is best avoided.



Anytime Rackham wants to they can fix Cypher faction advantages, its just one of many faction advantages that does need fixing. But until then its not unfair to follow the spirit of the unambiguous intent of the rules even when the mechanics don't keep up with the intent. Ironically keeping to the intent of the rules rather than the strict letter is how not to ruleslawyer, thus my interpration based on the concept as described is good gaming philosophy.

AT-43.CO.UK wrote:Hahahahahaha!
You wrote that AFV Overseers can never use infantry Routines. I replied that an Cypher AFV Commander can use them. So I'm right and you are wrong. (insert smiley face) You better read your own post again and then look at mine.

*shakes head*

AFV Overseers are not Company Commanders.

AFV Overseers in a Cypher army can't target Infantry units. Overseers can only effect their own units with their Routines. AFV Overseers don't have Infantry fighters in their AFV units. Therefore, Cypher AFV Overseers cannot run the Infantry routines their faction advantage grants them.

Only Cypher AFV COMPANY COMMANDERS may target Infantry units with Infantry routines. So, I said something about apples and you replied with a comment about oranges and then thought yourself clever. Good work.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orlanth wrote:

Supercollider wrote:
Why have you had to invent that Cypher allows non commander infantry Overseers to effect AFV's?

Logical consequence, the rules said 'every overseer' they omitted to say how.

Orlanth, logic has NOTHING to do with this. To wit:

Once upon a time I asked why Cypher Infantry Overseers are not allowed to run Creation upon themselves. The Creation routine says that a Type * AFV is placed into base-to-base contact with the Overseer [who ran the routine]. This seemed pretty clear to me.

The answer was that Routines can only effect an Overseer's own unit. Because Creation does not "effect" the Overseer's own unit, the Overseer can not run Creation upon itself even though it has access to the Creation routine as a Cypher Overseer.

This begged the question "Which unit does the Creation Routine actually effect, then?" The answer given: the Hekat. The Creation Routine "effects" the Hekat by bringing it into existence.

Therefore, Company Commanders are the only Overseers who may ever run Creation because they are the only Overseers who can effect units other than their own with Routines, hence they can effect nonexistent Hekats with the Creation routine and bring them onto the table.

My argument was that the "effect" of Creation is to place a Type * AFV miniature onto the table in base-to-base contact with the Overseer who ran the routine. The unit "effected" by Creation is the unit that has to have the room around its Overseer to place the Type * AFV into base-to-base contact with it. The space around that Overseer is "effected," hence that is the unit which feels the "effects" of the Routine.

The unit we take into consideration per whether the Routine is able to be run at all is the Overseer's unit. We don't check the Hekat because it doesn't exist yet, therefore you cannot be "effecting" the Hekat. Something has to exist in order to have an effect on it.

This argument apparently made no sense to anyone, and this is actually just about when I left the Sentinel program because I couldn't represent a company whose game design came down to existential arguments about when a thing does or does not exist.


Logically-consistent explanation notwithstanding, Rackham has ruled definitively that only Company Commanders may use the Creation Routine. An explanation which makes sense would be nice, but it's not necessary. The rule is clear.

Orlanth wrote:

Supercollider wrote:
So to be sure: if I take a standard Therian list against you and bang a load of infantry units together I can reconstruct 5 times into one "contact" unit?
No I can not, because the rules say Overseers can only effect their own unit, and Cypher does not change that.

I have no problem with that as you would need three Golgoths to do it, the units overseer and the commander. There is a price to pay.

I said STANDARD Therian list. If you can make up the "give routines to units in contact" rule for Cyphers, I can make it up for standard Therians. So there is no need for golgoths and commanders to be present, only a bunch of cheap Therian infantry units next to one another.

Orlanth wrote:we are not told that only vehicles within 10cm qualify because we can work that out by ourselves.
However we are nevertheless 'making things up' because we are told that vehicle control objectives, we are not actually told the mechanics. We are just left to assume they do so as infantry. Noone whines and says they cannot control within 10cm because those are rules for infantry and vehicles are not infantry.

OK, you can kind of have that one. Like 70% have that one. The reason it's not 100%, and the reason it's not the same as Cypher, and the reason it doesn't support your Cypher argument, is that the 10cm assumption is based on something IN the rules. You would have to make something up to think it was any amount other than 10cm. Just like you are making up that the Cypher advantage says all overseers can effect every other unit in the company.

Orlanth wrote:You see each faction has one special ability, but it isn't limited to overriding just one rule.

In your opinion, and because that opinion supports your making up of stuff for the Cypher advantage.

Orlanth wrote:There is a glitch that makes the rule unworkable.

Not unworkable, just not as good as you would like / wrongly believe it should be.

Orlanth wrote:Notice how the scatter rules are quietly changed, but not officially FAQed.

It's in the errata: http://www.confrontation.fr/Errata/Errata_AT43_UK.pdf

Orlanth wrote:The unit organisation cards need changing, it is very unclear what happens if you have duplicate units , sure we get officially unofficial fixes, but no clear FAQ.

It's in the errata: http://www.confrontation.fr/Errata/Errata_AT43_UK.pdf

Orlanth wrote:

AT-43.CO.UK wrote:I agree with SuperCollider here (and so does Rackham Entertainment).
The rules state that Cypher Overseers have access to all routines. The rules don't say that they can use them.

Well if Rackham agree with that they are just confirming they are morons. They wrote the rules, so if they are broken should fix them.

So because Rackham don't use the interpretation of their own rules which you made up, they are morons? In fairness, if we are being honest, that's not much support towards your Cypher argument.

Orlanth wrote:Dash and hyper nanonucleus [...] So by pure wording allowing for no further interpratation a Cypher unit vehicle or infantry with an overseer can hyper nanonucleus twice

Routines can only be used on the correct type for which they were intended. No book with me, so no quote, but I'm guessing it'll be some where near page 45.

Orlanth wrote:and Dash twice a total of 80cm.

Yes, I know you're not making this point, but even your "not point" is wrong. Dash gives an exact amount of movement, it does not add to the movement. So no matter if you found a way to run AFV dash on a unit 20 times, it would still only move 50CM. I only point this out to show how closely one has to follow Rackhams rules.

Orlanth wrote:But until then its not unfair to follow the spirit of the unambiguous intent of the rules even when the mechanics don't keep up with the intent.

Knock yourself out, but at least be aware that you are using your own house rule. Rackham know how it works.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and Cairnius, the platoon pattern does seem to be part of the advantage in some cases.

If you want a HUGE disparity between Advantage and Disadvantage, reference Supra!
Advantage: ONE LOUSY ALTERNATIVE DICE ON THE AUTH ROLL.
Disadvantage: No chance to raise moral state, so units shoot themselves left right and centre!

But then look at the pattern, and compare it to the other Blok patterns...
Supra allows FOUR Kommando units per platoon. Now THAT'S an advantage worth talking about.

So yeah, it seems (to me) in some cases the pattern should be considered along side the Advantage / Disadvantage.

EDIT: Because I have no idea what interpenetration is, but it sounds good.

Cairnius wrote:

AT-43.CO.UK wrote:Hahahahahaha!
You wrote that AFV Overseers can never use infantry Routines. I replied that an Cypher AFV Commander can use them. So I'm right and you are wrong. (insert smiley face) You better read your own post again and then look at mine.

*shakes head*

AFV Overseers are not Company Commanders.

AFV Overseers in a Cypher army can't target Infantry units. Overseers can only effect their own units with their Routines. AFV Overseers don't have Infantry fighters in their AFV units. Therefore, Cypher AFV Overseers cannot run the Infantry routines their faction advantage grants them.

Only Cypher AFV COMPANY COMMANDERS may target Infantry units with Infantry routines. So, I said something about apples and you replied with a comment about oranges and then thought yourself clever. Good work.

I'll wait untill you are done shaking your head before I try again . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .you done yet? . . . . . . .

. . . . .good, here goes:

Nope. Your opening post stated that Cypher AFV Overseers can never use infantry routines. I stated that they can if they are the commander.
Now you keep going on about how an AFV Overseer is not always a commander but I never said they where.
What we have here is a case of you being wrong and not willing to admit it.

A Cypher AFV Overseer can use the infantry routines if he is the commander and a Cypher infantry Overseer can use the AFV routines if he is the commander. Why can't you just accept that that is what I said in my first post?
There is no need to point out that AFV overseers are not always the commander, yet that is all your follow-up posts did.

Supercollider wrote:Oh, and Cairnius, the platoon pattern does seem to be part of the advantage in some cases.

If you want a HUGE disparity between Advantage and Disadvantage, reference Supra!
Advantage: ONE LOUSY ALTERNATIVE DICE ON THE AUTH ROLL.
Disadvantage: No chance to raise moral state, so units shoot themselves left right and centre!

But then look at the pattern, and compare it to the other Blok patterns...
Supra allows FOUR Kommando units per platoon. Now THAT'S an advantage worth talking about.

So yeah, it seems (to me) in some cases the pattern should be considered along side the Advantage / Disadvantage.

Solid point, and fair enough. The Cypher advantage/disadvantage value discussion is purely a matter of design curiosity and not an actual complaint for me, personally, due to the Cypher platoon pattern. Even after getting over my disgust over the utter irrationality of the "explanation" for the ruling on Cypher Infantry Overseers not being able to run Creation on themselves, I never played as Warriors or Web Striders or the native Therian Army Book pattern due to the clear advantages of the Cypher pattern.

However, now that I have a crapton of Assault Medusas and my first Storm Arachn unit, I may consider H/Babel purely for thematic purposes.

AT-43.CO.UK wrote:being a donkey-cave

Have you heard of reading for context? Try it. I was clearly pointing out in my OP that the Cypher advantage is worded as if it applies to all Overseers in a Cypher Company but actually does not apply to all Overseers in a Cypher Company because of the restrictions on their use - and that this was my concern about the actual advantage lent to the faction:

OriginalPost wrote:Therefore, the Cypher advantage is probably better stated as "The Company Commander has access to all Routines, regardless of category," because it's only the Company Commander in a Cypher army which actually ever gets to utilize this advantage.

1) An (non-CC) Infantry Overseer in a Cypher army will never be able to use any AFV Routines. He will have no vehicles in his unit to ever run an AFV routine upon.

2) An (non-CC) AFV Overseer in a Cypher army will never be able to use any Infantry Routines. He will have no infantry in his unit to ever run an Infantry routine upon.

I apologize for making what I thought was the reasonable assumption, based on the paragraph which precedes those two numbered statements, that readers would be able to fill in for themselves the (non-CC) implication.

Unlike Rackham, I have the ability to easily correct all my written content immediately. There you go.

Rather than engage in the actual discussion you took things OT in an attempt to sound clever. If your intent was just to joke in a friendly manner it was lost in your attempts to sound superior. If your intent was to sound clever you instead sound, to me, like a lawyer trying to score some one-upmanship points not because it actually serves the argument at hand, but just for the sake of sounding clever and superior.

Have fun with that.

Supercollider wrote:There is a price to pay.

I said STANDARD Therian list. If you can make up the "give routines to units in contact" rule for Cyphers, I can make it up for standard Therians.

Cairnius wrote:
I posed this question about the Cypher advantage and whether or not it was balanced with the disadvantage precisely because the "advantage" only applies to the Company Commander. Most faction advantages I can think of are Company-wide, or have very wide potential effects on the Faction's units or opponents:

I agree, when cypher advantage allows cross casting of routines according to the interpretation i levelled above it is a balanced advantage on par with those you hifghlighted. Though i must admit right here, the quality of faction advantages can vary.

Cairnius wrote:
If you look at the Cypher DISadvantage, however, that screws the whole Company, which is why the advantage and disadvantage seem out of proportion to me. I think you're downplaying this disadvantage, Orlanth. Perhaps you don't play against particularly savvy opponents...but if I always had first turn against a Cypher player, I would most likely force my opponent to go first, Delay, and then Double Activate on my next turn.

First why not go first delay and double activate, this way you get a double activation after your opponent only goes once. All you are doing when played your way is allowing your opponent effective double activation then double activating yourself. This is not stealing the initiative.

Cairnius wrote:
That's a huge tactical advantage in AT-43, to be able to do that EVERY turn.

The main tactical advantage in winning the authority test is to go first with the unit that is vulnerable and about to die, or shooting with your unit in the opposite circumstances. its best to get the jump in the mexican standoffs that appear in a lot of games. after all in AT-43 it easy to get ranges that auto hit and weapons that auto kill. Its a matter of who gets to shoot first.

Now cyphers can still get good mileage because the LP not used on auithority are not wasted as the routines can still swallow up the points. you lose a capability from amongst several you can spend your points on. however you interpret the Cypher faction rules you know you can use those 6 extra points.

Cairnius wrote:
He's a Therian - he's gonna have fewer units that I will.

You sure about that. therian armies can be large. The infantry are not the cheapest but are 'competetively' priced. The vehicles however are cheap, relays also cut costs all round. I find army size for Red Blok UNA and Therians to be fairly stable. Its Karmans who come up short.

Cairnius wrote:
Now, talking about the Cypher platoon pattern has nothing to do with this conversation, no offense.

No offence taken but take a long look at the thread title: "Your thoughts on the Therian Cypher faction."
What you think the topic is about and what you told us it was about are not one and the same. My principle thoughts on Cypher revolve around the force org, the faction rules are to me a secondary issue. There is good reason to think this way, we choose our sub-favtions allowing for which subfactions our collections fit into. there are some factions where I can field 8k+ points of one facrtion but 2k of another faction in the same army. In the case of UNA I can field 7k M.Inf, 9k Centcom and no syndicate at all, I have no star Troopers.
factioon force org is relevant to me and a lot of others.

It's also relevant to you here and now. If you look at what the Cypher advantage gives you, buy your interpretation or mine it becomes important to see what you can spend it on.

Cairnius wrote:
I almost started talking about that myself in the OP but omitted it because I'm not willing to say, for sake of a game design discussion, that the Cypher platoon pattern has anything to do with the advantage/disadvantage setup as it currently stands. Maybe if the advantage worked the way I think it was originally intended to work then yes, I could see how having two Type ** AFV's along with the intended advantage is actually a massive advantage. Not only do you get more Type **'s per platoon than any other Therian faction, you also have the ability to throw a lot of Repair routines on them. Ouch.

Nice you agree that open use of routines is how Cypher is intended to work.

Cairnius wrote:
As it stands, I agree that the Cypher platoon pattern may be preferable to some due to the way it handles AFVs, but I was discussing a straight question of balance between advantage and disadvantage, not whether the platoon pattern worked into this. If we look at other Factions, I tend to feel that the disadvantages are appropriately weighed against the advantages,

I find a healthy force org is an advantage of itself. Remember some lists are punished to account for a powerful advantage. a good example here is Arceo not getting *** vehicles.

cypher force org is not only conveneint its nicely balanced too. The faction has strong hand in units where Therians are best. ** infantry comes to mind, other force you to take *** infantry, which are neat and fun but not as good.

For the Therian Cypher faction, I tend to feel that the disadvantage is too punitive when compared to the relative benefits of the advantage, considering how the advantage has been clarified through rules discussions and rulings by Rackham.

Cairnius wrote:

AT-43.CO.UK wrote:being a donkey-cave

..............
Have fun with that.

Nice.

If you shorten a post to only include what is relevant fair enough but there is no way you can explain what you did there.

Perhaps if you didn't try to use as many words as possible every time you post it would have been clear, this time it wasn't (to me anyway).
Apologies for misunderstanding your original post.

Orlanth wrote:First why not go first delay and double activate, this way you get a double activation after your opponent only goes once. All you are doing when played your way is allowing your opponent effective double activation then double activating yourself. This is not stealing the initiative.

I am playing UNA whatever, you are playing Therian Cyphers. You basically cede the Authority test to me.

I make you go first. You delay.

I go next. I delay.

Now you go. You activate one or two units. You put one or both into Overwatch.

Now I go. I activate one or two units. Assuming we are playing on a balanced table I can bring my units in to give them full field of fire on your unit I am targeting while limiting the amount of Overwatch fire I take from you beforehand. I am now focusing the firepower of two units on one of yours.

Winning the Authority roll and forcing your opponent to field a unit first is what gives you the initiative. Either he is going to be forced to deploy defensively and cede fields of fire/position to you on Turn 1 because you are going after him, or he is going to have to take the risk of deploying in a less-protected position in the hopes that the first units you are bringing on aren't going to be able to kill whatever it is he brings on first.

By forcing your opponent to go first, you are effectively forcing him to attempt to react to moves you haven't even made yet. If that's not effectively taking the initiative, I don't know what is.



In terms of "admitting" how I think the Therian Cypher advantage is supposed to work...I think that what you and I think per how the rules are supposed to work couldn't be less important. It's no more important to AT-43 than it is to 40K or anything else. The rules are what the rules are, even if there's no logical explanation for them. As long as the actual rule is made clear, I am satisfied with that.

The choice is then mine to either keep playing the game or to stop if I don't like the rules which are now understood by me. I have decided, clearly, that AT-43 has enough going for it, in my opinion, to continue collecting the minis and playing the game when the mood strikes me rather than giving it up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AT-43.CO.UK wrote:If you shorten a post to only include what is relevant fair enough but there is no way you can explain what you did there.

Perhaps if you didn't try to use as many words as possible every time you post it would have been clear, this time it wasn't (to me anyway).
Apologies for misunderstanding your original post.

Apology accepted.

Like I said, I thought that through context what I was saying was pretty clear. Word to the wise - if you had been less interested in trying to score one-upmanship points against me and more interested in discerning what I meant this would have been cleared up much faster. Give people the benefit of the doubt at first that their intentions are honorable, like I tried to do with you. It was only when it seemed clear that you were just trying to be a wise-ass rather than figure out what I meant that I responded unkindly to you.

That doesn't make me any more right than you were to do it, but I was clearly open to just explaining what I meant rather than snarking at you. Even I have my limits, however...sometimes when the pitcher puts a fastball right over the plate you just have to swing.

Cairnius wrote:

I am playing UNA whatever, you are playing Therian Cyphers. You basically cede the Authority test to me.

I make you go first. You delay.

I go next. I delay.

Now you go. You activate one or two units. You put one or both into Overwatch.

Now I go. I activate one or two units. Assuming we are playing on a balanced table I can bring my units in to give them full field of fire on your unit I am targeting while limiting the amount of Overwatch fire I take from you beforehand. I am now focusing the firepower of two units on one of yours.

This sounds like a first turn strategy, where the rules for initiative are reversed. Once you have units on the table you want to shoot first and thus not get shot. This is where to two prong attack works. You and your opponent are staring doqwn each others barrels at two places, taking the initiative only lets you choose to shoot first with one of them. All you surrender to the enemy is the choice, a far lesser evil.

Cairnius wrote:
In terms of "admitting" how I think the Therian Cypher advantage is supposed to work...I think that what you and I think per how the rules are supposed to work couldn't be less important.

How true, thery dont matter to many even if they make better sense.

Cairnius wrote:
As long as the actual rule is made clear, I am satisfied with that.

The Cypher rules, how they 'work' and how they read are so completely different I cannot find a better example of unclear. Sure some rules are gobbledigook but this is more unclear than those as it is completely misleading.

Cairnius wrote:
The choice is then mine to either keep playing the game or to stop if I don't like the rules which are now understood by me. I have decided, clearly, that AT-43 has enough going for it, in my opinion, to continue collecting the minis and playing the game when the mood strikes me rather than giving it up.

What you need is a healthy dose of fan fix. How are yourt terrain rules getting on Cairnie?

Orlanth wrote:Vanilla Therians have no rule that says every overseer gets all standard routines. Cyphers do in plain text. rackham just fails to tell us how so we have to work it out for ourselves how.

Allowing overseers to effect units in contact has nothing to do with what routines the overseer can use.

It is to do with Overseers being able to effect units other than their own, in contact. Something which you have had to make up to justify your incorrect interpretation of the Cypher advantage.
If you can make it up for Cyphers, why cant I make it up for standard Therians? Are only you allowed to make up rules to justify your assumptions?

Orlanth wrote:The Cypher faction rules are also in the rules. They do nothing that cannot already be done by other units, namely commanders.

That argument would have more weight if you WERE using Cypher Overseers as commanders. But instead you have made up some stuff about Infantry overseers being able to effect AFV's they are in contact with.

Orlanth wrote:

Supercollider wrote:

Orlanth wrote:You see each faction has one special ability, but it isn't limited to overriding just one rule.

In your opinion, and because that opinion supports your making up of stuff for the Cypher advantage.

Its not my opinion, its my interpretation. The opinion is in the cypher faction rules I am working out a mechanic for.

No, it is your opinion that faction advantages can override whatever you want them to. It's your interpretation that Cypher infantry overseers should be able to run routines on AFV's they are in contact with.

Orlanth wrote:

Supercollider wrote:

Orlanth wrote:The unit organisation cards need changing, it is very unclear what happens if you have duplicate units , sure we get officially unofficial fixes, but no clear FAQ.

It's in the errata: http://www.confrontation.fr/Errata/Errata_AT43_UK.pdf

My very point, something that elementary should not have been left out of 1.0 You cannot even play the Damocles intro boxset without working an answer to this rule.

No, your point was that Rackham should correct their mistakes. Now, having been shown they do correct their mistakes, you have flipped and are trying to suggest what? That no one should ever make any mistakes? Would you like me to fetch you some more straws, or are you ok clutching at the ones you already have?

Orlanth wrote:

Supercollider wrote:Routines can only be used on the correct type for which they were intended. No book with me, so no quote, but I'm guessing it'll be some where near page 45.

Actually it does not say that, or even imply it.

I'll have to get back to you on this, when I'm near my book. I'll admit now that it may be another Errata I'm thinking of.

Orlanth wrote:My 'not point' was that you can Dash 50cm and then Dash 30cm.

Incorrect. The dash routine tells you the maximum distance the unit may move if it performs a rush. It does NOT add to the existing distance. That is why both medusas and golems dash 30cm. Because it is an absolute, not an addition. If you paid for infantry dash and moved 30cm, then paid for AFV dash, you would then get a new absolute maximum of 50cm. If you paid for AFV dash first and moved 50cm, then paid for infantry dash, you would either get no effect having already exceeded the 30cm limit, or perhaps, you would be required to take 20cm off of your move. You see? You have to follow rackham rules closely. That doesn't mean calling the company morons when you get it wrong, it means trying harder next time.

Orlanth wrote:Actually if I am sure of anything from this thread its that Rackham does not know how it works.

But obviously you do, yes?

Orlanth, I just have to say this...I really think you're picking at straws in this thread. I don't see how any reasonable interpretation of the Cypher rules as written/translated in English could ever suggest that Cypher Infantry Overseers could run AFV Routines on Infantry. I feel like you're making arguments up in an attempt to show the poor quality of the rules which I know is a big problem you have with AT-43.

However, I think there are enough examples to cite, if you really must, that don't require such convoluted arguments to make your point.

I am, generally-speaking, NOT a fan of fan-made rules. I want to stick by the letter of the rules as much as possible, so that if I am in Europe and I want to play a game of AT-43 with a fan over there I don't need to explain "my" rules to anyone, and then debate whether they are good or not, we just throw down minis and play a game because we are on the same page.

Even when I made my "terrain rules" I didn't really do anything outside the AT-43 rules. All I did was take existing rules from AT-43 and try to translate them into categories. For instance, the rules say that going over a Low Wall has movement effects. So let's call Low Walls an example of "difficult terrain" and apply those movement effects to any piece of terrain the players decide is "difficult."

The rules for lakes in Operation Frostbite make them dangerous to be in that terrain, to the point of it killing you. So let's use the water rules as Dangerous Terrain rules and then we can apply them to any piece of terrain which the players decide fits the criteria for "Dangerous Terrain."

At every point of working on my Mission Generator I tried to refer back to actual AT-43 rules and published scenarios, and whether or not I stole/borrowed any aspect of the Generator from any other, previously-existing mission systems was determined almost purely by how much those authors were trying to stick to the letter of the rules.

Things like your smoke rules...I would never use them. It's an entirely new creation. It has no basis in AT-43 whatsoever. As such it represents a variable whose destabilizing effects I cannot begin to imagine. I don't think the solution to something which is "broken" if you have to think of the AT-43 rules that way is to introduce something which has absolutely no basis in the rules as they currently exist and which therefore could also be extremely "broken" from the very outset.

I think the idea is to make things simpler, not more complex. It's why I wish I could get some bloody testing done on my mission generator so that I could make it as simple as possible while also still delivering a system that anyone can understand.

However, I'm working with someone else on combining a couple systems together, so I may accomplish my mission without any testing, anyway.

Orlanth wrote:This sounds like a first turn strategy, where the rules for initiative are reversed. Once you have units on the table you want to shoot first and thus not get shot. This is where to two prong attack works. You and your opponent are staring doqwn each others barrels at two places, taking the initiative only lets you choose to shoot first with one of them. All you surrender to the enemy is the choice, a far lesser evil.

Following the example. Turn 2 begins. You, as the Cypher player, cede first activation to me.

In Turn 1 I effectively forced you to either deploy defensively, or take some big risks exposing yourself to my fire. I am in an advantageous position in terms of the positioning of my forces in Turn 2.

How is it not a major advantage to now have the first activation in Turn 2? You probably have either a weakened unit ready to be killed with my very first activation, or you've already lost a unit and are ceding position to me, OR you're turtled up and that gives me even more leeway to set up fields of fire.

For the rest of the game, *I* will be setting the terms of our engagement because you never, EVER, get first activation as a Cypher player. Not unless I'm willing to let you make a solid attempt to win the Authority roll, or it's advantageous to me to make you go first again.

In a 2000 AP game, you may only have 5 units on the table. I just killed one on Turn 1. 20% of your army is gone, and now I get to move first again on Turn 2 and start hammering away at another unit before you get to react. That's not good for you.

Supercollider wrote:

It is to do with Overseers being able to effect units other than their own, in contact. Something which you have had to make up to justify your incorrect interpretation of the Cypher advantage.
If you can make it up for Cyphers, why cant I make it up for standard Therians? Are only you allowed to make up rules to justify your assumptions?

You completely misread me, and the rules. All the overseers get 'all' the routines. Thats plain in plain text. End of.

The question is not if they do but how they are used. You, me, everyone else has to make up rules at that point. By saying they cannot use the powers given them you are making up a rule and trying to 'justify your assumptions' not a jot less than myself.
yhou cannot argue that I am making it up as I go along on the assumption that you hold a suoperior position by not doing so, because that is BS. The moment you prevent the overseers getting access to all the routines and using them, you are twisting the rules to fit YOUR opinions. The differnce between us is that I want to emulate something in the rules in plain text, whereas you do not.

Supercollider wrote:

Orlanth wrote:The Cypher faction rules are also in the rules. They do nothing that cannot already be done by other units, namely commanders.

That argument would have more weight if you WERE using Cypher Overseers as commanders. But instead you have made up some stuff about Infantry overseers being able to effect AFV's they are in contact with.

Certainly it would be a 'stronger' position but it would also be grossly unfair. We have hopefully established that like it or not the rules indicate that every overseer gets all the routines, BECAUSE IT SAYS SO. There is no logical room to say this means they have them but cant use them, if they cant use them they DON'T HAVE THEM.

This is the end of this particular point. From then on the mechanics for working out how to give the overseers the ability comes under a different category. Up to that poiunt I am talking about core game rules. when I talk about limiting the ability to base contact I am talking about house rules.

Now I have no problem with house rules face up because frankly AT-43 needs them. especially in regards to terrain and blast rules. We had a thread on this recently.

You might notice if you try that my initial comments on Cyphers left out the house rule and kept just with what we know. just that: All overseers use the infantry and AFV rountines. And left how a blank. how you haver to house rule this is up to you. The only constant is that the house rule that Cypher overseers do not get the advantage that 'every overseer' gets in plain text is the daftest of all the options, as it is clearly the one most at odds with the RAW.

Supercollider wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

Supercollider wrote: In your opinion, and because that opinion supports your making up of stuff for the Cypher advantage.

Its not my opinion, its my interpretation. The opinion is in the cypher faction rules I am working out a mechanic for.

No, it is your opinion that faction advantages can override whatever you want them to. It's your interpretation that Cypher infantry overseers should be able to run routines on AFV's they are in contact with.

Here you plainly fail to understand. Opinion, opinion. It is not a case of house rule versus definate rule, its a case of house rule vs house rule, required because the RAW doesnt work without house rules added in somewhere. You have 0% moral high ground here. when it comes to "No, it is your opinion" it goes both ways evenly. all that matters is which house rule best fits what Rackham apparently intend.

Supercollider wrote: No, your point was that Rackham should correct their mistakes. Now, having been shown they do correct their mistakes, you have flipped and are trying to suggest what? That no one should ever make any mistakes? Would you like me to fetch you some more straws, or are you ok clutching at the ones you already have?

Again you fail to understand. The point was this particular error was so enormous the game was unplayable from the utter start without it. It was an indicator of how much the rules require a rewrite, which was my point. I was already aware that this had been FAQed. I already had this FAQ.

Supercollider wrote:
Incorrect. The dash routine tells you the maximum distance the unit may move if it performs a rush. It does NOT add to the existing distance.

again you fail to understand what was explained to you. The purpose of this comment was to show how these rules require a rewrite.
Besides I was not adding norfmal movement to the Rush move. i was adding two different Rush moves xcast one after the other in the same movement sequence. Which is a grey area.
And before you start I said myself I would not buy that.
A i am saying is that the rules are sufficiently ambiguous and NEED REWRITING.

I wouldnt buy using the AFV Rush for infantry either, but if you nitpick this is precisely where it leads you.
Let us assume I was to accept that we had to by hyperliteral with all the rules, so infantry overseers got all the routines but therefore couldnt use them on AFV's because they are still restricted to targting their own unit. Naturally the only logical consequence is to look at the AFV routines that do not in their literal wording prohibit infantry use irregardless of what it logically implies. The best example would be the 50cm Rush.
If you insist that we take the letter of the rules but disavow any interpretation then you MUST accept 50cm Rushes for infantry. Please remember to convert your golems to having rollerskates.

Supercollider wrote:

Orlanth wrote:Actually if I am sure of anything from this thread its that Rackham does not know how it works.

But obviously you do, yes?

I can only go with what the advantage says. Is 'every overseer' unclear to you in any way?
Rackham cant just FAQ this one, and say what we meant was commanders only. it cannot possibly have meant that even allowing for French English transaltion... they need to completely rewrite it.

Besides you are on your false moral high ground again, you seem to imply that you do after all. Or at least claim I dont with some 'authority'.

Cairnius wrote:Orlanth, I just have to say this...I really think you're picking at straws in this thread. I don't see how any reasonable interpretation of the Cypher rules as written/translated in English could ever suggest that Cypher Infantry Overseers could run AFV Routines on Infantry. I feel like you're making arguments up in an attempt to show the poor quality of the rules which I know is a big problem you have with AT-43.

Yes true enough, but I am not alone here. with some parts of the game ALL interpretations are house rules

Cairnius wrote:
However, I think there are enough examples to cite, if you really must, that don't require such convoluted arguments to make your point.

just showing where the logic holds from different paradigms. I show by different ways how this interpretation is the fairest, most balanced and closest to the original intent under RAW. The only argument against it is a bogus claim to orthodoxy for alternative house rules.

Cairnius wrote:
I am, generally-speaking, NOT a fan of fan-made rules. I want to stick by the letter of the rules as much as possible, so that if I am in Europe and I want to play a game of AT-43 with a fan over there I don't need to explain "my" rules to anyone, and then debate whether they are good or not, we just throw down minis and play a game because we are on the same page.

Fair enough in pick up games I leave house rules out until inevitable. This is one such inevitability, assuming cyphers are being used, there are other parts of the game which are ambiguosu enough or flat out contradictory and require a decision. I would be happy to go d6 on interpretations as that is also fair.

Cairnius wrote:
Even when I made my "terrain rules" I didn't really do anything outside the AT-43 rules. All I did was take existing rules from AT-43 and try to translate them into categories. For instance, the rules say that going over a Low Wall has movement effects. So let's call Low Walls an example of "difficult terrain" and apply those movement effects to any piece of terrain the players decide is "difficult."

Once you have blocking terrain rules and cover rules and dangerous terrain all you need is hindering terrain and you are set. Everything else is just eye candy. All terrain is based on the four. Most rulesets have a similar rule for hindering terrain - half movement. add the normal caveats for skimmer immunity and you are done.

Cairnius wrote:
In Turn 1 I effectively forced you to either deploy defensively, or take some big risks exposing yourself to my fire. I am in an advantageous position in terms of the positioning of my forces in Turn 2.

I am intruigued by this, I dont disbelieve you but i dont see it.

Cairnius wrote:
How is it not a major advantage to now have the first activation in Turn 2?

I would hesitate to call it a major advantage. i weouldnt spend 6AP for it unless I had an army which otherwise wouldnt spend all th AP, and Therians always get to spend the AP.

Cairnius wrote:
You probably have either a weakened unit ready to be killed with my very first activation, or you've already lost a unit and are ceding position to me, OR you're turtled up and that gives me even more leeway to set up fields of fire.

I do see this, but AT-43 is all about high lethality. it just slightly reorders the sequence in which two forces annihilate each other. If there are odd numbers of points of contact you get an advantage but with even numbers, typically two points of contact. Therians go last with one and first with the other. keep the two prong assault and the 'major advantange' you see of going first where both units in the face off can destroy the other. Force this situation twice every turn and the major advantage drops to a minor advantage of the choice of which popint of contact goes your way and which their own. allowing for relatively long lethal ranges this is easy to do. Its likely to just happen anyway even without hacing to set it up if you take enough high powered units.

Cairnius wrote:
For the rest of the game, *I* will be setting the terms of our engagement because you never, EVER, get first activation as a Cypher player. Not unless I'm willing to let you make a solid attempt to win the Authority roll, or it's advantageous to me to make you go first again.

It can happen and it does happen. Snipe enough officers the opponent needs points for activation. Nina with Three Sierp is a popular option not that I would be caught dead doing something as cheesy as that and of course killing the enemy colonel can strip enough AP that the opponent might be forced to forgo bidding on the authority test.

Cairnius wrote:
In a 2000 AP game, you may only have 5 units on the table. I just killed one on Turn 1. 20% of your army is gone, and now I get to move first again on Turn 2 and start hammering away at another unit before you get to react. That's not good for you.

No its not, but if we each have two units staring death in the face, you kill one of mine I kill one of yours. All you get is the choice of which of the two you save. yes that is an advantage, but not anything like as bad.

Orlanth wrote:All the overseers get 'all' the routines...

...The moment you prevent the overseers getting access to all the routines and using them, you are twisting the rules to fit YOUR opinions.

He's not, Orlanth.

Just having access to something doesn't mean you get to use it if there are rules which prohibit you from doing so. Cypher Infantry Overseers have access to all the AFV Routines. However, a regular, run-of-the-mill Overseer may only use Routines on his own unit. Being an infantry fighter, this regular-joe Overseer can't use any of the AFV Routines he technically has access to.

This is not a made up rule. This is not even an interpretation of a rule. This is the rule.

Again, what it comes down to is that the Therian Cypher advantage was either:

1) Intended to allow Infantry Overseers to use Creation
2) Written very poorly so as not to state that only Cypher Company Commanders get access to all the Routines regardless of category

If you correct the wording of the rule to reflect what it actually does, choice #2, then all of your questions are answered.

Orlanth wrote:We have hopefully established that like it or not the rules indicate that every overseer gets all the routines, BECAUSE IT SAYS SO. There is no logical room to say this means they have them but cant use them, if they cant use them they DON'T HAVE THEM.

Logic has nothing to do with it, Orlanth. You are making a crucial error in attempting to apply it. Unless the Cypher faction rules specifically state "Normal Routine application restrictions do not apply to Cypher Overseers" there is absolutely no wiggle room for you to claim that regular-joe Cypher Overseers can actually use all the Routines which their faction advantage gives them.

The Cypher faction advantage is very poorly written, to the point of being stupid. That's where this begins and ends, Orlanth. Cross out the line in the Therian Army Book and replace it with the following:

Cypher advantage: Cypher Company Commanders may use both Infantry and AFV Routines regardless of category.


Can we please dispense with nonsense like "moral high ground?" As someone who actually studies moral philosophy hearing that phrase entered into this conversation is ridiculous almost to the point of embarrassment. We're talking about toy soldiers here. The rule is poorly written, but its concrete meaning can be arrived at. End of story.

Orlanth wrote:If you insist that we take the letter of the rules but disavow any interpretation then you MUST accept 50cm Rushes for infantry. Please remember to convert your golems to having rollerskates.

This is what I mean by you stretching, O. Infantry Routines are for Infantry and AFV Routines are for AFVs. There is no confusion here. You know me - if there was a critical leg to stand on I'd have it in the holster ready to draw. There is not in this case.

You don't need to try so hard to point out how badly-written the Routine rules are. Just look at the ruling on why Cypher Infantry Overseers cannot use Creation. It makes no fething sense whatsoever. BY THE LETTER OF THE RULES they are allowed to use the Routine. The Routine targets their own unit. It only has any effects on their own unit. All the rules are respected.

It wasn't until someone whined about Hekat Spam on the AT-43 forums that JB issued one of his all-too-frequent summary rulings that make no sense whatsoever, but which we are bound by if we want to be "official." I personally think that considering answers not in a FAQ but just posted on a website "Official" is bs because not all players want to spend time online. Anything not in a FAQ should not be official, IMHO.

That is not how it works for AT-43, however. If you want to complain about rules, complain about THAT. Complain about the absolutely shoddy way Rackham and now Rackham Entertainment respectively handled and currently-handle rules queries. They can't even be bothered to put out a proper Errata.

How, then, can you actually take AT-43 so seriously so as to get up in arms like this?

My mistake was ever thinking of AT-43 as a game that could hold up to games like 40K and Flames of War. It can't. It's a totally different kind of game. If I compare the quality of AT-43 rules to one of these two companies I come up empty. Even GW with all their problems do eventually put out official Errata and FAQs which seem to definitively answer most of the questions that vex us.

So don't compare AT-43 to games that are in a category to which AT-43 doesn't belong. It's a fluff game. It's just pure fun, it's minis gaming without any of the work. You're making tradeoffs across the board here. Molds aren't as clean because you didn't trim the parts. Paint jobs aren't as clean because they were mass-produced over in China by five-year-old children for the lowest cost possible. Terrain isn't nearly as interesting or varied because the game gives us posters, tiles, and a few pre-made piece types. Rules aren't as tight because the company doesn't have the time, resources, or inclination to do playtesting.

So acknowledge what AT-43 is. It's like Heroscape. Not something to be up in arms about. Just enjoy the minis, enjoy the fluff, get what you can out of it. Hopefully Rackham Entertainment will someday make a second edition of the rulebook. Hopefully they'll edit some of the Army Books which are out of print as the opportunity to do so presents itself.

In the end, AT-43 rules really aren't too bad - it's the syntax and the learning curve which are awful. Once you know the rules, the forum-answered rules "clarifications," and the gameplay system AT-43 plays as smooth as anything else.

Seeing how well we are getting along talking about the Cypher advantage I can't wait untill somebody brings up H/Babel and the "H/Babel overseers benefit from the hero rules" benefit.

Having access to something does not mean you can use it. My eight year old can go into the shed and get the drill (therefore has access), that doesn't mean he can use it.

Cairnius wrote:
This is not a made up rule. This is not even an interpretation of a rule. This is the rule.

AT-43.CO.UK wrote:Seeing how well we are getting along talking about the Cypher advantage I can't wait untill somebody brings up H/Babel and the "H/Babel overseers benefit from the hero rules" benefit.

Having access to something does not mean you can use it. My eight year old can go into the shed and get the drill (therefore has access), that doesn't mean he can use it.

i thought I had explained this one clearly enough by using Frontline as an example. Lets go through again step by step.

1. The rules say vehicles cannot contest objectives.

2. Frontline special advantage allows vehicles to contest objectives.

3. Do we argue that Frontline vehicles have access to objectives but cannot contest them because the rules say so. Y/N.

If your answer = Y

Why? Is it unclear to you that a special advantage overrides the core rules. This is a staple of gaming. Core rules apply unless special rules override them.

If your answer = N

Good I concur. You have now established that SPECIAL ADVANTAGES OVERRIDE THE RULES.

now let us take this back to Cyphers:

Special advantage part one

'Every overseer' - So the special rules points to every overseer in a Cypher list which includes but is not not restricted to Golgoth and Golem Alphas, it also excludes relays as they are not overseers.

Special advantage part two (paraphrased)

'gets all routines' - now remember the bit about special rules overriding standard rules. Here we go. AFV's and infantry cant take each other routines - overridden. As the routines you now have have rules built in about who you can cast them on, which get in the way of the special advantage they too are overridden. The only question is how are they overridden - This mechanic was omitted, like many others including the duplicate card and unit problem. However unlike the duplicate unit problem this has not been fixed. So we are left to pick up their pieces and patch it ourselves, the logical guideline on doing so is attempting to recreate the advantage as given in the fairest way possible.

With this explanation in mind let us define this problem. its not so much as the rules are wrong as they are incomplete. We are only told part of how the Cypher advantage works, we are told the intended goal, but no more. Its not so much as got typos in the wording as missing a paragraph of information regarding the game mechanic.

Seeing as Cyphers and their opponents are guaranteed to hit this hole - you are left with two choices. 1. Stop the game. 2. House rule a solution. There is no option 3.

AT-43.CO.UK wrote: I can't wait untill somebody brings up H/Babel and the "H/Babel overseers benefit from the hero rules" benefit.

I don't play H/Babel, yet, but might get a few medium point games in once I get my Storm Arachn and can field a decent list. If there are holes in the rules that prevent H/Babel overseers from acting like heroes it is logical to house rule to allow them to do so rather than house rule that they cant.

From what I can gather your overseers will all be able to get the extra order only heroes can use. techically vehicle hero overseers can survive their vehicles destruction. however most do not have a profile and thus do not exist outside their vehicle and thus will die. There is a logical precedence to this. Tiamat (assuming she cannot body hack) cannot eject because she is the vehicle. Urash can as he is a driver for Nimit-Urash, but a Golgoth alpha cannot as he doesn't have a seperate profile and like Tiamat is the vehicle.
At first glance I am seeing no conflicts with this advantage, am I missing something?