The difference is those other "alpha" predators cost more and actually gain vulnerabilities as they are used. A TAG that's moved into the midfield and used to attack is vulnerable to skirmishers and hackers, and so on. Jazz or an Interventor doing things through a repeater network doesn't really gain vulnerabilities since they're basically unassailable through hacking. People have made the analogy to "shooting a Jotum" for why hackers like Interventors and Jazz should be unassailable to hacking, but that argument doesn't work because unlike a Jotum they don't expose themselves to leverage their power, they cost far, far less, and you definitely can "shoot a Jotum" with an AP or other anti-materiel weapon. If it's working as designed, it's bad design.
thats because there have been not enough complaints against nomads at the moment... or you didn't see how CB managed nomads in the past
Armihaul is always 100% straight unironically convinced that PanO is CB's most beloved faction and Nomads the most mistreated one.
As someone who you probably think made that argument, I'd like to point out two very important things; 1. The argument was never that the hacker should be unassailable through other means 2. A TAG walking into the midfield becomes assailable through other means If you expect one of the game's more expensive hackers, who can do little else but hack, from the game's (by design) strongest hacking faction to be assailable through hacking; then you are not attempting to use other means, you are not trying to exploit vulnerabilities. As I keep ranting about the strength of Repeaters, my underlying point is always that the hackers themselves never need to expose themselves to vulnerabilities - the hacker is not at risk of being flanked by a combi rifle wielding heavy infantry, the hacker is not at risk of being ambushed by a hidden deployment sniper, the hacker is not at risk of having a skirmisher walk up to it and shank it in only a couple of orders, and the hacker is not at risk of having a grenade tossed at their feet. Because they are too far away.
And Nomads struggle against BS15 TO Missile Launchers used well, and can't hack camo TAGs, and core linked so bunched up squishy hackers die pretty easy to BS15 spec fire from a TAG. Different factions have different strengths, who knew.
It functionally was, though, since you can tuck them in the deployment zone and not expose them. They become assailable to shooting, too, and aren't immune to it. Flanking a forward-positioned TAG with an AP or K1 weapon is a pretty good way of dealing with it. The point is that repeater networks should create a vulnerability that KHDs can exploit. It's also worth noting that Nomads' hacking was pushed far beyond the Combined Army's in the edition rollover, and they used to be very competitive in that regard. Given Nomads crazy shooting capabilites, it seems like they don't really have meaningful weaknesses, so justifying them being good at hacking here seems specious. All those weaknesses apply to other factions as well, Nomads just have other advantages that other factions don't have because the hacking ecosystem is fucked up.
Well.. not like that. Nomad is not the most mistreated for sure (that would be tohaa), but far from the well treated pano Enviado desde mi M2004J19C mediante Tapatalk
Only is if you break down the argument in small parts and treat them as separable components with no relation to each other. Yes, and that's how shooting works in this game. Hacking doesn't have a concept of flanking, all you can do is stick your own pitcher (for the few factions that can) down near the opponent's hacker. Get over Combined hacking. Any point you make is undermined each time you bring them up in relation to each other. The issue here is that you're comparing a TAG walking forward, which is increasing all potential risk elements from the entirety of Infinity's eco system of vicious predators by getting closer to the enemy, with a situation where the only increased risk is from hacking. If a Jotum's only increased risks from walking forward was being shot by more enemies while retaining cover, but remained impossible to hack or melee, you'd have a point. However, if you walk an Oniwaban up to a Repeater and melee it, Jazz will not die. If you move a Crocman to a flanking position and unload 3 shots on a Repeater, Jazz is at 0% risk of going unconscious. This may sound really obvious and trivial, but this is the strawman of your comparison - you're comparing a three dimensional situation to a one dimensional situation and equating them.
That's out of place dude Nomads has seen one of the few n3 nerfs due to complaints, and lore from some of its units altered because some people asked for it. Nomads have (with ariadna) the most number of n1 and beggining-n2 models and lower resculpt count. Their 3rd sectorial got the worst lore release schedule of all n3 (2 books later and a year to see the lore?). And there have been other issues, little ones true, but there are a lot. Just because they got a revision for corregidor that would be standard for any faction after an edition change (in n3 nomads got none revision like this) doesn't mean that cb is treating them better to the point that "if something benefits nomads, will be added", as you implied, because usually has been the other way Enviado desde mi M2004J19C mediante Tapatalk
Just pointing one little thing. Units caped at bs13 (not 14,not 15, only TAGs and a not so used character got to 14) and usually not so good visual modifiers, or more expensive than in other factions, are not what I would call "crazy shotting capabilities". There are a few powerful pieces, but they are in the expensive side or just below power what others have Enviado desde mi M2004J19C mediante Tapatalk
From what I'm reading in this thread, most of the problems with hacking can be summed up in the asymmetry between the amount of orders that a player needs to spend in order to cause an inordinate amount of havoc with hacking, and the number of orders or other resources needed to counteract the hacker. One factor in this equation is that hacking is a one-and-done deal. The hacker succeeds and the effect is applied. The hacker can then immediately go on to attack the next target. This is unlike shooting, where there are several units that need to be gradually whittled down with consecutive successful attacks. One idea that could help alleviate this problem is if some hacking programs, perhaps against specific targets, would require a number of successful rolls to apply the effect. This mechanism already exists in the rules for example in the classified objective where you have to spotlight the HVT twice in order to score. I personally think this would be thematically interesting, modelling the time it takes to do a deep brain-dive in the lore (and its direct inspirations in Ghost in the Shell and Appleseed). The main downside would be the added book keeping to keep track of how many hacks have been performed. One question that would need to be answered is whether a single hacker should be able to maintain several hacking attacks at the same time, or if they should be forced to abandon an attack to do a new one. If that was the case, then hackers would really need to be protected from alternate threat vectors if they should hope to succeed at their mission. Is this an interesting idea? Perhaps it could be explored as a mission specific rule to see if it makes hackers too weak.
That idea reminds me of n1 hacking. Then you needed 2 succesfull rolls on hacking to possess a TAG, with 1 single sucess only gave imm. If you managed to be near the TAG and have enough orders left, then it was worth a try, but the success rate was quite low and a miss would mean start anew, so usually after imm the TAG, people would not try to posess because it was too risky and could free it from imm The problem maybe has been to give spotlight aro and also make it durable between turns at the same time. KHD needed to loose the ignoring fieewall because if not, hacking would remain underperforming, but the programs nerf has been a bit too much. Mixing AHD may be a good idea, but make basic hackers lost its main n3 purpose, so now they got a new one instead, but the people that pickes them in n3, now would use them too, making oblivion more used. I think n4 changes just make hacking more used overall, and now some people that didn't have to take it into account, are forced to and need to learn against it Enviado desde mi M2004J19C mediante Tapatalk
For once, could you then actually moderate and issue personal warnings to those who derail the thread and break the rule, rather than locking a thread other people contribute to nicely?
Do they though? Jazz linked with the -6 tinbot and 5 orders she can use in a link (partly to get Sixth Sense) is minimum 83 pts, 1.5 swc. If you want to include the Tsyklon in that link (to get the ability to throw pitchers a long way) it's 109pts, 2.5 swc. An Anathematic with 5 orders it can use is minimum 101pts 0.5 swc. Jazz can't hack the Anathematic in her active at game start because it's HD or marker state. The Anathematic is something like 3.5 times more likely to put Jazz unconscious than Jazz is to inflict a wound on the Anathematic if the Anathematic attacks Jazz through her own repeater in its active with Trinity. If it can get it's own repeater near Jazz instead, its odds are very much more in its favour more (like 70% to 3%). The idea that Jazz is even close to functionally immune from harm, even through the vector she is specifically designed to be great at, is objectively false. If you think Jazz is untouchable, you're playing against her non optimally.
Though, keep in mind that this requires the Nomad player to make a few decisions like putting their repeater somewhere the Anathematic might be, not putting Jazz out of the Fireteam and into Cybermask state, and not having enough other hackers to threaten the Anathematic through mass-stacked-ARO. Albeit, this is a battle of hacking titans, it is possible for the Anathematic to move out of the zone and have another piece set up pitchers of their own to shift the cover game. Hacking is a lot more interesting between factions with a proper set of tools for it or between factions without those tools -.-;;
N4 Hacking at least encourages the hacking game. Something N3 did not. Now you can play against ariadna and tohaa and not feel stupid for having spent 2 SWC on hackers. ARO spotlighting has many ways that can be bypassed by either camo, stealth or just shooting the repeater from out of range. The problem here is that many pals just discovered they can no longer get their Mim-6 HI to cross the board in a straight line going BRRRR! like they did in N3. They now have to spend orders avoiding repeaters or destroying them. In nomads case, that is their game. They are not supposed to brute-force you, but either they play the control game. What was insane is that before you had to spend 3-4 orders to set a hacking attempt, and the results of the hack could be removed in a single reset order. If i spend 3 to 4 orders to set up a play, i expect that the return is at least of the same value than the expenditure. Also, regarding ARO spotlight: Targetted state can be removed with a single reset roll. If it is stays on your trooper for the whole game is because you as a player conciously chose to not spend those orders to Reset. So in my oppinion if you knew the consequences and decided not to act on them you deserve a missile.
