Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Da Git

Gun icon attack thoughts...

Recommended Posts

So, I like coming up with rule ideas :)& was having a bit of a think about gun attacks and that they seem to be pretty bad.  Between cover and randomising into combat, not being able to shoot in combat, etc, most beta tests I remember there being debates about attacks shouldn't have the :ToS-Range: icon cause they're pants. Kirai, Collodi, Sandeep, Aeslin etc... Some got it, some got work arounds, some didn't. 

However, it seems that attacks without are very strong, Collodi's, the Emissaries', Sandeep's, the Hanged, etc. These models can target whoever they can see without much way of stopping them (other than block LoS).  But giving them the :ToS-Range: icon is too much of a cuddle.  I was thinking about how to narrow these two extremes of really good without the :ToS-Range: icon and really bad with it.  Some possible ideas I had:

  • Soft cover: non :ToS-Melee: icon attacks suffer -1Sh/Ca
  • Hard cover: non :ToS-Melee: icon attacks suffer -2Sh/Ca
  • When engaged: :ToS-Range: icon attacks may not be used (unless they also have the :ToS-Melee: icon), non :ToS-Melee: icon attacks may only target models they are engaged with.
  • Shooting into engagements: non :ToS-Melee: icon attacks suffer -1Sh/Ca. If a :ToS-Range: icon attack misses, opponent may choose which model is hit.

The idea for these is to give non :ToS-Melee: attacks a bit of a cuddle and :ToS-Range: icons a bit of a buff... Some attacks would probably want a bit of a re-jig (eg. Sniper rifles probably want to get a bit high Sh, but lose the built in :+flip) and some more attacks could get the :ToS-Range: icon without becoming complete rubbish.

These probably aren't terribly good, but thoughts?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like your suggestions, cover is supposed to affect flips, not stats. 

I think gun icon attacks should represent damage dealing ranged artacks and attacks without icons should be pretty rare and be mostly non-damaging. Having no symbol shouldbe a huge deal for a model and that attack should be clearly weaker than an attack with a :ToS-Range:. I think Collodi and hanged should have the gun on their attacks because they are currently too hard to shut down. Hanged would pretty much need a complete overhaul, they are too weird in design right now. Collodi would probabky still beamong the better masters in the game.

I think outcasts have some really interesing models who get :ToS-Melee: on their gun attacks as well which makes them both good and give nice mental images. Thr opposing side of that is guild who have useless :ToS-Melee: on their shooters instead which makes them a lot harder to get value out of. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I kind of like the idea of actions without an icon not being able to attack out of engagements, but I also agree with Ludwig that there should just be less of them. Taking the icons off something seems to me like a quick an easy way of making sure the model will always get the value out of that action, whereas giving it a:ToS-Range: is a disadvantage that needs to be balanced some other way. Shooting has been pretty weak since the start of 2nd ed and while putting out more ranged attacks that have no icons or don't randomise/ignore cover or whatever does help this, but also raises the question of why there needs to be different kinds of ranged attacks in the first place. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎6‎/‎2‎/‎2018 at 1:18 AM, Da Git said:

So, I like coming up with rule ideas :)& was having a bit of a think about gun attacks and that they seem to be pretty bad.  Between cover and randomising into combat, not being able to shoot in combat, etc, most beta tests I remember there being debates about attacks shouldn't have the :ToS-Range: icon cause they're pants. Kirai, Collodi, Sandeep, Aeslin etc... Some got it, some got work arounds, some didn't. 

However, it seems that attacks without are very strong, Collodi's, the Emissaries', Sandeep's, the Hanged, etc. These models can target whoever they can see without much way of stopping them (other than block LoS).  But giving them the :ToS-Range: icon is too much of a cuddle.  I was thinking about how to narrow these two extremes of really good without the :ToS-Range: icon and really bad with it.  Some possible ideas I had:

  • Soft cover: non :ToS-Melee: icon attacks suffer -1Sh/Ca
  • Hard cover: non :ToS-Melee: icon attacks suffer -2Sh/Ca
  • When engaged: :ToS-Range: icon attacks may not be used (unless they also have the :ToS-Melee: icon), non :ToS-Melee: icon attacks may only target models they are engaged with.
  • Shooting into engagements: non :ToS-Melee: icon attacks suffer -1Sh/Ca. If a :ToS-Range: icon attack misses, opponent may choose which model is hit.

The idea for these is to give non :ToS-Melee: attacks a bit of a cuddle and :ToS-Range: icons a bit of a buff... Some attacks would probably want a bit of a re-jig (eg. Sniper rifles probably want to get a bit high Sh, but lose the built in :+flip) and some more attacks could get the :ToS-Range: icon without becoming complete rubbish.

These probably aren't terribly good, but thoughts?

I like your idea! Ludvig is right that :-flipis what cover is all about, so keep :rangedwith :-flip, and take your idea for non:-flip/:melee getting lower stats against cover?

and my idea for shooting into engagement, is that the attack goes as is, but if it misses, then randomize. ( either have it randomize, and then have it be a new attack, or have it's result (damage flip) be applied towards the new randomized target.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think penalty to hit and if you miss it hits the other guy is pretty much how shooting into melee works in Infinity. It's a big difference mechanically from the current set up but would make shooting into melee more pointful and cut down on a lot of boring flipping.

If the new target doesn't get a defensive flip it could lead to unintuitive stuff like shooting your own zombie to deflect onto Perdita, which would be quite a significant buff to projectiles. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, lusciousmccabe said:

I think penalty to hit and if you miss it hits the other guy is pretty much how shooting into melee works in Infinity. It's a big difference mechanically from the current set up but would make shooting into melee more pointful and cut down on a lot of boring flipping.

If the new target doesn't get a defensive flip it could lead to unintuitive stuff like shooting your own zombie to deflect onto Perdita, which would be quite a significant buff to projectiles. 

 

Oh my Somer would love this... And probably other people would hate Somer even more than they do now😂

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, lusciousmccabe said:

I think penalty to hit and if you miss it hits the other guy is pretty much how shooting into melee works in Infinity. It's a big difference mechanically from the current set up but would make shooting into melee more pointful and cut down on a lot of boring flipping.

If the new target doesn't get a defensive flip it could lead to unintuitive stuff like shooting your own zombie to deflect onto Perdita, which would be quite a significant buff to projectiles. 

 

Could make it that if the shot goes to another target, the damage flip IS affected by hard to wound, and/or if it's a single flip, it can't be cheated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It'd probably be easier to add a rule that you can't shoot your own model when it's engaged. That would eliminate the issue of self targeting for profit. Be weird that you can do it when not engaged but meh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×