Because Camo levels scale with at least BS and the Q-Drone has BS 11. Compare the cost of TO for Swiss and Hexa or Baghs to Kamau.
All those units have so much different equipment and stats. I trust CB at least enough to charge more for TO on swiss guard with ARM 5 W2 instead of on LI with ARM1. The units you mention have so much difference stats i actually don't see how you can even pick out points cost for single equipment pieces out of there. Also i don't see why mimetism on a total reaction rem should be worth less than on other units. I really hope camo levels do not just scale with BS. Especially on a total reaction hmg that only exists to eat up enemy orders. Before anyone yells at me that i complain stuff is OP. That's not my point i just wanted to point out if there is really a fixed points formular it is not as easy as to say "2 points for that skill" or "3 points for that skill"
Q-drones are the Rui Shi/ Bulleteer/Tsyklon of the CA, it's more that they happen to have total reaction as well, they are also AVA 1 PS if you guys want to give CA the bulleteer I'd happily swap for the Q drone and we're willing to take those kamau you didn't want too
I feel as though if this is the case, then every skill on the Swiss guard would have to cost more because of every other skill the model already has. Like 2 W would cost more because the model has TO and high BS while TO ALSO costs more because it has 2 wounds and so on.... I'm sure this isn't the case. I believe for the most part there is a give or take fixed points cost for everything, maybe give or take 2-5 points. they also inflate or deflate models cost with useless skills/numbers. it's a way for CB to cheat themselves.
TO on the Hexa looks to be 10 points (same as Croc man) (BS 12) while it seems to be 15 points on the Swiss (BS 15). Not too sure what Tesla means about Mimetism though, I make it out to be 2 points on both Kamau (BS13) and Bagh Mari (BS 12) (not disputing the Q drone, something is making it cheaper). You can see that the MSV 2 costs somewhere between 4 and 5 points using Order Sergeants (compare the 2 spitfires) and Kamau (look at how much more a MSR is compared with a CR and do the subtraction), annoyingly, the higher BS trooper pays less for it though.
My guess is points are not related to BS but to LI/MI/HI, like the SWC on heavy weapons (like HMG is 1 for LI, 1.5 for MI, 2 for HI). Some other things may count, like Hexa is LI with 1.5 Spitfire SWC, I suppose it's because of the TO. Point costs are weird. Like chain rifle costs 7 points less than a combi rifle. Oh and light shotgun is 5 pts cheaper than combi, but Boarding is only 1 pts cheaper. With these point costs there's good reason people can't put together units as they like.
Making a points system with fixed costs that also scales to troops of different levels is really hard. If you go one way, troops with multiple pieces of equipment or special skills are universally overpriced. If you go another, troops with only one specific skill/equipment are underpriced. You need to have some levers to tune a particular model for the niche you want it to fill. Some companies do this by tweaking costs by hand; CB mostly does it by intentionally making a troop's equipment particularly synergistic or by adding "bloat" that is only marginally useful but drives up the cost. Do they always get it right? No, of course not. And the state of the art for what constitutes a "competitive" profile is a moving target. You can call this "power creep" if you like; it's really hard to avoid, because each new troop profile is coming into a more crowded game and has to somehow justify its existence.
Chain rifles seem to be negative the higher the BS of the trooper wielding them, for example -2 points on a BS 12 trooper, -1 points on a BS 11 trooper (they look like they actively cancel out the points spent upgrading BS). Also, HMG is 8 points more than a Combi on Fusiliers and Kamau (LI), 8 points more than a Combi on Crusader bretheren (MI) and 8 points more than a Combi on Orcs (HI). The costs of weapons do not appear to change at all dependent on trooper. You can see similar things across all armies.
Ok.... So your issue is that MO has been solved? Corregidor is way ahead of MO but not in power. It's way ahead because you don't know what the correct units to take are, so you feel more comfortable taking whatever you want. If MO is strong but you want to make it stronger by boosting underperforming units. Is there anything you had in mind to nerf to keep that power in line? Or maybe you believe you can simply improve units and create "alternatives" without increasing overall power?
I think the idea "this should cost like 30 pts and should have a visor and a whatever gun, let's use the point system to set it up roughly then add bloat so it won't be too cheap" is a good idea, and usually troops are like that. Then you have units with zero bloat for no apparent reason, and units with negative bloat that seems to be under costed. I don't get how MO is powerful, it seems to me it has a deathstar link and that's it. Though people who win tournaments usually put effort into choosing armies/lists.
Well, yes. That's it exactly. Look, no one here (or at least no one serious) is saying "heeeey, the death star Joan link is underpowered!" Because that would be dumb. They are, however, saying that Teutons, KoTHS, and many if not most FK profiles are sub-par when viewed alongside the alternatives. The problem isn't that three Teutons plus Joan aren't good; it's that four Hospitallers plus Joan is almost always better. That sort of internal imbalance makes the sectorial boring because you have a hard time justifying the other choices available to you. Very few people, in my experience, sit down to build a list and think to themselves, "Hey, you know, today I'm going to knowingly make it harder for me to win by selecting all these less useful/efficient units!" I'm sure they're out there, but they're the exception, not the rule. There are ways to make those units useful again without making them stackable with the stuff that's already up to snuff. Most obviously, you limit what can link with what, and in MO you can also limit the use of knights outside your main order. The addition of Locusts did not suddenly break Aquila and Swiss Guards. Adding Black Friars to MO didn't require that Hospitallers be nerfed. There are ways to update units and sectorials more broadly to keep them (1) competitive, but more importantly, (2) interesting and fun to play, even to veteran players, without throwing everything out of whack in the process.
Re: MO: My issue is that they have one viable strategy, and that's it. I want at least some of their units to be pushed sideways; reducing their strength in one regard, increasing it in other. Which will reduce overlap and give us different options. For example reducing Teutons to BS 13, taking away their Panzerfausts, but giving them Eclipse Grenades, DTWs, and EXP CCWs for all loadouts. Reworking Father-Knight into something useful - taking away Assault, giving them Number 2 and allowing 1 of them into each Core fireteam. And rearranging weapons, because Combis on elite HIs are just dumb (KotHS should exchange that Combi, too). etc, etc. I don't want increased power level, I want a wider tactic choice and more flexibility (to the extent; they shouldn't be as flexible as other sectorials). Re: CJF: Then please tell me what units are incorrect to take. I know I'm an outsider, not being a Nomad player, but I don't see wrong choices there. I'd really like to see a different perspective.
You have some different solution Changing some profile(like koths or montesa or teuton) changing their cost, increasing or decreasing Changing fireteam composition, for example allow spec sergent to be part of fireteam. Or mixing fireteam: knight+sergent or mixing various knight other than Santiago/hospitaller+magister. Removing duo and put haris There are many possibilities but to do that cb need to spent time to playtest better solution
Time they could spend on making new models that people will have to buy to enjoy. The over/under for them is clear.
I feel like Father Knights should have load outs similar to the Taskmasters. Kriza and the TM are both elite HIs but no combis in sight. The FK should fill that role for us. Obviously the should be able to take up a space in any MO link, #2 would be good as well. Boarding shotgun and pulzar, Red Fury, that discounted ML, and dual SMGs would allow links to have SOMETHING different without changing too much about what MO is.
How CB is going to handle this saturation is a very interesting question that has not yet been answered. It's something every expandable game has to deal with eventually. I think the NA2 sectorials in Uprising may have been a test run of how to add new content to the game without contributing to vanilla faction bloat. Each of them has a fairly limited model range, and the new units they added don't have to exist anywhere outside of their own army list.
Tohaa players sometimes have some anxiety about the fact that their army is sized and designed "like a sectorial" but that's really not necessarily a bad thing.
Yeah, with MO's number of HI it's important for them to have clear niches. I'd rather see F-K's as Command &Control units, with KotHS acting as fire support with heavier weaponry, but your idea makes sense as well. That's one of the reason I like the inclusion of Aleph units in PanO sectorials. It makes sense fluffwise, and allows to flesh out sectorials without bloating vanilla.
