Even then, the Kanren is still a decent option, especially if it takes advantage of its Surprise Attack, which bypasses NBW. CC21 vs CC17 is passable odds.
Sounds like he was playing ISS and they have a total lack of decent high burst AP weaponry. No AP HMG/Spitfires in the entire sectorial.
No, but it does highlight the point of 'Maybe Corregidor is getting too many toys?' That has been brought up time and again in here. Look, the Gator is pretty much like the Kriza Boracs was when it came out. The profile itself is not an issue. Put that MFer in Yu Jing and nobody would care. What is kind of an issue is that dude is in Nomads. Not just in nomads, but also in Corregidor, who also get a hacker that is as good as a Tunguskan hacker, but cheaper, and a Warband HI that is nearly as good as most elite warbands. The point of a sectorial is having bigger strengths with bigger weaknesses, but when your sectorial is performing as well as your vanilla army, without losing any strategies or toys, then you might have an issue of favoritism, just a teeny tiny bit. For example: PanO is supposed to be the TAG faction. Right now Vanilla PanO has 8 TAG options, including the Triphammer. Wanna Know who's in second place? CA with 6 options. Except Nomads are Tied with CA with 6 options (counting the Triphammer). And of the 6 Nomad Options, 3 of them are in Corregidor. All other factions have 2-3 options counting the triphammer. That's just bonkers. And if you go and compare by sheer number of options, Nomads tends to come in 2nd or 3rd for pretty much everything, from Light Infantry, to Heavy Infantry, to Skirmishers, to Warbands. By this point, Nomads' toolbox is just so comprehensive it's hard to not go 'what is this guy doing here and not on X faction?' when looking at their profiles. Note: I play nomads as a secondary faction. I'm not saying this as a disgruntled rival player, I'm saying this as someone who has abused that toolbox a few times.
The Kanren with mono was THE best thing to take out a Jotum. I got two burst because of having a beasthunter also in CC with the Jotum and he -3 for my Martial Arts 1, Surprise attack -3 for holo. No the lesson learned was don't get your AP weapon turned into mush by a Burst 4 Feurbach Karhu first. I had something else but still the best thing to take out a the Jotum was the Kanren.
It did, in the end, and it could also do so with a Gator. In a less reliable way though, agreed, but as A Mão Esquerda said, CC21 monofilament against CC17 isn't really bad odds... That's not an autokill, for sure, but why should it be? Again, we're talking about a 20ish-points specialist facing a line TAG costing almost four times more.
I agree that CJC seems to get more nice toys than others. I also prefer factions when they have a strong signature, with strenghts and witnesses, and CJC seems to drift a bit away from that, too bad. But is this gamebreaking as a few ones are claiming it is? Is CJC winning all its games, or even like a lot more than 50% of its games? I asked earlier if people had numbers factually proving that alleged terrible unbalance that is causing so much whining but I got no answer yet (message was posted just a few hours ago, it might come).
Saying 'But is it winning a lot of games'? Is completely missing the point. I have a friend who completely abandoned Infinity after the Uprising because he wasn't satisfied with what was done with Yu Jing. I have another friend who wants to pick up bakunin but he's not gonna do it because the army feels half-assed when compared to Tunguska or Corregidor. And I'm brazilian. A lot of us gravitate towards Acontecimento only to sulk the shoulders when they're told the army isn't in production. Sure, I can 'git gud' and kick ass with a sub-par army. Hell, I won an 18 person tournament playing Morats back in HSN3 when everyone said they were a low tier army. We're not talking about an army's effectiveness or not, we're talking about it being FUN to play with or against. It's not FUN for a Yu Jing player to keep seeing profiles that would make a lot more sense in their faction pop up in nomads. It's not fun for a Combined Army player to see a profile they have been asking for in their faction to pop up in nomads. Hell, it's not fun to be told 'This next update, we're gonna focus on your faction', only to see it overshadowed because guess what? Nomads got a new toy and it's cooler than all your stuff. And I'm saying this from a point where: A) I am very satisfied with my own Army's update; b) I just demolished a Gator and managed to score a very fun draw vs Corregidor this weekend. So this isn't a bile-spewing post about CB being biased. This is a friendly nudge saying "Hey, dude, tone it down. More updates on other factions would be nice. You just did a great job with Morats, why not stop updating Corregidor and take a look at Invincibles instead?"
The issue with CC is that it's an order-intensive and risky method of attack. It should have significantly better odds of working - when using dedicated CC specialists, of course - being a high risk-high reward strategy. Gators will be most often dealt with by BS attacks, they're not more resilient to it than other Main Battle TAGs, but that's not the issue; the issue is whether they belong in this faction at all. Which brings me to your next point: You won't get hard data for several reasons; first of all, this requires statistical analysis, which requires at least few months to accumulate data. What's more, it's nigh impossible to quantify factors like player skill and table density. And finally, Infinity's core systems are pretty resilient. The amount of toys CJC is getting isn't breaking the balance, but it does skew it. I remember how Corregidor was when I was starting the game, Since then it gained 14 new units, doubling its roster when not counting basic remotes. To put this in perspective, Acontecimento gained 7 (most of those being Aleph units), Caledonia got 3, QK got 7, Bakunin got 6, Morats got 11 (most of them just now). And most of what CJC got falls between solid and usable and top of its class. Sombras, Gators, Jaguars, Bandits, Jazz, Evaders - they all are very, very good in what they do. It all takes away step by step from the very thing you've described - a sectorial with clearly defined strengths and weaknesses. Before, one important defining factor of Nomads was that they're Jack-of-all-trades, with an edge in hacking and combat engineering, and their gameplay was focused on working around the brute force of other factions. Now they can just punch through themselves just as well, while keeping all their previous advantages and flexibility. This justifies more than a dismissive "too bad", because it causes exactly what @DaRedOne described: siphoning the fun out of the game. And it would be great, if you could stop referring to critical voices as "whining". A lot of your own answers in the recent threads are confrontational and inflammatory. Dial it down.
Having backups for everything would be nice, but there's a point limit and a slot limit to prevent you from doing that. Luckily, knowing your opponent's faction means you know a bit about the opponent's strengths and weaknesses and you can make a few assumptions when you select your list. Then, when a faction has so many different options you start having to make assumptions based on presumed strengths and use that to inform you about what area of the game you can "make do" in. E.g. Vanilla usually don't have very hard shooters due to not having fireteam bonuses and you can usually strike a few specific abilities based on factions such as smoke and PanO However, when particularly a sectorial gets access to too many different and strong toys that meta-knowledge becomes meaningless. You can't really cover all angles when an opponent is able to bring several of good archetypes that demand more specialised responses and still maintain a list that can threaten your opponent - even if some of those responses double duty offense and response.
I don't think it is, when the issue people are complaining about is mainly "this faction is overpowered and breaks the game". If the said faction only wins more or less 50% of the time, the previous statement is just factually wrong and all the related whining should stop. I renew my sincere question : people that are constantly snivelling about OP/gamebreaking Nomads/CJC, please gives us figures and facts. Well, I guess that one is not liking that much the game if you stop it just for a few numbers in a statline you don't agree with, or because you can or can't play one or two particular mini(s). The Uprising case is a totally different (and as of today unique) thing, because it was a "cataclysmic" event with a lot of concrete consequences for some players. I guess we can agree on that. And I understand those who hated it, I probably would have if I was a Yu-Jing player. I think you missed "a few" messages on this particular issue... Sure, some people are into the "friendly nudge saying ""Hey, dude, tone it down" thing and I have no issue with that, but you also have a TON of "bile-spewing" (thank for the expression, perfectly on point), jealousy and bitterness. Some messages sound even hateful. We're discussing little soldiers described by little numbers, is it really necessary? Relevant?
The same can be said for Kitsune, Beasthunter, McMurrough, Musashi, etc. This is their job. It's in the job description. "Must fight things that can squish you like a bug and come out on top. Good luck getting there."
No, I don't think so, because Nomads *also* use GML to deal with opponent's fast/resilient attack pieces. You can set up situations where it's impossible to attack without tripping over a repeater zone and getting spotlighted, and then you can kill the durable attack piece on your turn for very little effort. I feel like Haqq and Combined Army can also do this decently well, but this thread is on Nomads, so I'm talking about them.
Actually I'd disagree on the deployable repeaters thing. Running REMs up is fine, because you can shoot the REM - but doing a suicide run with a camo state trooper with a deployable repeater or fastpanda oftentimes doesn't allow meaningful counterplay. Yes, you're sacrificing something, but trading a Heckler or Hunzakut to kill your opponent's Lt or expensive attack piece is totally worth it, and very noninteractive.
Haven't met or played with the man, so I have no idea what he thinks, and won't judge. Let's discuss the game, not Gutier, ok? I don't blame anyone at CB for having their favourites. We all do. I just want the game being designed without playing favourites.
I get that. And I would say that it explains that a 20ish-points model can reasonably one-shot a 80ish-point model, which would be weird otherwise. There was such data back in 2019-2020, it's not impossible then... And the "multiple factors" issue isn't really one, as it is smoothen by the sheer number of games. In any case, we don't need perfectly precise numbers, just estimations. If a faction is clearly out of balance, it would still appears clearly. From the "old" data I saw, it wasn't the case at all, but maybe it changed. If no data allow to say "CJC is breaking the game", maybe it would be good that some people stop claiming that "CJC is breaking the game". Dunno... Even though I get it that it can be annoying to see a lot of love for one faction and not much for your own It's not "siphoning the fun out of the game" to me, but I can get it. Even though all you have to do to avoid that is... not playing against CJC. And if you have to from time to time, maybe it's not that bad. Probably more than 90-95% of your games will be CJC free! ;) I'm refering to "whining" as "whining" and I have absolutely no issue with people debating and criticizing. I really don't. And I'm pretty sure I didn't call someone a whiner just for expressing his disagreement in a calm and constructive way. If I did, I apologize to that person. If some of my answers are like that, it's because some of the messages I answer to are confrontational and inflammatory (to say the least...). You might say I should be more clever and respond in a different way, and you would be right, but I have trouble keeping my nerves when facing such deleterious content.
Except, as I mentioned, you can set up defensive measures such that you can't drop a troop right on her, it's risky and requires a roll, and you're using a trooper that probably costs 30-ish points to attack 18 point Jazz. And you def need a template weapon, because if she's in a fireteam she's just going to beat you on FtF roll. No, you definitely do shoot TAGs, oftentimes by flanking them and attacking them at bad range bands. The problem is that if you tuck a hacker back in your DZ there's no option to shoot or CC it - but she can hack you all she wants. There's no smoke grenades vs. hacking. There's no AP HMG for hacking, since they defanged killer hackers. I play Ariadna, I've killed plenty of TAGs by shooting them with AP HMGs if they get overextended. You're "you don't hack a hacker" comment is bunk. People have been saying that since N4 dropped to justify the piss-poor balance of hacking, but ironically I'm hearing some of them now going "... maybe Guided is too good..." A lot of us could see the writing on the wall with N4 hacking. Also, I didn't say to attack the Kamau itself with infiltrators, drop troops, etc... I said attack their fireteam, which makes the Kamau more vulnerable. And if you had access to White Noise or Albedo, you could just shoot it. Albedo and Spotlight both prove you wrong. Given that you're making incorrect statements left and right, maybe consider listening to other people who are a bit more knowledgeable on this topic. The difference is that Jazz is far and away the most efficient/dominant hacker in the game, in a sectorial that wasn't supposed to have over the top dominant hackers. The issue is, KHDs *should* be able to kill hackers through their own repeater network. If you don't think that's the case, congratulations, you probably play Nomads. I do have a problem with Jazz. She's far cheaper and better for any other hacker in her price point. You could double her cost and people would still take her. You're dancing around that point because it proves you wrong. People at lower skill levels used exclusively KHDs in N3. Polynikes, I know, used AHDs to great effect in N3. The problem was that the first-pass competitive analysis was "don't use hacking, KHDs interact with them and we should go for noninteractive strategies." CB misread that as "we should make KHDs weaker so people use hacking more." Instead, what they should have done was tweak the rules to punish players who avoid the hacking game more. KHDs were fair, which was exactly why people tried to avoid them in a competitive setting.
