Definitely. Oblivion is a thing true, and this also helps against that. But Jammers are super crazy powerful, and that's with even marginal representation right now. I feel downright dirty using two Hecklers.
If there are more of them incoming... that would make super high-investment pieces be pretty useless. This keeps TAGs running even with no-LoF area denial going against them.
Feel dirty about using them? So DON'T use them ... You don't HAVE to use units if you don't want to (I mean, some people get along just find without things like friends ... ) It's not like anyone is standing behind you with a gun pointed at your head going "Go ahead, make my day! Use the Ghazi/hecklers or I repaint the wall with your brains ..."
I have played some games with tunguska and didn't field any jammer. After the game, the enemy was "why didn't you bring any jammer?". The same enemy after loosing against tunguska with jammers (even if they didn't isolate anybody) "those jammers arte too op, please nerf". Also, I doubt jammers have nothing to do with T.A in TAGS. The TAG problem has been there allways: too expensive to be usefull, except for those 3 or 4 TAGs that bend the game (both their owner lists and the oponents decisions). I think they put this rule to them, because is cool, is useful, works well with them and is not OP. The only problem I have is the arbitrariety when applying the 4 points up cost to only the cheap ones and leave the powerful ones outside of it.
Well, if my opponent wants to get some tournament practice in, you can be damn sure I'll give the man what he wants
Dude, I play Nomads. Using dirty tricks and being mildly apologetic about it while still being an assclown is basically our supermove. Jammers are definitely too powerful, as in they do too many things in one package. Each separate function as a different piece of gear would make sense. But the area-denial no-LoF function, combined with the extremely powerful Intuitive Attack (again no-LoF), the basic offensive means of neutering really powerful multi-wound units... yeah too much power and flexible in one (very cheap) piece of kit. Back on-topic: @Armihaul you're right, there are lots of reasons why TAGs needed this buff. It's a good one. I've been advocating for it since N2, when I designed a TAG-heavy scenario that gave TAGs an extra Irregular order and found that it balanced them in normal play too. And I was definitely not the only one. But it is probably no coincidence that the season after even more Jammers hit the field, the design team finally hit the tipping point where this fix was clearly necessary.
I think jammers went to more factions because little by little, CB is giving exclusive weapons and equipment to some other factions, and jammers have been "haqq exclusive" for enough time. In this case, I think it is just a coincidence, not a causality. If they wanted to give some. CB does a lot of things that have no correlation, and they also do things that previously they sayd they will never do, so I think is pointless trying to look at that correlation (they would have done both things sooner or later, independently of the other)
I always use 2, one is almost always the KHD, as it frees up a zero to be something else. and the other is jammer but that is more because of the fast panda with the jammer being a somewhat useful upside, there really isn't any piece thats anywhere near as good for hacking threat projection.
I think the intent was clearly to see more TAGs on the table. That seems reasonable (they're appealing models) and reasonably successful so far. Softening jammers slightly is likely a desirable side effect. Also Ghazi are strong in isolation but not OP, in context. I dont see Haqq dominating the tournament scene, although I'm sure they will when @RobertShepherd is using them.
I'm not going to let this go by, just in case anyone is reading who might be misinformed by your extremely inaccurate statement here. Nothing personal, but that statement is flat-out wrong. Ghazi are not just "strong" they are broken, and in context they are still broken. It's been said many times before, but their multiple duty as no-LoF ARO area denial, no-LoF camo hunters who also harm the target with the same successful roll, offensive no-LoF attackers, ability to block LoF on their own, and E/M and chain warband duty PLUS Dogged and a super high WIP is way, way too much for 5 points. Jammers are too powerful, and Ghazi take that and raise the stakes with extremely-difficult-to-stop thanks to smoke, and then compound it with a ridiculously low price for their many, many strengths. The fact that opponents have to spend an entire turn just killing 4 Ghazi in half of the Haqq games in competitive environments should speak for itself. And I can say that number is about right, having played in US, Spanish, German, and French tourneys. They've long been as ubiquitous as Kamau snipers are now, but way more broken. That's the context, and it sucks. I hate facing 4 Ghazi and a sheepishly-grinning opponent saying "I couldn't avoid taking them in a competitive environment" fully half the time I face Haqq. Having go-to units is fine. When those go-to units are broken, it makes them boring and annoying to face.
@Savnock And yet, despite doing so much for so little and wasting so much opponent's time and nerves, armies that can run Ghazis don't perform very well these days, with one of them possibly belonging to bottom tier (although they may rise a bit since the latest update). Maybe Ghazis are mess, but then state of balance of those armies is also a mess. Tbh I hate running Ghazis and I wish their weight to be distributed more evenly within armies in question, but I can't say I like the way CB were (effectively) doing it when they were writing the latest expansion.
Inb4 someone figures out more elite troops mean less models, less models mean....less spending? Hear hear!
I mean, if that's a concern, you can always sell ~30 pts models for the price of ~90 pts models *cough*blackjacks*cough*
This is more or less what I meant. It depends a bit what exactly you mean by 'broken'. What I tend to mean by that word is 'so strong it makes the game unfair'. Ghazi dont do that in my experience because the faction they are in has other weaknesses that compensate their strengths (low BS, generally squishy troops, lots of irregular, higher base cost line troops etc etc). So playing Haqq; even with 4 Ghazi, isnt a massive advantage generally (though Im sure a great player would make it so). They're not exactly dominating the tournament scene. Hence if Ghazi got nerfed, Haqq would need an equivalent buff elsewhere to stay competitive. I don't particularly love the design philosophy of virtual auto picks in each faction, which I agree Ghazi are one of. But I just don't think they 'break' (as in, make non functional or at least patently unfair) a game they appear in. I think gamers use the word 'broken' a bit too easily, and that hyperbole makes what exactly we mean by it a bit unclear, if that makes sense. I do also think there are a bunch of decently effective ways to deal with Ghazi, despite how effective for cost they are, but that's another post.
Agreed. I would say that Ghazi are slightly overpowered, and certainly they are internally overpowered (in that they are an auto pick for their faction in a competitive setting) but I wouldn't call them broken. There's a debate to be had on whether or not this is always bad thing (I'm of the mindset that units that are slightly overpowered can create interesting listbuilding decisions if a sectorial is built around them, for example the Imperial Service order battery being balanced out by their expensive unit choices and weak specialist game). I'd only start calling things broken if they actually fully "break" an aspect of the game (i.e causing one faction to be significantly stronger than all others in a competitive setting and so breaking list variety). I think the only thing in the game right now that I'd really consider calling broken would be FAT2, with the way that it "breaks" the need for decision making when making ftf rolls.
