Operation Icestorm

[Guges]

New episode of MayaCast had a couple more notes about N3 rules revealed/confirmed:

• Ties on F2F rolls are a draw, regardless of who has a higher modified stat. Uncertain if this is a simplification for IceStorm or permanent for N3.
  
• If both rolls crit, it is a tie, regardless of the number on the dice.
  
  This is interesting and will probably make the game flow more smoothly as it's a more consistent way to interpret the base mechanics.
  
• Their interpretation of the Silhouette rules from actually reading the rules text appears that it is actually a cylinder rule. Silhouette determines Base and Height (area and height for volume of a cylinder).
  
  All in favor of a simplified cylinder system, unless this was Mayacast's way of simply explaining it quickly and it's actually more in depth. My only real objection to the silhouette system is having to buy silhouettes when there are cleaner fixes for this.
  
• Clarification of how setup plays out: All decisions for initiative and deployment are made prior to any deployment.
  
  How I have always played and how I think it should be played. It gets too wonky played other ways. Hopefully they will clean up who has to make their decision first. Should probably be initiative winner. This sounds like a no brainer, but I know a lot of people who don't play it this way.
  
• Using Lt order definitely actually reveals your Lt. No need for various ideas of mixing it in to your Order Reserve or however your local meta does it.
  
  Again, cleans up the game. I like it.
  
• Loss of Lieutenant causes all troops to be Irregular for that turn, new Lt is automatically appointed at the end of that turn. Religious will have to change obviously.
  
  Far better. Still penalizes but doesn't crush your entire game. Will have a huge impact on ITS for the better.
  
• Camo's Surprise Shot (-3 additional penalty for opponent on F2F roll) only applies in Active Turn.
  
  While I don't think this is game breaking, it goes against cleaning up rules and making this simpler. Would be far better, and would make more sense if this just always applied every time a camo marker attacked. Believe it or not, I have had more than one person refuse to play Infinity because camo can't surprise people in ARO.
  
• Combat Jump's dispersion on a failure has changed to "walk on the board in your own DZ." No more scattering, results in a safer deployment but puts you far away from where you wanted to be. Another one that was considered questionable if it is for simplified rules only.
  
  Only makes AD3 even more worthless, but will hold out to see if they make other changes to it that make it useful.
  
• Normal Infiltration no longer can deploy past centerline? May be simplified rules only?
  
  Cleans up rules, balances infiltration slightly better. I like it.
  
• MSV1 reduces visibility penalties by 3, MSV2 reduces visibility penalties by 6.
  
  This is really nice. MSV is one of those rules that is very poorly written, very inconsistent, and extremely confusing. This makes it straightforward and workable. Wondering what MSV 3 does. Probably just ignores camo completely like it does now, shoot at markers and whatnot.
  
• Translation and rules text much stronger and more concise.
  
• True N3 Quick Start rules should be available at GenCon.

[MattS]

The combat jump is fine in that it saves you a potentially disastrous scatter but it means that a unit that is outfitted for a specific type of combat (new weapon ranges), with often 4-2 Mov is now in your back field which means it could be a long time until its relevant again.

So there is part of me that likes it and part of me that thinks this is some hurt for the AD 3 who like to AD 3.

[macfergusson]

New episode of MayaCast had a couple more notes about N3 rules revealed/confirmed:

• Combat Jump's dispersion on a failure has changed to "walk on the board in your own DZ." No more scattering, results in a safer deployment but puts you far away from where you wanted to be. Another one that was considered questionable if it is for simplified rules only.
  
  Only makes AD3 even more worthless, but will hold out to see if they make other changes to it that make it useful.

I wouldn't say either version of AD3 is worthless. More High Risk, High Reward. The new version has the same potential reward level, but an adjustment to the type of risk. In a way, it reduces the risk of AD3 because at the very least, you still have an order generator in your DZ. In addition, there isn't a bunch of calculating necessary to figure out where the AD3 troop lands when it fails.

[Guges]

New episode of MayaCast had a couple more notes about N3 rules revealed/confirmed:

• Combat Jump's dispersion on a failure has changed to "walk on the board in your own DZ." No more scattering, results in a safer deployment but puts you far away from where you wanted to be. Another one that was considered questionable if it is for simplified rules only.
  
  Only makes AD3 even more worthless, but will hold out to see if they make other changes to it that make it useful.

I wouldn't say either version of AD3 is worthless. More High Risk, High Reward. The new version has the same potential reward level, but an adjustment to the type of risk. In a way, it reduces the risk of AD3 because at the very least, you still have an order generator in your DZ. In addition, there isn't a bunch of calculating necessary to figure out where the AD3 troop lands when it fails.

Are you sure you don't end up walking onto your table edge with a separate order wasting the one you used to drop? That's how it works now when you walk on. Also check out the Krug podcast's criticism of AD 3 which I believe was in episode 14 or 15. You won't accept me thinking it's bad, because I'm Guges. I bet you'll at least listen to Bas Hammer's excellent explanation of why it's a train wreck. I love that guy's analysis of Infinity. I played him at Gencon too, right nice guy.

[Durandal]

Huh, actually I like that change for AD3. The reason no one ever did it is because a failure usually meant scattering in to direct view of the enemy and getting killed immediately. Making AD3 more accurate or allowing it to place something very reliably on the board would have a very bad effect on the meta, since it is one of the few ways to get directly in to the enemy deployment zone (though any change to its accuracy would definitely need to change that).

If we view its use as a continuum then it makes it much safer to try it. You will usually prefer AD2 because it gets you where you want to be. If the enemy has defended well enough then your choices are to come in at at a sub-optimal point for AD2, wait and possibly lose board control, or to risk a hot entry. The last option has the highest chance of outright killing your model for zero gain. Not a great start.

But supposing failure on the roll simply shunts you back to the first option (coming in at a sub-optimal point)? Now taking the risk becomes something you can really plan on. If you can think of a use for them coming on from your edge (shoring up a weak flank in the face of your enemy's deployment) while having a Plan 'A' that would benefit from them coming on at a specific point, then you can choose AD3 without worrying about the model instantly dieing.

It doesn't improve AD3 by making it better than AD2, it improves it by making AD3 an option that is actually useable. Hell, I can see using it even if AD2 does have some good access points. So long as AD3 isn't costed too high on its own but costed correctly as a contingency ability, I think this change is quite elegant.

I wonder what has happened with Inferior Infiltration in light of the change to AD3.

[macfergusson]

Are you sure you don't end up walking onto your table edge with a separate order wasting the one you used to drop? That's how it works now when you walk on. Also check out the Krug podcast's criticism of AD 3 which I believe was in episode 14 or 15. You won't accept me thinking it's bad, because I'm Guges. I bet you'll at least listen to Bas Hammer's excellent explanation of why it's a train wreck. I love that guy's analysis of Infinity. I played him at Gencon too, right nice guy.

I am sure of nothing, as I can't see the text with my own eyes yet. The way it was phrased did not specify spending the extra order to get back on.

Personally, I down-rank AD3 to AD2 on a regular basis, so I'm not going to argue that there are issues with AD3. However I have also been lucky on rolls occasionally allowing me to gut my opponent's back field with AD3, so I can't agree that it is worthless, either.

If the new AD3 works as I heard it, then it reduces the risk without granting any new overwhelming edge.

I haven't listened to any of the Krug guys yet.

Huh, actually I like that change for AD3. The reason no one ever did it is because a failure usually meant scattering in to direct view of the enemy and getting killed immediately. Making AD3 more accurate or allowing it to place something very reliably on the board would have a very bad effect on the meta, since it is one of the few ways to get directly in to the enemy deployment zone (though any change to its accuracy would definitely need to change that).

If we view its use as a continuum then it makes it much safer to try it. You will usually prefer AD2 because it gets you where you want to be. If the enemy has defended well enough then your choices are to come in at at a sub-optimal point for AD2, wait and possibly lose board control, or to risk a hot entry. The last option has the highest chance of outright killing your model for zero gain. Not a great start.

But supposing failure on the roll simply shunts you back to the first option (coming in at a sub-optimal point)? Now taking the risk becomes something you can really plan on. If you can think of a use for them coming on from your edge (shoring up a weak flank in the face of your enemy's deployment) while having a Plan 'A' that would benefit from them coming on at a specific point, then you can choose AD3 without worrying about the model instantly dieing.

It doesn't improve AD3 by making it better than AD2, it improves it by making AD3 an option that is actually useable. Hell, I can see using it even if AD2 does have some good access points. So long as AD3 isn't costed too high on its own but costed correctly as a contingency ability, I think this change is quite elegant.

Yup.

I wonder what has happened with Inferior Infiltration in light of the change to AD3.

Do people ever use Inferior Infiltration? I haven't seen it played once. Based on my experience I wouldn't be surprised if that skill was simply removed, but that's just me.

[IJW Wartrader]

- If both rolls crit, it is a tie, regardless of the number on the dice.

Looking at previous QSRs and the way this was worded, I'm 90% sure it's a simplification.


- Their interpretation of the Silhouette rules from actually reading the rules text appears that it is actually a cylinder rule. Silhouette determines Base and Height (area and height for volume of a cylinder).

Yep. That's how I read it too.


- Combat Jump's dispersion on a failure has changed to "walk on the board in your own DZ." No more scattering, results in a safer deployment but puts you far away from where you wanted to be. Another one that was considered questionable if it is for simplified rules only.

This is another one I'm pretty sure is a QSR simplification, but it still points at a change in AD3 in some way. Note that the model doesn't walk on but is deployed in your DZ touching the board edge.


- Normal Infiltration no longer can deploy past centerline? May be simplified rules only?

The 2nd edition QSR has the same limitation, so I'll vote for simplification.

[Durandal]

In light of that wording on AD3 (if that is indeed the wording), I vote for that being the standard, I don't want to scatter!

Just getting to redeploy in your own backyard is a better consolation prize than become a free kill for the other guy's line-infantry. And if the other person is playing well enough to force a hot-drop, I don't rate my chances of survival on a scatter very high.

[Guges]

Combat Jump's dispersion on a failure has changed to "walk on the board in your own DZ." No more scattering, results in a safer deployment but puts you far away from where you wanted to be. Another one that was considered questionable if it is for simplified rules only.

This is another one I'm pretty sure is a QSR simplification, but it still points at a change in AD3 in some way. Note that the model doesn't walk on but is deployed in your DZ touching the board edge.

Deployed in your DZ and not losing a second order to redeploy would be a slight improvement, not enough to make me ever use AD3. We'll have to see if it's walking on or not I guess...

[jake]

New episode of MayaCast had a couple more notes about N3 rules revealed/confirmed:

• Ties on F2F rolls are a draw, regardless of who has a higher modified stat. Uncertain if this is a simplification for IceStorm or permanent for N3.
  
• If both rolls crit, it is a tie, regardless of the number on the dice.
  
• Their interpretation of the Silhouette rules from actually reading the rules text appears that it is actually a cylinder rule. Silhouette determines Base and Height (area and height for volume of a cylinder).
  
• Clarification of how setup plays out: All decisions for initiative and deployment are made prior to any deployment.
  
• Using Lt order definitely actually reveals your Lt. No need for various ideas of mixing it in to your Order Reserve or however your local meta does it.
  
• Loss of Lieutenant causes all troops to be Irregular for that turn, new Lt is automatically appointed at the end of that turn. Religious will have to change obviously.
  
• Camo's Surprise Shot (-3 additional penalty for opponent on F2F roll) only applies in Active Turn.
  
• Combat Jump's dispersion on a failure has changed to "walk on the board in your own DZ." No more scattering, results in a safer deployment but puts you far away from where you wanted to be. Another one that was considered questionable if it is for simplified rules only.
  
• Normal Infiltration no longer can deploy past centerline? May be simplified rules only?
  
• MSV1 reduces visibility penalties by 3, MSV2 reduces visibility penalties by 6.
  
• Translation and rules text much stronger and more concise.
  
• True N3 Quick Start rules should be available at GenCon.

Also bear in mind that this episode was their drink recipe contest, so there may have been some alcoholic impact.

Personally, I feel like a lot of the times people have said "this might be simplified for IceStorm" may actually be the true basis of the rule for N3. It seems to be consistently trying to remove some things that often slow down the game, or cause questions about what information and rolls should be revealed ahead of time.

We won't know for sure until the full rules are released, but after reading the O:I book I strongly suspect a lot of this is simplified. The circular template supplied with the box does still contain numbers (as we've seen), although I guess it is possible that AD3 won't use them. I think that AD3 was simplified for O:I just because in the mission where you use it there's not a lot of landing real estate, and the board is small enough that a failed roll would likely put the model off the edge. The mission in question is already very heavily weighted toward the Nomad player, so having the main Pan O asset for the mission, who was already showing up late, immediately scatter off the board might have been something they didn't want to do. Better to have him default to the deployment zone.

[macfergusson]

I'm looking in the old Quick Start Rules, trying to find where mechanics were actually altered for simplification. I'm not seeing it?

Combat Jump still dispersed, F2F ties were still based on the highest attribute, etc. Is there an older version no longer around or something?

[MarcoSkoll]

This is another one I'm pretty sure is a QSR simplification, but it still points at a change in AD3 in some way.

I don't think we can read too much into it... but I wouldn't be distraught were it a reality in the full rules.

An off-target AD trooper has a fairly high chance of getting themselves splattered straight off if the opponent's got a halfway sensible deployment, and an extra order (and ARO*) in the back-field is worth more than a smear in the mid-field.

*Which might not be meaningless - heavy weapons would still have the range to make an impact and the added range for rifles would be very welcome. Boarding shotguns would be less useful, but AD has always been a gamble.

[Todd]

Do people ever use Inferior Infiltration? I haven't seen it played once. Based on my experience I wouldn't be surprised if that skill was simply removed, but that's just me.

I use inferior infiltrating Metros in FRRM fairly often. At 11 points for the rifle version, and a 50% chance to stick if deployed just past the center line (take two, odds are one will stay put), they're actually not bad. Bonus, they have D-charges for completing Sabotage (in case you don't want to take an ADHL Chasseur).

[IJW Wartrader]

I sometimes use the Panzerfaust Daylami as well, just for amusement value if he lands in the right place near a TAG or HI.

[Willowran]

My question (regarding infiltration) is less "what does this do to inferior infiltration" and more "what does this do to SUperior infiltration." As of N2, Superior infiltration's advantage is landing exactly where you want your unit to go past the halfway mark, the only question being whether you do so revealed or otherwise. But if you can only deploy TO (but not past) the halfway mark...?

I don't see the cylinder rule making much of a difference. In my meta, at least, LoF is almost always a fairly obvious decision. If ever a question of pose came up, we'd simply substitute the model in question for a different model and see of LoF applied. So here, at least, it doesn't much matter.

The AD:3 i am mostly in favor for. I've used AD:3 a couple times, and with far more success than failure. Of course, i've also beeing lucky in that usually when i've scattered, i've done so in such a manner that i can still not be seen where i land, and was able to make use of the situation. That said... I like having an order-generator guarantee as opposed to a 40% chance of scatter, and say a 50% chance to be down that order PERMANENTLY.

[macfergusson]

My question (regarding infiltration) is less "what does this do to inferior infiltration" and more "what does this do to SUperior infiltration." As of N2, Superior infiltration's advantage is landing exactly where you want your unit to go past the halfway mark, the only question being whether you do so revealed or otherwise. But if you can only deploy TO (but not past) the halfway mark...?

You will note that I specified Infiltration can't go past the centerline. Superior Infiltration may well still do so. It would also fit with my personal theory that there is a theme of reducing dispersion: failing the roll simply reveals instead of dispersing.

[FellintoOblivion]

This post removed as it was contributing nothing.
- Claudius Sol

[Errhile]

- Normal Infiltration no longer can deploy past centerline? May be simplified rules only?

The 2nd edition QSR has the same limitation, so I'll vote for simplification.

I agree. Otherwise, there would be too little of a difference between Infiltration and Mechanized Deployment.

[Tox]

On a failed PH roll, the AD3 model is deployed in contact with your table edge?
Imetrons like that!

[Math Mathonwy]

I like AD3 with Chain Yuan Yuans sometimes, but other than those it's really rather marginal and an act of desperation.

[*] Camo's Surprise Shot (-3 additional penalty for opponent on F2F roll) only applies in Active Turn.

While I don't think this is game breaking, it goes against cleaning up rules and making this simpler. Would be far better, and would make more sense if this just always applied every time a camo marker attacked. Believe it or not, I have had more than one person refuse to play Infinity because camo can't surprise people in ARO.

To be fair, if that is reason enough for them to refuse to play, you are probably better off with them not playing

[CoxJul]

Some interesting reveals in the form of pics of new rules here:
http://www.lead-rising.com/2014/08/oper ... undup.html

[Lampyridae]

[*] Combat Jump's dispersion on a failure has changed to "walk on the board in your own DZ." No more scattering, results in a safer deployment but puts you far away from where you wanted to be. Another one that was considered questionable if it is for simplified rules only.

Only makes AD3 even more worthless, but will hold out to see if they make other changes to it that make it useful.

You can probably take this as 50/50 as the current Quick Start Rules include dispersion for AD:3. I've seen AD:3 drops go horribly wrong and go horribly right, plus fewer rules is better. Dispersion rules may yet change though... a lobbed grenade winding up across the table is silly.

[mbdeyes]

[*] Combat Jump's dispersion on a failure has changed to "walk on the board in your own DZ." No more scattering, results in a safer deployment but puts you far away from where you wanted to be. Another one that was considered questionable if it is for simplified rules only.

Only makes AD3 even more worthless, but will hold out to see if they make other changes to it that make it useful.

You can probably take this as a given as the current Quick Start Rules include dispersion for AD:3. I've seen AD:3 drops go horribly wrong and go horribly right, plus fewer rules is better.

Meh... a lot of times fewer rules is better, but honestly, dispersion was just a fun element. I would miss it just a little, especially in casual games, if it was removed.

[Lampyridae]

Has nobody noticed the complete absence of Link icons or attributes in the profiles?

[ElectricPaladin]

Has nobody noticed the complete absence of Link icons or attributes in the profiles?

Quit panicking! These photos are from the quickstart rules. The rulebook doesn't explain linking, so they didn't bother to put it in the profiles. I'm sure the real profiles will include linking.

[Lampyridae]

Has nobody noticed the complete absence of Link icons or attributes in the profiles?

Quit panicking! These photos are from the quickstart rules. The rulebook doesn't explain linking, so they didn't bother to put it in the profiles. I'm sure the real profiles will include linking.

I'm not panicking. The profiles include tonnes of details not in the QSR - pistols, CCWs, shotguns, BTS, cubes. I think if it were going to be in the 3e profiles they would be there.

You may now panic.

[Space Cowboy]

And burst 1 knives.......!

[Scorch]

[quote="Guges"

[*] Combat Jump's dispersion on a failure has changed to "walk on the board in your own DZ." No more scattering, results in a safer deployment but puts you far away from where you wanted to be. Another one that was considered questionable if it is for simplified rules only.

Only makes AD3 even more worthless, but will hold out to see if they make other changes to it that make it useful.
[/quote]

As you said yourself and my money is on that one; Could be the QSR.. explaining dispersion will make it a lot more complex. I think it is a good solution.

[McNamara]

And burst 1 knives.......!

Makes one hope for Massacre raising to the top.

On Linking: I suspect those 2 empty dots next to the unit symbol, might be the place where AVA and Sectorial AVA will be.

[IJW Wartrader]

I'm not panicking. The profiles include tonnes of details not in the QSR - pistols, CCWs, shotguns, BTS, cubes. I think if it were going to be in the 3e profiles they would be there.

You may now panic.

The profiles also don't include and of the different loadouts, and more importantly they don't contain any Sectorial logos or AVA which is where the linking info is in older layouts.