Weapon Ranges!

[MattS]

Let me start with these new range bands are an interesting change as it gives each weapon except the sniper rifle an 8 or 16" range band in which it is really good, while the sniper rifle gets a 32" range band. As others have said this provides a tactical slot for each weapon where previously the HMG especially and to a lesser extent the Spitfire made all other weapons support weapons. They did all the heavy lifting, being able to cover the majority of the table you needed with high burst and the others were there to back them up after your opponent took out your HMGs and Spitfires.

Does this mean that other weapons never won games, of course not. Nor does it mean that you couldn't make competitive lists without those two weapons (more so in ITS than just straight up murder your opponent). However now it means selecting units is far more of a tactical choice rather than, spam high burst weapons that cover 24" of the table in +3 range bands. High burst is still king, that certainly hasn't gone away but these range bands actually open up choices.

2. You have no idea how much HMGs will cost or what the relative prices of other weapons are. They all have a slight offset in that the pistol is now useful.

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.

This is disingenuous. You claim we don't know what HMGs cost and then quote the list in the back of the QSR for the price decrease for the MR. Given that same information HMGs go down zero points. The Jotums sees a one point decrease probably for losing mountain terrain and for the slight decrease to the Multi part of Multi HMG and the Iguana is the same price. So if you are going to claim that we know the approximate price decrease on MR then you also know that HMGs still cost the same.

[macfergusson]

Multi Sniper Rifles are already good in 2nd Ed for long range ARO overwatch. They were just overshadowed by HMGs. This change allows them both to have more distinct niches to carry value on their own.

[ToadChild]

I'm also going to throw my hat in the "pleased with these changes" pile.

Once I figured out that HMGs were the best gun in almost every situation (until you ran out of SWC) my list building got pretty stale. Paradiso and ITS changed that up for me, but not always in the ways I'd like. Putting some holes in the HMG opens up space for other weapons to shine. If everything works out right, you'll want to include a diversity of weapons in your lists so that you can engage at all ranges. This seems like a good thing to me.

[mbdeyes]

For the most part I don't see the extreme issues with the range band changes... but I'm not super thrilled either. It's not going to miraculously make this game better, though I do see the improvement to Sniper Rifles and Shotguns in particular.

I'd still rather shoot you at 8 to 16" with an HMG while you're trying to get into your 'optimal' range with that shotgun.

There are individual units that I'm have concerns about though, especially when figuring in the changes to Camo.... but I say all this undertanding that I don't know how the rest of the game is going to change around these things. I have no idea if point costs are going to change or if something else will be changed that compensates for some of these issues.

For instance, Camo attacks don't help those with template weapons any more. Those with shorter range bands suffer more as well as Camo is more effective now at longer ranges, generally speaking.
My Zouave sapper now has to be place farther back due to 'optimal ranges'. This is important because his Mechanized Deployment affects every other model I have that uses Mechanized Deployment. If I have to set him back farther it limits how I can deploy the rest of them.
I know these are all very situational examples, but I'm sure there are other individual situations that will come up that haven't been thought of yet in this thread as well.

This is not a 'doomsday' post, just a statement that I have to play with these rules before patting CB on the back or condemning them to GW level condemnation, either way.

[mbdeyes]

...If everything works out right, you'll want to include a diversity of weapons in your lists so that you can engage at all ranges. This seems like a good thing to me.

Or you'll want to specialize and use special abilities to make sure you can engage the enemy at your preferred ranges. Not the simplest thing for a beginner, but I'm sure some of the vets will give it a try.
Those of us who have template weapons, smoke, infiltration, etc. already do that a bit regardless of HMG's.

[MattS]

For the most part I don't see the extreme issues with the range band changes... but I'm not super thrilled either. It's not going to miraculously make this game better, though I do see the improvement to Sniper Rifles and Shotguns in particular.

(snip)

For instance, Camo attacks don't help those with template weapons any more. Those with shorter range bands suffer more as well as Camo is more effective now at longer ranges, generally speaking.
My Zouave sapper now has to be place farther back due to 'optimal ranges'. This is important because his Mechanized Deployment affects every other model I have that uses Mechanized Deployment. If I have to set him back farther it limits how I can deploy the rest of them.
I know these are all very situational examples, but I'm sure there are other individual situations that will come up that haven't been thought of yet in this thread as well.

This is not a 'doomsday' post, just a statement that I have to play with these rules before patting CB on the back or condemning them to GW level condemnation, either way.

Two points, first is that low burst weapons for camo have become slightly weaker but closer range weapons haven't you just have to pick the right targets and in fact they will be much better than they were. A camo person can now get up within 8" of a sniper or HMG and feel very confident as they blast them. Even more so if they do so with a shotgun. Say both models are BS 12, the camo unit gets +6 for range, -3 for cover so overall is BS 15. The sniper/HMG gets -3 for range, -3 for cover, -3 for out of camo attack, -3/6 for camo/TO but it doesn't matter since the modifiers max at -12 so the camo unit gets two shots at BS 15 versus nothing from their opponent. Except the opponent will then choose their Dam 11 Pistol so they will shoot back at +3 range, -3 cover, -3 out of camo attack, -3/6 for camo/TO for an end result of rolling at a BS 6 or 3. Those are pretty good odds and even if your opponent gets lucky (not 1 in 20 crit lucky) they are only shooting you with a Dam 11 weapon, not that Dam 15 (possibly DA) weapon.

In fact getting up close and blasting TAGs has become a lot less suicidal thanks to that -3 for them and +6 for you, except that most will then cover you with a flame template (btw McNamara there is one TAG with HMG and no HFL, the Uhlans. It doesn't exist and its one of those boring blue ones so its okay you forgot about its (non)existence) but your shot on the TAG will be ever more glorious with that Boarding Shotgun.

The range bands really make troop selection and target selection much more important as opposed to 2nd edition were if there was someone over there you just shot them full of holes with your HMG. Was that person in your face? Shoot them full of holes with your HMG. Oh, its their turn and they are really, super duper in your face, shoot them with a pistol. The HMG worked against the guy with the shotgun and the enemies sniper, which was the problem with it. Now it has a 16" sweet spot like many of the weapons.

Secondly that mechanized and infiltrating snipers are going to require some more vertical elements in that middle zone if you don't play with them already. Yes, for the Zuoave this then influences your other troops so... make sure those vertical elements have ladders leading to them.

If your group is anti sniper posts, make sure your sniper posts don't have LoF to the majority of the table but that they exist and do provide some value. Otherwise your building a table to exclude a weapon and that is not cool. Much like having a giant wasteland in the middle to exclude DTW.

The thing about specializing still means you have to find that sweet spot for your weapons and with smoke, that's all fine and good but if on their turn they are in their sweet spot taking multiple shots at +3 while you get one throw with +3 that doesn't have a chance to kill... it wastes orders, which is an important aspect of ARO but a wasted order plus a dead active model is even better.

[Spambot]

Only thing I don't like is the cutoff at 48" for HMG. Spraying 4-5 dice at huge penalties at someone on the other side of the board just totally feels right with this weapon.

Otherwise, super super keen - that +6 BS in particular is great and I'm glad they went with that, though I also really like the 32" max combi range and the simplification to 8" bands in particular.

Anyway, back to posts about that one dude who dislikes it instead of the 99% who do.

[Guges]

Two points, first is that low burst weapons for camo have become slightly weaker but closer range weapons haven't you just have to pick the right targets and in fact they will be much better than they were. A camo person can now get up within 8" of a sniper or HMG and feel very confident as they blast them. Even more so if they do so with a shotgun. Say both models are BS 12, the camo unit gets +6 for range, -3 for cover so overall is BS 15. The sniper/HMG gets -3 for range, -3 for cover, -3 for out of camo attack, -3/6 for camo/TO but it doesn't matter since the modifiers max at -12 so the camo unit gets two shots at BS 15 versus nothing from their opponent. Except the opponent will then choose their Dam 11 Pistol so they will shoot back at +3 range, -3 cover, -3 out of camo attack, -3/6 for camo/TO for an end result of rolling at a BS 6 or 3. Those are pretty good odds and even if your opponent gets lucky (not 1 in 20 crit lucky) they are only shooting you with a Dam 11 weapon, not that Dam 15 (possibly DA) weapon.

In fact getting up close and blasting TAGs has become a lot less suicidal thanks to that -3 for them and +6 for you, except that most will then cover you with a flame template (btw McNamara there is one TAG with HMG and no HFL, the Uhlans. It doesn't exist and its one of those boring blue ones so its okay you forgot about its (non)existence) but your shot on the TAG will be ever more glorious with that Boarding Shotgun.

I have a problem with this. Camo infiltrators are already amazing in the game they can already take objectives, sneak attack, have greater freedom of movement, etc. They didn't need a boost like this at all. All this means is that super cheap camo troops can now demolish more expensive ones far too easily. Here's to hoping models with shotguns get a lot more expensive.

[Penemue]

...If everything works out right, you'll want to include a diversity of weapons in your lists so that you can engage at all ranges. This seems like a good thing to me.

Or you'll want to specialize and use special abilities to make sure you can engage the enemy at your preferred ranges. Not the simplest thing for a beginner, but I'm sure some of the vets will give it a try.
Those of us who have template weapons, smoke, infiltration, etc. already do that a bit regardless of HMG's.

I think most vets realize that a balanced list is a better list. Sure, you take units with very specific weaponry (and now you'd be more inclined to take Shotguns on those AD3 troops!), but you aim to use them fluidly as situations arise. If you spend most of your orders setting up your optimal situation, you won't have the orders to take advantage of it.

[Guges]

I think most vets realize that a balanced list is a better list. Sure, you take units with very specific weaponry (and now you'd be more inclined to take Shotguns on those AD3 troops!), but you aim to use them fluidly as situations arise. If you spend most of your orders setting up your optimal situation, you won't have orders to take advantage of it.

I agree with this 100%, but I also feel the game already has this in spades. Yeah HMGs are great, but you never want to take more than one or two in a list. I don't think nerfing HMGs into the ground is going to help the game at all and will only force people into certain kinds of fluid lists instead of broader ones when weapons were more similar.

[macfergusson]

I don't think nerfing HMGs into the ground is going to help the game at all

Fortunately, this isn't what is happening.

[Penemue]

I think most vets realize that a balanced list is a better list. Sure, you take units with very specific weaponry (and now you'd be more inclined to take Shotguns on those AD3 troops!), but you aim to use them fluidly as situations arise. If you spend most of your orders setting up your optimal situation, you won't have orders to take advantage of it.

I agree with this 100%, but I also feel the game already has this in spades. Yeah HMGs are great, but you never want to take more than one or two in a list. I don't think nerfing HMGs into the ground is going to help the game at all and will only force people into certain kinds of fluid lists instead of broader ones when weapons were more similar.

Except that the HMG wasn't similar to anything. It was, hands down, the best weapon selection in the game. Making it not be actually encourages variety.

(Why would you not want to take more than one or two HMGs in a list, if you could afford it?)

[Guges]

I think most vets realize that a balanced list is a better list. Sure, you take units with very specific weaponry (and now you'd be more inclined to take Shotguns on those AD3 troops!), but you aim to use them fluidly as situations arise. If you spend most of your orders setting up your optimal situation, you won't have orders to take advantage of it.

I agree with this 100%, but I also feel the game already has this in spades. Yeah HMGs are great, but you never want to take more than one or two in a list. I don't think nerfing HMGs into the ground is going to help the game at all and will only force people into certain kinds of fluid lists instead of broader ones when weapons were more similar.

Except that the HMG wasn't similar to anything. It was, hands down, the best weapon selection in the game. Making it not be actually encourages variety.

(Why would you not want to take more than one or two HMGs in a list, if you could afford it?)

For starters HMGs were very similar to spitfires in 2e. One could argue that they're too similar, except CB does a good job of army construction and there always seemed to be a reason to take one or the other based on the models at hand. No one is bothered by a Su Jian "only" having a Spitfire, because it's awesomely mobile, heavily armored, and also has a Panzerfaust. To me that was a great way to balance the game and make for interesting list choices.

There is such a thing as taking too many HMGs or heavy weapons in general because at the end of the day, only one model is getting to shoot per order. It's not 40k, where you get to fire every gun you have every turn. So once you have one or two HMGs, having more sucks up a lot of points from models that you might need for orders, hackers, etc. This becomes a lot more acute in ITS, where every HMG means you can take that many fewer specialists.

Also HMGs suck in ARO. So if you take all HMGs, and no good ARO weapons, you are going to really have problems when your opponent is taking his turn.

So making HMGs worthless at close ranges wasn't really necessary because there are already plenty of reasons not to take one.

[IJW Wartrader]

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.

Different people use different patterns. Partly because of doing the range chart I think in terms of which order the various modifiers are in, in which case they're already very diverse in 2nd edition.

Now it's:
Heavy weapons are -3/0/+3/-3.
Combis, Rifles and Spitfires are roughly the same but a +0 short range for the Spitfire for a semi-heavy weapon and the Rifle for being lower-tech.
Also of note, the Combi now has 16" of +3, 16" of -3 and 16" or -6.
The Pistol is now just three 8" bands instead of three 4" bands plus a 12" band. Seriously, I have more trouble remembering Pistol bands than any other gun in the game.
Pistols and Shotguns have 8" positive/zero/negative but the 'six' is on opposite ends.

I've already memorised these new range bands better than their equivalents in 2nd edition.

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.

Because it has no downsides. It's currently cheaper than the other heavy weaponry while being more effective. It literally doesn't have any weaknesses in the active turn. From a game mechanics point of view that leads to reduced variety in lists.

This is something that players have been discussing for years now. You know, you were part of those discussions.

In N3, the HMG will be the best active turn weapon most of the time instead of all of the time.

'Huge premium' is hyperbole. It was largely SWC, in terms of points cost an HMG on an HI was noticeably undercosted. 8pt over a Combi didn't reflect the increased usefulness of the model.

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

I have stated this as a qualifier numerous times.

Then don't use it in your arguments. You can't have it both ways and say that we don't know how points are changing but that there will be no point in a 60pt HI.

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.

If you want to be taken seriously, stop using hyperbole and exaggeration..

HMGs are still king of the mid-to-long-range firefight by a substantial margin.
Sniper Rifles are finally able to outrange HMGs more often but are still going to get beaten by an active turn HMG unless there's Camo, TO or ODD involved - just like 2nd edition apart from edge-cases where people are on opposing table edges and shooting diagonally.

I've been actively going through my existing lists regarding the weapon range changes and they aren't going to change much - maybe an extra Boarding Shotgun here or there but that's more limited by which profiles are Specialists than anything else.

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.

See above. You're repeating a logical fallacy - because we don't know the points cost of the elite trooper or about other changes that might be happening. There simply isn't enough information to say that the model will 'fail at it's primary job' or to say that the same points in LI Combis will be better. We don't even know how many LI that would be.

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.

The HMG being useful in all situations is the problem. See above, multiple times.

Jack-of-all-trades weapons which are flat-out better than the specialised weapons are bad for game balance and list variety, that's absolute basic game design theory.

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.

I've seen your reactions to tables that I regard as being open but not unplayably so. Note that I didn't say that smoke grenades won't be more effective, that would be obviously false. This is a classic strawman argument - you've made up something I didn't say and attacked it.

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.

So again you don't know but you're assuming the worst. Point void.

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.

You've repeatedly made posts in an extremely aggressive manner (enough to make me think you're intentionally trolling) and made points that are demonstrably untrue.

You've been proved wrong in several places but you just ignore the opposing arguments or posts.


Edited for typos.

[Barakiel]

I see these changes as nothing but positive. Clearly defined weapon roles strike me as being very, very healthy for the growth of the hobby. While the +6 on Shotguns gives them a clearly defined role, they're still highly limited. I certainly won't be "loading up on them". Just glancing through the armies I play though, choices I would never consider before (Myrmidon with boarding shotgun, Domaru with boarding shotgun) suddenly have a relevant and valid place in a list. I love that. By contrast, I won't be trading in my rifles, HMGs, Spitfires in favor of a single new weapon loadout, but I will be stepping back to evaluate what I use and trying to determine if it's will be the best tool for the job once we get our new edition.

One thing that really strikes me with these weapon ranges is that it helps to level the playing field between all model types. If we think of the rifle and combi rifle as the common denominator, the most abundant weapon choice out there, and contrast it to the type of troop choices that normally get HMGs, we see that the Rifle now stands a chance opposing a monster TAG or HI with HMG. I think most Infinity players like the fact that a basic grunt has some teeth versus the game's most powerful models. The range band tweaks make this more true, giving a little power back to the grunts when that TAG comes storming into their Deployment Zone to clear them out. Similarly, a player who takes the time or spends the orders to get a boarding shotgun close to the enemy will be rewarded for doing so. Conversely, a player poised to rampage through an opponent's backline will have a tougher time if he's opposed by effective close-range boarding shotguns. I feel like these range band adjustments help to soften the phenomenon that players hate running into when playing a game.


+++Edit+++
@Guges
I'm not sure. I would never say that HMGs suck in ARO... They're still better, stat-wise, than virtually any other weapon. I'm pretty sure you're inferring that their advantage is primarily an active turn one, as it should be, and that they are more vulnerable in ARO than they are on the offensive. As it should be, right?

That being said, it still doesn't change the fact that the HMG was still the universally superior weapon in every circumstance. Now, it has a role, rather than simply being "the best". I like that no weapon in the game is clearly superior to another. They all have a choice and a role.

[Penemue]

When I think HMG, I would also put the Spitfire into that category (high damage, high burst, good ranges). I don't think "I could take a Spitfire instead" is a good argument for why one wouldn't take an HMG.

As for the points issue, you'd quickly eat through your SWC if you buy a few HMGs, leaving you with a fair chunk of points left over for orders, hackers, etc. Yes, you realistically end up spending some SWC on non-HMGs, but these are things that give you an interesting edge - hackers (as you say), Minelayer, etc. When it comes to heavier weapons, though, it seems like most people would sooner go for an HMG than an LGL, Rocket Launcher, MSR, etc.

HMGs do suck in ARO. That's why the rest of your force can be reasonable at it via templates, etc. I also didn't say you would take ALL HMGs, just that you'd want to take more than one or two. Because most people do.

There are a few reasons for why you wouldn't take ALL HMGs here, but what about reasons to take HMGs over all other "heavy" weapon options? There are a lot of those...or, at least, there were. N3 seems to be balancing that out, so we don't just see HMG after HMG after HMG on the table.

[MattS]

I have a problem with this. Camo infiltrators are already amazing in the game they can already take objectives, sneak attack, have greater freedom of movement, etc. They didn't need a boost like this at all. All this means is that super cheap camo troops can now demolish more expensive ones far too easily. Here's to hoping models with shotguns get a lot more expensive.

Can you please point on this Guijia where the bad Chasseur touched you?

So those cheap skirmishers are actually not going to be so bad. First off ToadChild's wonderful math program shows that they are in fact less deadly given similar modifiers with the new camo rules but they survive better, so that's good for your elite troops. They may not kill the pesky skirmisher on the opening attack but they still have their same old good chances during the post out of camo attack normal FtF attacks. So there's that.

Secondly DTW if what the QSR is true for third edition are not nearly so good on out of camo attacks, so that deals with several of the cheap camo troops advantage.

What this brings us to is now shotguns, the one place where ToadChild's program hadn't taken into account the amazing +6 at 0-8" range. First in most FtF (non-camo) the +6 shotgun is only about as good as a combi rifle at the same range so its not that rifle+light shotgun is now better than combi, its now equivalent.

Let's now look though at camo shotgun troops since that is a real, legitimate concern for elite troops.
Chassuers don't have any (its okay to point and laugh at them now ). Foxtrot does at 20, Scout 25, SAS 27 but none of these are specialists. Non-specialist Uxia just got better but specialist Uxia while the BS is good it still competes at that range with burst 4 Assault Pistols.... so its still a sometimes weapon.
Guilang is 25 and yes there is an Oniwaban but those are currently way over priced thanks to CC so lets ignore their points.
Croc Man is 29.
Al Hawwa 24 or 33 depending on FO or Hacker have boarding shotguns, Tauregs 30 or 34 for regular or Doctor with light shotgun, Farzan 25 for FO light shotgun or 32 for CoC boarding shotgun, 34 for Fiday w/boarding, 32, 33, 34 for Fidays with Light, 41 for Al Djabel with light.
Zero 18, Moran Maasai is 21, looks like shotguns were removed from Spektrs according to QSR.

And the list goes on though there is question if any of the skirmishers or units in general with combi+lsg hold onto the lsg. If they don't one thing of note is none of these skirmishers armed with shotguns except for Haqq ones are specialists (oh and the hacker Proxy MkII ). Honestly looking at it now I hope the Zero and Moran go up in points because damn are they cheap for what they get. A Zero is two points cheaper than the Foxtrot with BS for -1 PH.

So in the end if your opponent has taken BS or LSG to use against you on their skirmishers punish them for shooting them outside of 8" or better yet 16" and take solace that they are not the cheapest options out there (except for that Zero) and they can't complete objectives from 2013 or 2014 ITS unless they are a proxy or Haqq.

Wait, did Haqq just become the new kings of silly skirmisher shenanigans!?!

[Spears]

"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. "

This right here is the source of the disconnect. Having a flat out best weapon doesn't work if you get to choose it.

[MarcoSkoll]

Combi rifles and spitfires were +3 from 0-16 inches.

No, Spitfires were +3 from 0-24". That was SMGs.

But lists will be completely different now. [snip] This is akin to 40k codex creep where a new codex comes out and you redo all of your armies with completely new models.

Sentence A does not inherently lead to sentence B. Certainly, this will change list building, but because all weapons now have merit, not because you have to throw out everything you've got.

If you're always choosing an HMG for your HI, no questions asked, then this is not the design intent. In a well-balanced game, no option is supposed to overshadow others in this way.

Have you seen my tables? Can you show me one of my tables and why it's too dense?

From the magnitude of your complaints about Corvus Belli themselves not putting enough terrain on the tables, I think the chances of IJW needing to change his opinion if you showed pictures of your tables is fairly slim.

I also don't understand how anyone can say that smoke grenades will not be more effective.

I don't think the extra four inches of +3 is going to make for a game-breaking increase to the utility of smoke grenades. It'll boost speculative throws a bit, but 8" still isn't that far.
It's not like an LGL, which can pick a good spot, lay +3 smoke across a large area, then get behind total cover again; throwing smoke in support of another unit is still going to need the smoke model to move up in kind.

[IJW Wartrader]

Also, nobody has actually said that smoke grenades won't be more effective...

[Ben Lehman]

I, for one, welcome our new shotgun overlords.

I do wonder if TAGs are going to get some new short range weapons, at least for AROs. The DEP on the Jotums is looking pretty great right now.

Of course, we have no idea how TAGs will be balanced until we see the new hacking rules.

[McNamara]

Wait, did Haqq just become the new kings of silly skirmisher shenanigans!?!

Yeah, Haqq's Skirmishers are the only ones that can field a shotgun and also be Specialists.

One thing that really strikes me with these weapon ranges is that it helps to level the playing field between all model types. If we think of the rifle and combi rifle as the common denominator, the most abundant weapon choice out there, and contrast it to the type of troop choices that normally get HMGs, we see that the Rifle now stands a chance opposing a monster TAG or HI with HMG. I think most Infinity players like the fact that a basic grunt has some teeth versus the game's most powerful models. The range band tweaks make this more true, giving a little power back to the grunts when that TAG comes storming into their Deployment Zone to clear them out. Similarly, a player who takes the time or spends the orders to get a boarding shotgun close to the enemy will be rewarded for doing so. Conversely, a player poised to rampage through an opponent's backline will have a tougher time if he's opposed by effective close-range boarding shotguns. I feel like these range band adjustments help to soften the phenomenon that players hate running into when playing a game.

I think this is exactly what Guges fears. Someone spamming the cheap stuff to defeat the high priced ones.
I for one don't want to play that way either, but I believe its not that bad, he makes it out to be. And the argument could be made, that a list with 300 Fusiliers can defeat anything too, just by the weight of dice.

[Section9]

It's a cap on the modifier for that model. So +12/-12 would be possible. Although +12 is pretty hard to reach outside of multiple combats.

Link, range, spotbot will give you either a +9 or a +12. And I can stack out to a -15 with a TO model in cover at -6 range. The cap does mean that I won't bother sticking TO models into cover as much at long range.

And whats the difference between the Molotok and the Spitfire now?

A good question, btw. Maybe less -6 range no one would ever use anyway?

EM vulnerability?

[MattS]

Link, range, spotbot will give you either a +9 or a +12. And I can stack out to a -15 with a TO model in cover at -6 range. The cap does mean that I won't bother sticking TO models into cover as much at long range.

I thought it was those mean Spetznas shooting your revealed TO guys was why they started avoiding cover for better range bands.

[IJW Wartrader]

It's a cap on the modifier for that model. So +12/-12 would be possible. Although +12 is pretty hard to reach outside of multiple combats.

Link, range, spotbot will give you either a +9 or a +12.

Not with any existing unit though.

I think the maximum negative modifier I ever came up with was -24.

-6 range, -6 reacting through smoke, -3 low visibility zone, -3 cover, -6 ODD or TO.

[Willowran]

Even in ARO, though, the ONLY weapons that can top the HMG guns are weapons with different types of ammo: AKA MultiWeapons (which were notoriously over-costed across the board), or weapons with extremely limited ammunition (Panzerfausts etc). As an ARO weapon, the HMG sucks only insofar as all non-exp/da weapons suck in ARO as a result of having only one burst. Without camo/ODD, even the MSR sucks in ARO (albeit a little less so).

I definitely see a problem with the HMG being hands-down the best weapon in the game: It cuts back on viable options. One thing i hate about a lot of strategy games is that there are always "auto-include" items. I know when the Spetznaz was released, a lot of people debated over whether it was an auto-include unit. This is because, ESPECIALLY in a game like Infinity where diversity is one of its strongest selling points, having something that pretty much "has" to be in the list makes the game LESS diverse. The HMG right now is an auto-include: there are VERY few situations where NOT taking an HMG is a better option. These changes make the HMG more of an OPTION than a mandatory must-have.

Thirdly... as an extension of IJW's hyperbole acknowledgement... this isn't THAT much a blow to current HMGs. Unless you're using line troops, you're still firing straight shots from 8-16. On BS of 12-15, you're still shooting four shots at 9-12 (considering -3 for cover)... to your opponents one shot. I think that's still enough to win almost every face-to-face. I think it's safe to say that under most circumstances you don't WANT your HMG to be within 8 inches of your enemy: that's quite a risk for such a pricy investment most of the time, so i don't think the -3 range will really impact much. Finally... the gun can still hit pretty much any target on the board. Not too much of a nerf (definitely not a nerf to obsoleteness, as Guges suggests), but enough of a nerf to give the HMG meaningfull strengths, weaknesses, and counterplay.

[MarcoSkoll]

Yeah, Haqq's Skirmishers are the only ones that can field a shotgun and also be Specialists.

I think we're still to get confirmation on whether the Croc-man and Malignos lose their LSGs, but with the same BS12 and TO of the Spektr, they may well. Dunno about the Tuareg though - it is only BS11, but hitting on 17s in a surprise attack would still be very mean.

Still, I'm expecting the Al'Hawwa to keep its BSG. Might make for more of an interesting decision between the Hunzakut FO and the Al'Hawwa FO. I've had good utility out of the Hunzakut's repeaters and LGL and don't usually care that it's irregular (it's almost always worth spending orders on), but a surprise BSG is going to be one hell of a way to clear enemy specialists off objectives.

[mbdeyes]

@MaTTs Thanks for the reasonable response.
I still don't want to 'out of camo' most tags, Shotgun or no, when they can template me with impunity.
The Oniwaban may actually be an exception to that, as his Martial Arts 4 allows him to sneak up behind someone without them ARO turning.
I still believe the Chasseur's Flamer gets a little nerf. People can always normal roll against them now, instead of possibly burning to death without responding. As well, I'll most likely just not bother using many mechanized troops if I bring a sapper. Infiltrators and parchutists, maybe, though. I'm wondering about the Paracomando though.... they don't get shotguns, so is the Spetsnaz going to overshadow them in Vanilla now?

[Claudius Sol]

Yeah, Haqq's Skirmishers are the only ones that can field a shotgun and also be Specialists.

One thing that really strikes me with these weapon ranges is that it helps to level the playing field between all model types. If we think of the rifle and combi rifle as the common denominator, the most abundant weapon choice out there, and contrast it to the type of troop choices that normally get HMGs, we see that the Rifle now stands a chance opposing a monster TAG or HI with HMG. I think most Infinity players like the fact that a basic grunt has some teeth versus the game's most powerful models. The range band tweaks make this more true, giving a little power back to the grunts when that TAG comes storming into their Deployment Zone to clear them out. Similarly, a player who takes the time or spends the orders to get a boarding shotgun close to the enemy will be rewarded for doing so. Conversely, a player poised to rampage through an opponent's backline will have a tougher time if he's opposed by effective close-range boarding shotguns. I feel like these range band adjustments help to soften the phenomenon that players hate running into when playing a game.

I think this is exactly what Guges fears. Someone spamming the cheap stuff to defeat the high priced ones.
I for one don't want to play that way either, but I believe its not that bad, he makes it out to be. And the argument could be made, that a list with 300 Fusiliers can defeat anything too, just by the weight of dice.

If this is the problem, there's such a thing as order efficiency. At most, a model gets 10 orders a turn.

Let's run this in a scenario that favors this concern: Annihilation. Say one person brings 300 points of HI (Knights or a Yu Jing sectorial) and another brings 30 (3 groups of 10) Alguaciles. No real NEED for specialists as that's not the main prerogative of the mission (though it does account for 4/10 of the objective points).
The Alguacile groups will each need to spend a likely 3 or 4 orders to merely get into a position to shoot the opposing HI. More to get into favorable range bands while avoiding confrontation in unfavorable ones.
Likelihood of the regular old joe taking out your typical advanced HI is... (thanks ToadChild)
Alguacile Vs Hac Tao
Approximately 1.5%. If we're generous a 20% chance to wound (inclusive of the 1.5% chance to put unconscious). That means it will, on average, take 5 orders to take out one Hac Tao. That's 1/6 of your opponent's order pool. Also not accounting the roughly 40% chance the Hac Tao puts an Alguacile into unconscious state (thus robbing the Nomads of future orders).

Hac Tao too powerful? Let's use a more "standard elite" (can't believe I just typed that) unit: The Hsien.
Alguacile Vs Hsien
The Alguacile now has a 1/3 shot in wounding the HI. Meanwhile, the HI has a 30% chance at knocking the Alguacile into unconscious state. Taking misses into account, there is a 40% chance that nothing happens (which is favorable to the Hsien as it burns orders and keeps your opponent at bay). It will take, average, 3 alguaciles to take down a Hsien

Still not good enough? Let's use the lackluster and oft complained about Crane Rank.
Alguacile Vs Crane
The poor Alguacile can't catch a break and caps here at a 37% chance to deal one wound. Meanwhile, the Crane has a 26% chance to knock the Alguacile unconscious, but an overall 62% chance to survive the encounter.

I see nothing wrong with the advantages of elite HI vs regular old joes.

Ah... but the real problem is the HMG, eh?
So now...
Alguacile Vs Hsien (HMG)
The Alguacile has, again, a 37% chance to wound the Hsien. The Hsien has a much lower 14% chance to wound the Alguacile. BUT an overall 62% chance to come out the winner of the exchange. Odds are STILL in his favor.

All rolls were assuming 8-16" range band with new range modifiers. Alguacile had an active Combi Rifle, while the various HI's had multi rifles (except the last example).

I still don't see where the LI will truly win. Odds are the HI will win out (assuming order usage is normal). Sure, the HMG isn't GREAT in ARO, but it never was meant to be. I do like the DA Multi Rifle, though. Who needs to out range them when you can just beat them?

[Willowran]

Not to mention, the whole "Line Infantry are Better than Heavy Infantry" argument doesn't really apply to the weapon ranges debate at all. It's like saying "This pie is better than that pie because pie filling sucks." If combis are so much better than an J<H in your opinion, why not take heavy infantry with a combi? They exist. Alternatively, if you are having difficulty with line infantry, that is a fault of your list, not the weapons you are applying (i take it you don't face many Ariadna players in your meta, Guges?).