And you're telling me I should be FORCED to play suboptimal cheap cheerleaders, just so I can survive the onslaught. Nice hypocrisy there, bro. Armand LeMuet says hi. Uxia pulls out her BSG and shoots that Swiss in 8". Kazak Spetsnaz pulls out HMG and goes to town. I can continue, but I can't learn how to play non-spam lists for you.
I dunno if English is not your native language or you are just dense or just don't care, but all I have been saying the last posts is neither one of you should be forced to play units you don't want to play, that's bad game design. And just changing what units are mandatory is not a fix to the problem. Also, I'm not your bro and you should check what hipocrisy means
It is not 'bad game design', when the game doesn't let you play whatever you want. 'Bad game design' is when one way of playing is overwhelmingly better than any other, and all players have to correct their playstyles to fit it. Hacking after KHD is bad design, SMGs are bad design (too cheap, and used to game points costs), and obviously order spam is bad design. As for hypocrisy - you keep saying that "Forcing people to play specific units not because they are good but because you can't play other things without gimping yourself was bad before and is bad now.", and then turn around and claim that it's a problem of game balance, when I can't play LI lists because somebody in the meta pushes order spam and drowns my elites in bodies. Critfishing works not only with high burst weapons. Playstyle is not game balance. Remember early ITS missions - people kept playing Annihilation all the time, because in any mission removing opponent from the table first let them win. Same is here - more orders means more actions means easier to win, but that doesn't equal "order spam is balanced" because order spam is not a game mechanic, it's a playstyle.
If you can't play LI because order spam destroys you obviously there is a huge unbalance between elite pieces and mooks, hence bad game design. When you are playing same points armies but one side has a massive advantage over the other to the point some builds are inviable that's bad game design. Same if you are forced to play elites. What do you call this if not bad game design?
Whether the solution is to buff elites or nerf hordes, you're going to be left with one half of the equation being better than the other which will shift perception to either elites being super problematic or hordes continuing to dominate the meta. Even without knowing new point costs and units as well as the balance tweaks of N4 to help those that were at their best around the sort of 14-18 model range, I can certainly say that this isn't by any means as drastic a situation as people are making it out to be. The lists of N3 only look suboptimal because they were built for N3, with other lists with high model counts and several chain rifles/cheap disposable AROs/super aggressive warbands to contend with. Even as a Haqqislam player, I've had little trouble at 13-15 models against the elite factions and only ever been rolled over by lists that tended towards 20 models. The model cap only seems inelegant because it's a new limitation on years of playing the game in a certain way - it's no more arbitrary than 1 Lt, no more than 10 models in a combat group, etc. Not only are new models that weren't effective before likely to see use, but you're now able to account for lists that are going to be more predictable in their scope and capabilities since you won't have to prep for some Grunt HFT infiltration spam list or anything ridiculous like that. Yes, fixing chain rifle costs, impetuous discounts, and so on could help but there's also the fact to be considered that if CB doesn't want their game to be more than 15 models because it isn't how they envisioned their game playing in their world then that's on them to do. The feel, both in gameplay and the world, matter just as much as competitive balancing to a game, though I know that's an opinion not shared by many.
Le Muet only for vanilla. Uxia, Burst 2 at 11s (if enemy not in cover) not the big thing. In N4 with template mode could be better. CC is a better option in that case. Speznat, shooting HMG at 9. Not reliable at all.
Uxia is at 14s, MSV1 profile. Spetsnaz - 4 dice on 9s with Surprise Attack and his own Mimetism - you said no elites have mods, well, here you go. LeMuet is indeed in vanilla only - you didn't say we're discussing a specific sectorial, too late to start now. You can try to nitpick all you want, you can't prove Ariadna doesn't have elites to deal with other factions' elites.
I appreciate your arguments , and that you express them in a very logical and reasonable way. but I disagree to some extent. But I’m simply too drunk to argue with you so I concede defeat .
who ever use MSV Uxia? no one And that speznat still have less than 50% of chances to make a wound on that Swiss. Are you saying that is reliable?
Well, if you use spam and 'most optimal choices' - obviously you don't have to play the game and use counters to beat specific things (MSV vs Camo vismods). After all it's easier to critfish and toss DTW bodies and hope for a lucky kill. And yes. 46% chance of a wound is pretty decent for a troop that's around twice as cheap as Swiss. What, did you want a 100% wound chance for 6 points?
Well, yes. I prefer to sacrifice one of my 3 6 points unit dealing with the swiss than my main atacker. That is my playstyle. Why is good forcing me to play suboptimal but bad forcing you to do that?
Hyperbolic absurd "arguments" and insults. Have it your way, I don't really care about Internet pissing contests. Have a nice day.
And he isn't Like you can still take a variety of troops. 15 guys across 300 pts averages at 20pts each, that's plenty of space for cheaper stuff.
Playstyle is not balance.. Just because you like to spam hordes of cannon fodder doesn't mean the system has to support it. And to answer your other question - why is it good in reverse? Why is it good for you to play spam and force me to play suboptimal lists?
I like? No. My faction was designed like that. The same way that my Military Orders were designed for a single combat group. We will never agree, so that's it
I think the fact CB felt obligated to put a hard cap on models is a clear indication that, no, massed infantry was never the intended design of any faction. I also don't believe that this is as all-or-nothing as people are claiming it is, since nothing has stopped that hypothetical trio of 6pts models from still KOing a Swiss Guard, it just means not instead of lots of other cheap stuff you need to look to more mid to high cost models to round out your force.
Really? A faction with cheaper troops will always have more efectives in the field. If this 18 points button pusher infiltrator do the work, why i have to pay 30 for the same work and some skill or equip maybe i will never use, in order to remain at 15 orders? My base troop cost 6 points, yours 10. Obviously i will have more men. My mid table specialist cost around 20. Yours 30. Not my fault. My army is "massive" but vulnerable. Yours was small, but resilient. That is how they was designed. If you force to play all the armies the same way, why we bother buying nothing? Lets play with the same figures painted with different colours.
The problem is elite armies were not resilient, and what CB seems to be telling us is "we don't know how to fix this"
