Thats not a fair comparsion and you know that. The rule change was well meant, but the implementation seems really half-cooked. It seems to be on the one side a simplification of the rules, what is welcome. but on the other side a remedy for a symptom of the wrong point costs of some stats. It's like a program with spaghetti code which is tried to be fixed with implementations that cause only worst spaghetti code. And this magical wand that is like the old Symbiomate was already discussed enough.
I think you're reading stuff into my posts that isn't there. I haven't commented on Total Immunity and haven't disagreed with or attacked your opinion.
Aspect Graviton has been amusingly triggered by this conversation and will now be referring to himself in the the third person for the remainder of the day. Aspect Graviton is indeed satisfied with IJW's response, it's certainly true that he believes Loup garou have suitable equipment to deal with the dog warrior menace. However he still feels this has only truly addressed part of the problem, and that the corner case stun grenades, and in general stun weaponry have lost probably 90% of they're usefulness (he believes the remaining ten percent being 9% hunting party where models often receive free stun and ADHL anyway, and about 1% actually being beneficial to use stun) He sits there now; silent, brooding, wearing a rye grin and furrowed brow upon his ruggedly handsome face, considering the quandry of stun weapons in general which were seemingly brought in in HSN3 for this kind of situation but which are now sadly irrelevant but could yet be re-worked into something more useful. He also ponders the actual point cost of stun weaponry such as the noble stun light grenade launcher is in comparison to the more ubiquitously useful light grenade launcher. However Apect Graviton considers that is probably a conversation for another thread. Returning to the broader argument he retains his position that there should probably be more vulnerabilites attached to the existing profiles, for the reasoning he previously stated. But still remains positive about the general mechanical change to the rule and that it, taken alone without application, makes far more sense than previously.
Aspect Graviton Sighs and accepts the pedantic correction, knowing full well he would have employed the same level of pedantry were the roles reversed.
Quite the opposite I'm arguing for a more balanced game by giving a buff to a sectorial that's on the lower end of the curve a buff. Many models get random points discounts as part of factional balance and flavour. That's how the game is, CB decides that model X needs a discount to make them more viable. Hospitallers had a hand adjusted discount last time they had a pass, Bolts just had a discount applied. Units don't need to be identically costed according to a formula because part of what makes a unit viable is what it can be used with inside the faction. The value of a model with MSV2 for example changes based upon whether or not you also have access to cheap smoke. JSA give up a great deal of things to be what they are, and giving them buffed Karakuri at a discount isn't going to cause any balance issues. JSA get a points discount on ARM in the form of Karakuri. I don't see any issues with this. No more than my own point and SWC discounts I receive on various YJ heavy infantry. You can have a gun and still be considered expendable. See TR bots or your average ARO sniper.
...What unit are you thinking of with ARM4 and 3 Wounds? The closest are either Karakuri or Dogfaces, and that's not true for either of them.
HHmm. My example was for units aggressively attacking my DZ. I sure hope someone tries to storm my DZ with Sun Tzu...
But he has BTS 6... Hm...? Evenmore, with BTS 6, TI and Mimetism he can do some bad stuff to your cheerleaders.
Please try to be less competitive among yourselves. As many of you have already said TI has been tested, now it is in the wild, if significant deviation is seen it will be looked at again.
Great, can you now make them respond to the concerns regarding Fatality L2 and burst 5? Even better, Fatality Level 2 in general.
To be fair the buff at Sun Tze v1 dosen't change jis weak points, he is an expensive as fuck cherleadeer. Some missions may need this but i general (and out of LI), i see the tanky V1 one as an expensive waste of points having the Daoying or other cheap killing machines. The v2 get a strong buff, bli 2 to 3 and now being inmune to the damm t2 ammo matters more when you actually try to use the unit to kill. And yes, i'm a wierd player that field V2 in imperial service and find a 60 points hackable cherleadeer boring xD. On the other part doggos being inmune to stun is great upgrade, and for me, the extra cost is deserved. The karakuris got a good buff but they aren't very usual in his armies. I hope to see them a bit more.
How would the answer be any different? If they find it to be a problem, they’ll address it, but since B5 Fat2 is in the same boat, too early for any conclusions.
It actually isn't. We had the rule for a very long time and we know its a busted rule, the B5 just further exacerbates it and makes it glaringly obvious to even the most of the stubborn sceptics.
Total Immunity is mostly fine but Symbiomates are still kind of annoying. I feel like, honestly? I'd just ditch that whole concept from the game. I don't think it does anything except make Tohaa kind of boring, and the Symbiobombs are way more interesting but I still doubt you'll really see them that often. As far as Total Immunity works for everything else though? Yeah fine really.
Fatality L2 with B5 is interesting to me, I was playing against linked Tarik and thought "I could reveal my Spektr and shoot him in the open but he'll shoot me back and with B5 critting on 1's and 2s is it really worth it? No." That was quite interesting, it means that you just generally don't want to be shot by the guy on the active at all. On the other hand, when he's on the reactive, it makes much less of a difference, and if you can kill off the team and attack him from odd angles, you can take him out. I dunno it felt interesting to play, a different kind of puzzle. I understand the concern over it, even share it partly, but having played it? Not really that bad. Which is true of most things.
We *believe* it's a busted rule, and we've had very limited examples of it to gather data from, and not had the B5 component to assess. With the new options, CB can make an assessment based on what they see through ITS, etc., rather than Chicken Littling on the forums, and determine if any tweaks are needed.
I think this is coupled with the utility of the mates + the fact that it's attached to a CoC model. I think it would have been interesting to just flip those profiles.