Weapon Ranges!

[Guges]

This here, Guges.
EVERY TAG with a HMG has a BIG template weapon. The ones without have either HGL, so they never want to be close anyways, or don't have the luxury of a HMG in the first place.

Why use a template weapon on a TAG when I can have 18 template weapons for the same price. Yeah I can't field 18 Kuang Shi, but I don't need any more reasons to field eight Kuang Shi than I already do.

Because, as in all things Infinity, perhaps your TAG is in the best position - or can get to the best possible position before your other, slower units do?

You seem to be very troubled by the changes to TAGs as a result of these range changes. The problem is, TAGs needed a nerf, and this is a nice way to do it.

TAGs don't need to be nerfed in this game. There are many metas where people don't even take TAGs because they are a huge points liability and their roles can almost always be better filled by the group of cheaper models you could have for the same points. I have played TAGs a lot in ITS, and they are probably the most difficult models in the game to use effectively. They have a lot of vulnerabilities and you are focusing a huge amount of points in one place. That place better be where you need those points, or your opponent will take advantage of the holes you've left in your defenses.

[smotku]

I am also thinking that , depending on unit points chnges, that elite Multi rifle unit such as Hospitlers, Swiss guard and Aquila will become more attractive. Assuming that MR get same brackets as Combi. Oh wow Just remembered that Swiss guard has LSG as well. Hits on a 21 enemy has -9 to shoot back. mmmmhmmm

[Willowran]

I love the new changes.In my meta, there aren't very many firefights within 8 inches, so the nerfs there don't hurt so much. It hurts a little that the Sniper doesn't become very effective until 16 inches, as it limites some beautiful sniper-posts around midfield, but i'm more gladdened by the fact that there is finally an obvious reason to take a sniper over an HMG.

That's what i like best about the ranges, despite Guge's disagreement. There is now finally an obvious reason to take each weapon. Whereas before it was a case of "Take HMG if you can, Spitfire if you can't" (generally speaking (where there was no doubt that from a statistical standpoint, the HMG was indisputably the most powerful of all weapons), now it has a specific role, rather than just being "best at everything."

I also like that it is weaker in ultra-close ranges. Makes sense that moving around this huge weapon would make it harder to react to fast-moving targets in a very tight environment. The resulting weakness to TAG units is also a thing i am fond of, for much the same reason: realistically, tracking small targets that close to such a large unit would be difficult to say the least.

Overall, everything i've seen about N3 gets a huge thumbs up from me.

Now i just have to impatiently wait for it to get released.

[Lampyridae]

I am also thinking that , depending on unit points chnges, that elite Multi rifle unit such as Hospitlers, Swiss guard and Aquila will become more attractive. Assuming that MR get same brackets as Combi. Oh wow Just remembered that Swiss guard has LSG as well. Hits on a 21 enemy has -9 to shoot back. mmmmhmmm

Judging by the ORC... probably all 4-4 MOV now along with a 2-3 point reduction in cost (BS seems to be priced at a slight premium). I think the SG will probably drop the LSG, as will a lot of Combi/Multi units.

[Guges]

I had considered responding to Guges's listed points in very clear and concise arguments to counter play his projected impacts.

Then I thought better on it. The last 2 or 3 times I did that he simply ignored my post and continued to complain.
I won't be making that mistake this time.

I will quote this post of his, though:

The HMG was not a perfect weapon and list building doesn't need to get any more complicated than it already is, especially in ITS.

As a matter of fact, I think this dumbs down list building a lot because three monkeys with combis will now ALWAYS be better than an elite with an HMG.

Which is it, Guges? More complicated? Or is it simplifying it? You really should refrain from posting such vitriol until you've collected your thoughts more.
(Also TAG Ballistic Skill easily makes up for that +3 modifier you were missing so much)

All in all, I really like the changes to the various weapons' ranges. HMGs were definitely too powerful and all too commonplace. Aren't most of these games supposed to be clandestine missions run without public approval or even knowledge? HMGs don't really fit the bill. Even if we accepted HMGs to be used as covert weapons, they shouldn't have been as ubiquitous as they currently are.

With the range alterations, the question is no longer
"How many HMGs can I bring to dominate in my active turn?"
but rather
"How can I adjust my positioning to utilize the various weapons I've brought?"
or perhaps "Which weapons will I bring to take advantage of the ranges I prefer?"
or even "What's the best strategy to get one of my units into an enemy's weaker range band?"
or how about "Which weapon should I use in ARO to give me the best odds of long-term success?"

This opens up a lot of different methods and styles. I can dig it.

Edit: fixed scripting

If you really want to tackle all of these questions, than yes, list building becomes way more complicated and a lot more complicated than I want it to be.

The reason why it could actually be simpler is because you can take a totally different approach. Just spam cheap models with combis and then you have more wounds, more orders, and probably a lot more flexibility than a model with an HMG that has to always makes sure it stays a certain distance away from its targets. The HMG will be so inflexible, that you will be better off with spam. Infinity already has a problem with spamming cheaper models being better and doesn't need to encourage this kind of list building any further. ITS 2013 saw larger lists than YAMS and that trend is continued in ITS 2014. If the HMG isn't going to be a big bruiser, why bother with it at all?

[nobunaga3.2]

Did I miss something about Multi-Rifle changes? costs reduced?

[Lampyridae]

Did I miss something about Multi-Rifle changes? costs reduced?

It appears that MULTI weapons have been reduced in cost quite significantly (see the new ORC/Mobile Brigada stats). The rules for MULTI weapons are still not yet known.

[nobunaga3.2]

The HMG will be so inflexible,

No, it will no longer be the most flexible and dominate weapon of choice, it will still have a very important and key role, one that it should have been subjected to all along. and yes even though Infinity isn't squad based, the HMG should operate like a squad support weapon

[IJW Wartrader]

The ORC in IO gets MOV4-4 without a price increase while the MB gets a price decreas and MOV4-4.

So either HI are getting an overall slight drop in price, the MULTI Rifle is getting a drop in price or some mix of the two.

[ElectricPaladin]

I like it! I've always liked the style of snipers, and I appreciate that now there is more of a reason to bring them. I also appreciate that the stock of non-infiltrating snipers - like, say, my intruders... - just went up big time!

[Guges]

... and the good news is that the Official Forums are staying OPEN!!!

[ElectricPaladin]

... and the good news is that the Official Forums are staying OPEN!!!

Feh. I was starting to really like DataSphere much better, anyway...

[Shadow]

I'm Super happy with the range changes, I bought a Raiden with spitfire just for the look maybe after 3 edition is going to see lots of action lol

[nobunaga3.2]

(see the new ORC/Mobile Brigada stats).

Am I just being obtuse? have these been posted somewhere?

[MARC C]

Honestly, if there was pre-measuring in Infinity, I wouldn't be bothered so much by HMGs having a weird sweet spot range, but I don't enjoy doing estimated geometry in my head while I play to the level that will be needed to find that sweet spot consistently enough to make HMGs effective. Because of this, my play style will necessitate me leaving HMGs behind for other weapons and that's a lot of models I own that will collect dust on the shelf.

ah I see... your discontent stems from the fact that you over specialized in one weapon... reminds 40K player who spammed razorbacks in the 5th edition than complained because 6th made that not as appealing. Well maybe you should wait to have the full picture before you claim your precious HMGs will collect dust... because right now you sound like someone who critics a movie based on the teaser.

[Levitas]

The ORC in IO gets MOV4-4 without a price increase while the MB gets a price decreas and MOV4-4.

So either HI are getting an overall slight drop in price, the MULTI Rifle is getting a drop in price or some mix of the two.

Do we know any details on the new hacking rules yet? Could be a drop in points for HI means they are easier to hack, or hackers become more effective?

[Penemue]

TAGs don't need to be nerfed in this game. There are many metas where people don't even take TAGs because they are a huge points liability and their roles can almost always be better filled by the group of cheaper models you could have for the same points. I have played TAGs a lot in ITS, and they are probably the most difficult models in the game to use effectively. They have a lot of vulnerabilities and you are focusing a huge amount of points in one place. That place better be where you need those points, or your opponent will take advantage of the holes you've left in your defenses.

So, models with 6-4 MOV, BS 14+, ARM 8+, STR 3, and +3 from 8-32 with B4, all for less than 100 points, don't need to be revisited? I think we're playing the same game.

I laughed out loud when you said "probably the most difficult models in the game to use effectively."

[Fabrizio3k]

I guess Merovingia's meta just shifted from special deployment and cheap HMGs to special deployment and a everyone packed full of shotguns

[IJW Wartrader]

I'll bite.

Yeah this is an absolute train wreck,

1) It's a lot more complicated than 2e and unnecessarily so. It flies in the face of their goal to simplify the game. This is going to utterly bewilder new players in a game that already requires more calculations during shooting than most other games. There is now a lot more information to commit to memory and is the exact opposite of what will attract new players to the game.

Blatantly false. The weapon range bands have been simplified and will be easier to remember because they're all multiples of 8"/20cm. No more Sniper Rifle range bands falling 'between' all the others.

Point void.

2) The nerf to HMGs is extreme and unnecessary. You usually pay such a high premium for an HMG that their effectiveness was balanced quite well against this. They will absolutely need to drop the points of HMG troops or they will be virtually useless on the table except in precise circumstances that will be frustrating to set up and execute. They now work like squad support weapons in a skirmish game that isn't based on squads. Totally the antithesis of the feel of the game.

The HMG in 2nd edition is flat-out the best active turn weapon that you can get on a non-TAG. Apart from making it extremely hard to balance as far as points go, this leads to limited variety in lists because the most efficient lists tend to boil down to 'how many HMGs and Specialists can I fit in?'.

Also, it lost three points of modifier within 16". Describing that as 'extreme' is hyperbole. It's still better in the 8-16" bracket than anything but a Spitfire due to Burst and Damage. Within 8" it doesn't look so pretty but that's part of the problem - in 2nd ed it was still the best option even though it's not a suitable weapon for close-quarter battle.

We also don't know how points costs are changing.

Point is opinion without giving reasoning, hyperbole.

3) This will force people to completely restructure from scratch how they build lists and play the game. It totally flips meta on its head to the point where it's basically a totally new game. This completely goes against their stated goal of not throwing out the old completely but simply tightening up how the game plays.

I think you're reading too much into what's been said. The game is still Orders and AROs, manoeuvre and fire, tactics and cunning. That's not a new game, just tweaks of an existing one.

I'm also not seeing the restructuring - my HMGs usually engaged from outside 16" anyway, and that's on tables tighter than the Spanish norm.

Point is largely hyperbole.

4) Will make competive list building even more complicated and lead to more dirty tricks as people come up with ways to maximize the super specific uses of each weapon. Infinity feels like a real fire fight which easily enabled players to take models they liked the look and feel of and make them successful on the table. That will now completely disappear and the game will be more of reaching into my bag of tricks for the right game mechanic. If I wanted that, I'd just play Magic.

You can still take the models you want and make them perform. If anything, more than before because non-HMGs suddenly become more useful in comparison instead of getting left behind if they weren't on Specialists or cheap Order generators.

Point void.

5) List building now trumps table action even more than it used to. List building taking a back seat to table action is probably Infinity's greatest strength and what fundamentally sets it aside from other games. Why they move more and more away from this is baffling.

You need to explain this in more depth, the logic behind your statement isn't obvious. I'm seeing the ability to take a wider variety of weapons/loadouts and still have a useful list, which has the opposite effect - list-building becomes less important.

Point unclear.

6) The magic ninja smoke grenade trick becomes even worse than it was before. Smoke grenades are already extremely potent and did not need a buff in any way whatsoever.

Again, you're playing on tables that are too dense.

Point undecided.

7) It makes expensive elite models even weaker than they have become and will encourage spamming more models on the table. Why take a 60 point HMG model when I am better off taking four combi rifle models who have a better chance to get hits by just spamming dice. Kills that part of the game that highlighted elite operatives and brings it closer to a squad level game like 40k. Feels very similar to how Warmachine changed from focusing on elite models to spamming hordes of grunts. The days of the single fire team squad of face punchers is gone.

We don't know the points cost of what's currently a 60pt HMG model. Although if the MOV change of the ORC and MB carries across, HI will be getting better in a pretty major way, and apparently with no points increase.

The elite HI will still be better at shooting than the Combi Rifle models at all range bands other than 0-8".

Point is based on unfounded assumptions.

This won't be the game I've enjoyed playing for years and it could quite possibly make me quit playing the game for good. I'm baffled as to why everyone thinks it's so great, but clearly it means the things I enjoyed about the game are not what most other people enjoy about it. Either that or people just accept anything CB says rules wise as gospel...

Going by your posts in this thread, it's because you're not actually thinking through the implications of the changes.

[Spears]

So, models with 6-4 MOV, BS 14+, ARM 8+, STR 3, and +3 from 8-32 with B4, all for less than 100 points, don't need to be revisited? I think we're playing the same game.

I laughed out loud when you said "probably the most difficult models in the game to use effectively."

I would consider a tag based list one of the hardest list types to use effectively in ITS. The tag itself is obviously a bit of a beast but the cost is nothing to be sniffed at, thats 100 points that only provide one order, can only be in one place, cant complete objectives and is liable to losing a third of your army at once.

[Claudius Sol]

I think TAGs certainly have a place in ITS objective missions.

Properly entrenched, they do a great job at holding positions. Just get the TAG in a nice defensible position with vision to an objective or two (or three!) and watch your opponent squirm and struggle to remove the threat to his limited specialists. Of course, there are counters to this, like smoke, but it's still more orders that your opponent has to spend in order to attempt to accomplish his goals.

Most TAGs aren't exactly 100 points but closer to the 80-90 point range. To say it's 100 points is probably a little bit of over exaggeration in most cases.

The naturally high BS is incredible in these defensive positions. The multiple "wounds" (Structure, in this case, which is better anyway) gives a little leniency and more stubbornness to your thorn in your opponent's side.

The quick MOV lets you get your TAG in this annoying position quickly and with some forgiveness in order count.

I can't recall who's tagline it was but with TAGs, I find the best strategy is: Complete objectives (or just move to them) on your turn. Kill your opponent in theirs.

[dtjunkie19]

Well, guges four favorite units, of which at least two were included in every game/event I played against or alongside him in, are the hac Tao hmg, the guija, the tiger soldier hmg, and a second tiger soldier hmg. So I can see why it may have a significant change on his gameplay compared to some of the rest of us..

Diversity is scary, but it's time to break down these walls of (weapon) segregation.

[macfergusson]

TAGs are difficult to bring in ITS due to Specialist requirements and point investment, not due to the weapon band ranges they have available. This change has approximately zero impact on how effective a TAG in ITS 2014 would be. If 2015 has significant changes to scenarios and objective requirements, that could be entirely different.

[Penemue]

@ IJW: thanks for responding so thoroughly to those comments. From what Guges has said, I'm not sure how often he plays/how much of that is just Infinitheory.

So, models with 6-4 MOV, BS 14+, ARM 8+, STR 3, and +3 from 8-32 with B4, all for less than 100 points, don't need to be revisited? I think we're playing the same game.

I laughed out loud when you said "probably the most difficult models in the game to use effectively."

I would consider a tag based list one of the hardest list types to use effectively in ITS. The tag itself is obviously a bit of a beast but the cost is nothing to be sniffed at, thats 100 points that only provide one order, can only be in one place, cant complete objectives and is liable to losing a third of your army at once.

Not 100 points. ~90, which gives you a full order for the difference (at least in most armies). Yes, TAGs are expensive, but they have strengths that no other unit (besides perhaps Achilles) has. The combination of high movement, high BS, a long-range and high-burst weapon, and incredible durability push them over the top.

In a 300 point ITS list, a TAG is under a third - leaving you over 200 points for the other 9 models in your (single) combat group, including specialists. I don't see the issue.

[Angron]

(see the new ORC/Mobile Brigada stats).

Am I just being obtuse? have these been posted somewhere?

There are some updated points in the O:I book.

What comes in the box and some things to expand that to. 300 point lists.

[Spears]

At this point we are just listing there strengths and weakness's at each other. Maybe it's a meta thing.

[LardTroll]

liking the changes each weapon has its own niche now no catch all HMGs

looking forward to one of my gulams actually firing a light shotgun at something

[Guges]

I'll bite.
Blatantly false. The weapon range bands have been simplified and will be easier to remember because they're all multiples of 8"/20cm. No more Sniper Rifle range bands falling 'between' all the others.

So in the video they said making the range bands the same makes things simpler and that sounds good on paper. It is mitigated by the fact that the range patterns between the weapons are more unique, however. People have an easier time remembering things with similarities and in patterns and there less similarities and less of a pattern now.

For example combi rifles, spitfires and shotguns used to be +3 out to 8". That's a pattern. Now only combi rifles are. Combi rifles and spitfires were +3 from 0-16 inches. Another pattern, and again only combi rifles are.

Now weapons have far fewer similarities in terms of how their range bands work and therefore it will be harder to remember which weapon does what. This will inherently make it more confusing as every weapon is completely unique in terms of how its ranges work. Most people think this makes it better because now you have more distinct tools in your toolbox, but for me this is too many tools that do too many different things, for no appreciable gain aside from changing things.

The HMG in 2nd edition is flat-out the best active turn weapon that you can get on a non-TAG. Apart from making it extremely hard to balance as far as points go, this leads to limited variety in lists because the most efficient lists tend to boil down to 'how many HMGs and Specialists can I fit in?'.

Also, it lost three points of modifier within 16". Describing that as 'extreme' is hyperbole. It's still better in the 8-16" bracket than anything but a Spitfire due to Burst and Damage. Within 8" it doesn't look so pretty but that's part of the problem - in 2nd ed it was still the best option even though it's not a suitable weapon for close-quarter battle.

I don't see a problem with HMGs being the best active weapon in the game. There's nothing wrong with a best active weapon in the game. It didn't keep people from taking other weapons and best active weapon in the game isn't best weapon in the game. You paid a huge premium for this in 2nd ed., and were left with a single edged sword. In ARO, the HMGs were pretty horrible so they had distinct drawbacks for their cost. Now they're even more of a liability in ARO because there will often be better active turn options now. All this will do is make people take more shotguns and combis, and less HMGs. In N4, people will be whining about shotguns and they will get a nerf.

We also don't know how points costs are changing.

I have stated this as a qualifier numerous times.

I think you're reading too much into what's been said. The game is still Orders and AROs, manoeuvre and fire, tactics and cunning. That's not a new game, just tweaks of an existing one.

I'm also not seeing the restructuring - my HMGs usually engaged from outside 16" anyway, and that's on tables tighter than the Spanish norm.

But lists will be completely different now. I have no problem with something new being added to the game and you shift things here and there. I do have a problem with throwing all of my lists out and starting from scratch. This is akin to 40k codex creep where a new codex comes out and you redo all of your armies with completely new models. Infinity shouldn't be about that. It should be about taking what you want and making it work on the table. Now that every weapon has a super specific range band, you will be forced to take even more weapons and models that you might not want to, just to stay competitive. It's giving Infinity a lot of the bad parts of other miniature games.

You can still take the models you want and make them perform. If anything, more than before because non-HMGs suddenly become more useful in comparison instead of getting left behind if they weren't on Specialists or cheap Order generators.

But I won't be using the models I want and make them perform. I like using high point elite models, and given the changes to HMGs, they are now a lot less useful. Why take a 60 point model when it will end up in situations on the table where it will fail at its primary job? TAGs for example, are only there to massacre other models in ITS. Now they will be far less effective at that so why take one? You're now useless at ranges where at least 30-40% of Infinity firefights take place. You're better off with the same number of points in combi rifles because of these limitations.

You need to explain this in more depth, the logic behind your statement isn't obvious. I'm seeing the ability to take a wider variety of weapons/loadouts and still have a useful list, which has the opposite effect - list-building becomes less important.

That's the exact opposite of what I wrote. When I say list building trumps table action, it means how you build your list has far more impact on what happens in the game than how you use your list on the table. In 2e, if I just took a model with an HMG or a Spitfire, they would be useful in more situations. Now to cover those situations I need a shotgun, a combi rifle, and a spitfire or an HMG. Now instead of just being able to take an HMG, and maybe some other models I think are fun, I have to take a shotgun, and I have to take a combi. If I don't, I'm now at a disadvantage. It hamstrings my choices because it forces me to take models I didn't have to before and it forces me to take more models.

Again, you're playing on tables that are too dense.

Have you seen my tables? Can you show me one of my tables and why it's too dense? I'm not even sure how you can make this statement without pointing that out in depth. I also don't understand how anyone can say that smoke grenades will not be more effective. A Daturazi can now throw a smoke grenade twice as far with an almost guaranteed chance of success. How is that not more effective? Why is this necessary? They weren't weak before. No one was lamenting that their smoke screen models weren't effective. If anything grenades should be -3 at 8" and -6 at 16". Now these models became a lot more effective for no good reason and twice as effective on tables that are wide open than on my supposed "dense" tables. Smoke screens become a lot more useful on wide open tables and smoke screens are now more effective. They didn't need to be and I play a faction with some awesome smoke options.

We don't know the points cost of what's currently a 60pt HMG model. Although if the MOV change of the ORC and MB carries across, HI will be getting better in a pretty major way, and apparently with no points increase.

The elite HI will still be better at shooting than the Combi Rifle models at all range bands other than 0-8".

As I have stated before, we don't know what points costs will be and hopefully a lot of the problems I'm seeing will be mitigated by points adjustments. If the point costs of elite models doesn't drop by enough, taking something like a Daofei with an HMG will definitely put you at a disadvantage. We will have to wait and see, but it's not completely out of bounds to think that these models might end up being too expensive. CB has done this more than once in the past with models like the Crane.

Going by your posts in this thread, it's because you're not actually thinking through the implications of the changes.

No, I'm just not blindly accepting these changes. It would be very difficult for any game developer to change their game this significantly without it also causing problems. I'm also hoping people prove me wrong because if this goes the way I think it will, the game will be ruined for me completely.

[Tarken]

Any thoughts on what we'll see for grenade launchers, rocket launchers, panzerfausts, etc?

[mazza]

Those new weapons ranges are awesome!!

I can finally buy the new MSR intruder, and then actually play it, at last! I bought the old MSR intruder and I found useless, and I do not want re-buy the model just because the new one is cool, I wanna play it!!!

To be 100% honest, I found MSR utterly useless 99% of my games, indeed I forgot the last one I had the guts to deploy one.