That's not what I meant at all. The comment of yours I quoted was specifically an inference that if you're taking Quing Gao you're taking his lieutenant profile. You made a big point of calling out the light weaknesses of that profile when in White Banner it's the less attractive of his two and his non-lieutenant profile carries less risk for no real downside (unless you're extremely SWC strapped which I haven't found White Banner to be). I was looking for some clarity because that didn't make much sense.
I consider the LT profile to be the more useful of his two profiles, which is why I made the assumption that it was that profile that was suggested would be mandatory, obviously.
Fair enough. Interesting to see such sharply differing fundamental assessments. Another of those lowkey lovecraftian moments.
This is a topic for the Yu Jing forums, but there's an unspoken evaluation of lieutenants behind this reasoning which makes Qiang LT a natural choice for most of my lists that features Qiang (and, uh, incidentally kind of reinforced by Zhanshi having low AVA).
Hmmm... This raises the question for me if the perception of "game warping" is somewhat connected to newness. I agree with @Zewrath that the mere existence of for example Van Zant forces you to play as if he was in the opponent's list, no matter if he is or not. Same with a noctifer ML, Proxy2 sniper and superior infiltrating TO pieces. I would argue that up until the last reserve drops, the Speculo minelayer has the same effect. However, many of these have been around for so long that the warping they produce has simply become "the game", thereby no longer being perceived as warping at all. For me, the linked Kamau is slowly but surely becoming part of this category. I suspect the Tian Gou will too, but there is no way to be certain, of course.
Sure, it definitely affects my listbuilding in USARF, because I have to think about ways to beat that ARO. That wasn't the case before it existed. It is by definition game-warping.
When it breaks a fireteam or take out an important attack piece, or reveals a camo marker while preventing it from attacking an objective by Isolating it? Sure it is. I honestly don't believe @RobertShepherd when he talks about his meta.
I don't consider either of those uses a significant problem in N3 gameplay. They're useful and a reason that Jammers are strong; but they're not particularly efficient compared to ARO Jamming. So they're something that can mostly be played around. I think it's worth noting that when @RobertShepherd made his statement that he basically never Resets it was in the context of Reactive usage: the discussion was about th. SSL1 + Reset interaction. So I've read his post as, to paraphrase, "I basically never Reset in my active so losing that ability entirely doesn't worry me too much". The conversation is moving quickly enough that those sorts of mistakes in clarity of language do happen. From a "hopes for N4 POV": I do think that the effect of Jammers on Fireteams could afford to be toned down because it disproportionately affects aggressive Fireteams, which tend also be rare and expensive, and has comparatively little effect on the defensive Fireteams that dominate the meta. ISO-1 (1 Turn) would see the most benefit there, but ultimately any ISO-1 change would make re-forming Fireteams viable. Edit: Yeah re-reading: Rob: I don't have a balance problem with SSL1 and Reset because you shouldn't be Reseting vs Jammers anyway (unsaid, in active) Hecaton: No, you Reset often in competitive games (unsaid, mostly in Reactive) Rob: I really haven't reset (in active) much at all Hecaton: I don't believe you about not Reseting (in Reactive)
Yep, that's what I was intending to communicate. For example: had a game this morning where I had to dig out a jammer protecting a scenario objective. Move-moved the Taigha into the jammer area using its regular order, got jammed, then moved into CC over a barricade and berserked for the kill using its irregular. Gauging ZOCs in TTS is harder (or at least, I'm not used to it yet) so there'll probably be a few times over the next few months where I screw up and take a Jammer ARO that I didn't mean to and which might prompt a reset ARO, but those are a result of me making a mistake. If I move into a Jammer area otherwise it's usually (not always, but usually) with some specific plan in mind that probably doesn't involve using half my order to reset. This is why I don't have major balance concerns about the way SSL2 interacts with reset. But it's still a crap interaction and goes on the list of things I'd like to see changed because explaining them to a new player makes me feel like I'm betraying them somehow.
My experience vs linked holo jammers so far: Game 1 - Opponent moved the core link into the centre of the board to claim a zone and protect it with the jammer. I ran McMurrough up to double chain rifle a bunch of them, since moving up made them necessarily bunch up getting through gaps and trying to be in cover. Didn't even need to in the end since McDoggy adding his points (combined with other things already there) to the zone outpointed them anyway. The linked grenade launcher they had was actually more trouble to me than the jammer in that game. Game 2 - I used a coordinated order to kill the missile launcher in the link, gaining long range fire superiority and trapping them in their deployment zone where they were little bother to me for most of the game (it was Aquisition) These are just a couple of particular examples, and far from a broad sample. But you'd think if something actually was 'super broken' it might have a positive outcome for the people using it in a couple of games. Both were pretty good opponents (one having come 2nd in Satellites more than once). I don't really like them a lot, but they haven't resulted in a bad, let alone broken game experience for me in a couple of games so far. I imagine in something like Capture and Protect they might be a bit more troublesome, but I feel like I could still deal with that. Maybe not more so than mines.
By way of contextualising the anecdote: it's worth pointing out that the faction you're playing you've been running fairly exclusively for a while now and have great experience getting the most out of the specific archetype you ran. Whereas your opponent's are relatively new to the faction they're playing (because WB has only just dropped). We know that among players of similar skill familiarity with the faction and list often makes the difference. Q: Why did you Chain Rifle rather than Grenade the bunched up link with McMurder? Spec Fire grenades from within ZOC is actually more likely to be deadly than the 2 Chain Rifles and usually represents less risk to McMurder. One of my friends who plays McMurder a lot recently explained this to me; he's doing extremely well with that play style. :P (Obvious answer: because you'd have had to FTF a B2 Jammer ARO on 17s)
Well yeah, it depends a bit too how many you can get under the chain rifles vs the grenade (two chain rifles can cover a lot!), and whether you expect them to dodge or shoot back (or jam). But to the experience question - it's true but it also depends on our definition of 'super broken'. I would expect something 'super broken' to have a disproportionate effect even in an uneven matchup, I mean if something 'super broken' doesn't affect the balance between two players significantly does it really mean anything significant at all? And if it doesn't, is it even worth worrying about overly? Not that it's not necessarily an issue at all. But the internet does tend to make us over focus on specific instances that may not be nearly as prevalent in reality as in our imagination.
Yeah. Which is why I don't think Jammers are broken from an N3 gameplay POV. I do think that they're broken from a game design POV because of how they distort the game. Re: distorting options. New options are inevitably more distorting than existing options because not all factions are updated with an eye to balancing these options. VZ has existed for so long that all factions have tools that well understood and relatively widely available for dealing with him, many had these tools designed in. This is not necessarily true of new things, and is less true than further from 'normal' they skew. VZ, Speculos, Fidays, Oni, Bran and even Raoul are all variations on a theme and need broadly similar counters that must necessarily have been considered during play testing (ie. a Lunk provides an effective mitigation option for all of those threats).
Be bad. But that's late stage N3. Jammers aren't the only thing driving that. Albeit Spec Fire, Superjump and Veteran offers an option for some factions.
Almost every vanilla faction has Libertos, which can function similar to or better than irreg Warbands. Almost all factions have some form of camo skirmisher (you can't jam a camo marker in ARO) All sectorials get linked troops ( he can only jam one per ARO, the another can likely often move again next order and shoot him). Almost every sectorial without WB has linked and / or High BS spec fire (which I don't regard as that inefficient if you use it well, particularly if you can get multiple 1w models under a template, as seems likely with a LI 5 man link). It can actually be devastating, if a little swingy ( if a riskless attack can be called swingy). Also, it's likely to reveal the holo / jammer without risk. Some have veteran. Everyone has guided (some with pitchers, (almost?) all with sniffers) Depending on the situation super jump, deployable weapons set where the jammer wants to be, board control through long range fire superiority, flanking and shooting from unexpected angles (like with AD) can all work. A lot of the time just ignoring the LI fireteam in the other deployment (and just killing any ARO piece hanging out) and doing the mission in the centre can even work. If that LI fireteam comes forward, it's much more likely to be vulnerable to being flanked. And if they spend points on a jammer that sits in its deployment and never does anything, was it even worthwhile points spent? There's a lot of possibilities, it's a complex game.
Hmm.. so... so far we have anecdotal evidence that the solution to a 1 point equipment* is to rely in a situation where the opponent is not capable of setting up incoming AROs and to use the most complained-about character in game while noting that a 4 points 1 SWC equipment gave slightly more problems... okay... Anecdotally, in my last game a Kriigel light grenade launcher completely dismantled me during Decapitation, killing Tian Gou and two LTs over the course of a game, I guess that's valid evidence? (Completely unrelated my opponent also managed to land 7 Speculative Fire shots that hit on 3s in a row) And in the game before that I had Sheeskin tank a 3 Jammer hits. (Also unrelated, I missed about 7 or 8 very significant AROs in that situation and also helped my opponent judge the ZoC of the Jammer so they'd avoid taking avoidable AROs) * Ignoring for a second that a Tian Gou without Jammer would likely not see time in Zhanshi links if Zhanshi were AVA 5+, so the practical cost is actually around 10 points for a Tian Gou which is probably a much bigger contributor to keeping the Tian Gou fair than what the anecdotal evidence would suggest.
I'm not sure it's a meaningful comparison that the jammer Tian Gou only costs one point more than the KHD Tian Gou. More meaningful perhaps would be the comparison between a Zhanshi fireteam designed to jam the midfield (say, TIan Gou, 2 normal Zhanshis, one LGL Zhanshi, and one HMG Zhanshi for 80 points) vs. a defensive Zhanshi fireteam (say, one sniper, one ML, 2 normals, and the reguired Tian Gou, also for 80 points). The cost of jamming the midfield isn't the one point for the jammer, it's the loss of a defensive core link. And the vulnerability that comes from having to leave five line troops in the midfield. It's probably worth the cost. (At least, I hope it is. It's the signature mechanic of WB so I certainly would like it to be viable.) But it would be misleading to suggest that you pay one point and get a B2 WIP17 jammer in return (Edit: except in Looting and Sabotaging or Capture and Protect where I suppose you can have both). Not like Mutts where you can basically say yeah, for five points and no other compromises I get a jammer, a chain rifle, an e/marat, and smoke.
The Tian Gou 1st KHD is an anomaly, it's got a discount to the same amount as the KHD costs. Or the Jammer profiles, MadTrap profiles and the Red Fury profile is arbitrarily overpriced, I haven't actually checked that vector. That said... I'm not sure what you're trying to say, @QueensGambit The difference in the power you pay for a Jammer is 1 point, no more no less, everything else you pay for the Tian Gou is for the rest of the stuff it carries. There's 3 other profiles with this equipment and I doubt that people have suddenly gotten content about them, either.
I'll try to clarify. Suppose they made a Mukhtar profile with red fury, msv2, and jammer for 38 points. The existing profile, without the jammer, is 37 points. In that case I would agree that I was getting a jammer for a cost of 1 point, which would be grossly undercosted. That's because I'm already taking a Mukhtar, and I'm already moving it into the midfield. So I really am doing exactly what I would otherwise have done, but by paying 1 extra point I would get a jammer in the midfield on top of everything else. In contrast: if the Tian Gou jammer profile didn't exist, what would the WB player be taking instead? Would they be taking a Zanshi core with midfield weaponry and a Tian Gou KHD and moving it into the midfield? If so, then I would agree that they can add a jammer for just 1 point. But I don't think the WB player would be taking that fireteam if not for the jammer. If they took a Zhanshi core at all, it would be a defensive core. Consequently, I don't think it's meaningful to say that the jammer costs the WB player 1 point. The non-jammer midfield Zhanshi core isn't a valid comparator if it's not a useful fireteam in its own right. If we want to know whether the Tian Gou is undercosted, we need to look at the cost of the whole link it comes in vs. what it does. (I also maintain that evaluating what it does requires playing against it for a while, but that's a different part of the discussion.)
