Noone discussing NCA upcoming changes ?

I know it really feels this way, and I initially had the same feelings too, but I think after the initial shock of these changes wears off, it'll be alright. For me at least, I tend to look at skills/equipment/stats of units before I look at the points cost. Talking with my friend who plays both shas and Haqq from before the changes, he told me he's struggling to make a list that's effectively over 10 orders for both.

I think some of these new units are really really tough, but overall they're very expensive. I have a feeling this is CB just trying to push the 10 model list even harder – this is evident in giving out more CoC aswell, they're trying to entice you to take the aggressive LT and get the most out of 10 models. Same with these super flexible link teams.

Don't cry GW just yet. I trust that there's a greater balancing act instead of just "print new rules, print more money!"

 

Whats there to trust? Has CB given us a reason to trust their ability to balance this game? Look how long it took to fix Bolts and they were broken the second they came out.

 

I don't. We've been seeing this for years with CB. It's not a question of "power creep", it's power leap. This is a habitual thing and we always have the same discussion every time about how "we should trust there's a greater balancing act".

There isn't. It's simply that they keep making their new stuff more and more powerful and apparently they never stop to consider how to backdate things effectively or they simply choose to not do so in order to have a justification down the line for discontinuing "underperforming lines".

Maybe I'm a cynical cindy but that's how I feel and have felt for years. It's why at this point, I'd rather just get models for the purposes of painting than ever playing.

 

To be honest I think balancing is on a greater spectrum than your post would lead me to believe. Really, how much have Bolts changed? they got 2/3 points cheaper across the board and some new specialist profiles (while also losing out on one). In the grand scheme of list building all this means is I'll be able to take an extra order or beef up a different trooper I'm already taking. To me, the KHD profile and CoC entice me to take a 10 order list, something usually seen as "under powered". These profiles cut down on the "need" to take that Hexa that was previously a staple of many NCA lists and CoC means is I'm no longer going to stick that Fusilier on a roof, but instead take one of the more aggressive LTs.

I'm really not sure you can call these Bolt "buffs" a power creep. They really just make a different style of play more viable instead of invalidating previous methods of play, and to me, thats a good thing. They don't step on fusiliers in anyway, they just serve a different purpose now. You say they were "broken" before but what does that mean? Does that mean unplayable to you? unplayable for everyone? a minor to severe disadvantage if they're included in a list?

If you took bolts before, you'll probably take them now. If they weren't your jam pre-update, they probably still wont be.

Kan, I know you're the resident complainer, and I'm sure you know that by now too. and that's fine by me, you have every right to complain if you feel like you're being cheated.

Before this update I'm not sure if you can say they've been outwardly making things more powerful. Tunguska certainly let some of the community down when it came out, so did OSS. People had this hype in their mind that it would be crazy and gut reactions turned out to be less-than-favorable. Look at Tohaa, they got discontinued even though they weren't "under-performing" according to ITS data.

I'm genuinely interested, make me a list you feel like is broken and we can discuss it – because once I sat down and really tried to analyze list building for these new armies I came into a ton of problems, mainly getting out of that 11/12/13 order range that is usually seen as less than optimal.

 

Hobbyist who doesn't play says he's worried about rules balance.

Got it.

Honestly, I feel pretty good competing any army/Sectorial. You're telling me CHA players can't find a way to make Cameronians and McMurrough dangerous, given these new changes? Or that Riot Grrrls are bad in Bakunin? There's a lot of good stuff out there, and Infinity is inherently a game of soft counters.

 

That's the point. A lot of older armies are also benefiting from new content.

As for Speculo threatening TAGs...

Not new. Bad troll attempt...?

 

Who is this directed at? I'll agree that Pano's three main sectorials are in a really got spot right now. But Pano sectroials have always done well. Its the rest of the faction I'm worried about. What about MO, MAF, Caledonian and the other low tier armies?

Infinity is stuck in the GW codex syndrome. The newest armies are often the best performers and older armies will be waiting a long time for any updates.

 

Not at you, particularly

 

I was offended for half a second. :P Though I suck at this game, I'm sure your a far better player than me. I might as well be a hobbyist. lol *I might be too hard on myself but then I'm judgmental. lol

It just erks me that I see Foreign Company released with Dahshat Company and one is A LOT more viable and flexible a force than the other.

 

I disagree with that, I think Bolts are a heck of a lot more viable but let me explain. Its not the cost decrease but the new profiles that help make bolts viable. Especially 18 points for a BSG + drop bears and the haris having drop bears. Not to mention replacing e/m with e-maulers is a great trade since bolt PH is so low. And the new better hacking options. Bolts are all about board control but have a big issue in their costs being too high for their worth. The new profiles lets you trim points from a full link and the haris can be made slim and efficient.

I will say that in most cases the Haris seems the most viable option but I can now see taking a full Bolts link as a possibility. With their original costs, people were only taking the shotgun profiles and ignore the drop bear because it was way too expensive. Now though Bolts can finally full fill the role they were always suppose to which is to deliver mines to the midfield.

 

I agree with that Bolt assessment, @Death .

The Drop Bear role of Bolts has always been helpful. They're a very strong tool for negating some of NCA's biggest dangers. It's just that noone wanted to give up Core, and pay nearly 3x the cost of a Fusilier, in order to get that benefit.

But now that you don't have to give up Core, and the cost of Bolts is greatly reduced, Bolts are much more appealing. Mines/Drop Bears/EMaulers are some of the best offensive and defensive tools in the game, and are particularly valuable in NCA. I'm looking forward to trying them out.

 

I agree with what you're saying. Bolts aren't a bad choice, but to argue that a profile you once hated or viewed as "broken", for whatever reason, is now "more viable" and that means the game is getting power creeped is a bit of an over statement to say the least.

 

Oh a bit of misunderstanding. I don't think bolts are power creep at all. lol

The power creep is from the new and very strong sectorials (TAK, OSS, Ramah Taskforce) that out class many of the older ones.

 

Forgot VIRD there... and also, TAK is weaker than Vanilla Ariadna. Which is quite telling.

 

Well, I mean aren't all the Ariadna sectorials weaker than generic? Also, is TAK really weaker? Are you sure? If it is its not far behind.

 

Just the fact they don't have access to Chasseurs, yeah. What I was trying to say is, its really relative. The overall level of power is trending upwards, but there are factions like ariadna and tohaa which are really just now getting the competition.

 

Excellent, I still have the old MO profiles saved somewhere on my phone. :P