One thing shouldn´t be the reason for the other. Some people just like playing a nice army for playing them and dont care if it´s "harder" to win with them. People whose fun is not connected to winning, but playing. Something I for myself learned over the course of many years.
Skiavoro is the forgotten troop. He need something to make him worth taking or nerf him and cheaper. Not sure what. Agree about Lt. Hacker. But still hard to justify when for few pts more you can get a Charontid.
Give him Remote Presence,+2 inches on Second MOV value, 0.5 SWC less and 17 points cheaper. So he can be the embodiement of CA's nerfs. The more they get nerfed, the stronger he gets!
Sorry, maybe I was missunderstood or did not explain me right: I dont think "The army is the better one/more overpowered one" should be the reason why someone plays them, but more like "I like the flair/fluff/modells/design/playstyle of the army, thats why I like playing them. "Winning" should not be the indicator for fun. But I understand everyone saying "I always lose, cause the other armies have the objectivly better units, and that is not fun" An utopic situation would be all units in perfect balance (like all things should be), but i doubt that´s an achiveable thing. Also, slight imbalance is sometimes healthy for a set meta
No disrespect meant to you in particular, but I'm getting really tired of the "imbalance is good" idea. I think too many people watched that one Extra Credits video and took it as gospel.
@Hecaton I dont know which gospel you are referring to, but maybe I lack the verbal eloquence to clearly explain what i mean. I try again: I am NOT a fan of imbalance per se. No one wants an achilles profile for the pointcost of a line infanterie (clearly imbalanced, can we agree on that?). Also, some armies are bloated with options and lacking true weaknesses, whilest others underpreform (either cause of costs or lack of options/synergies). Or the prayer-wheel rechanted non-interaction-gameplay. I referr to little shifts in balance to support the usage of units rarely seeing the table. Stuff what happens every season with ITS. ForwardDeployment for MI. Buffs for bikes. Orders and Marksman for some drones (unfortunatly for everyone, nomads are the big winner here *again*)
I think that's mixing 'Asymmetry' with 'Imbalance' Imbalance is BAD. Fullcaps, no stop. If a strategy or build dominates, it should be nerfed or changed to keep it balanced. Asymmetry is good. Not all armies should have all options, not all armies should be able to play the same strategies. But this should be balanced. Having an army be bad at something must be compensated by making it great at something else. EG: NuMorats. They're really good at projecting force and have great link synergy, but they're expensive and have middling statlines. The 'problem' comes up when you have an army which can do anything and do it well. Most Vanilla armies are like this, they can do everything and they're better at doing stuff than most sectorials. So yeah, nerfing vanilla armies (in general) might be a good idea.
I for myself wish for a whole lot more sectorialspecific troopers and profiles like what they did with the gwailos. You simply can't play them outside of shas. Very strict AVA for some troopers, and simply missing loadouts could Do a LOT For sectorials and balance!
Damn, Thanks! @DaRedOne Asymmetry is the way better term to explain what I ment. Sometimes you just lack the better term in moments you try to explain what you ment with the wrong one.
the more boring thing we see these days is that sectorials are becoming same. kosmoflot and kazakhs are almost same. links are almost same in ariadna sectorials. One guy with higher arm and better bs and mimetism and 4 arm standart units. all nomad sectorials are same now. talented hacker in a versatile option link with pitchers. You can see that phalanx and OSS is very easy to distinguish. But now yujing sectorials with same units ?
Thats something I mention since mixed links are a thing overall: Pick a heavy hitter (2Wounds, Mimetism, BS 13+, MSV, Marksman, at best multiple traits combined) and fill it with a couple henchmen and an hacker for SixthSense hacking. Maybe i am nostalgic, but i miss the times, when you had to deside to either pick a comparable cheap core link out of LI´s to enhance their mediocre preformance to a respectable level (BS+3, sixth sense and +1B is a huge buff imho) and still have points left for additional stuff OR chose to run a High-Cost Deathstar including already well-preforming units to sledgehammering through the enemy units. I for myself tend to like this way more, and mixed links were a merc-only stuff (and, ofc, MO, cause... well... most reworks in the entire game do not come from nothing). You had to deside, what you want to do. The so-called "variety" in beeing able to link 5 different units did not bring more different unit/army-set-ups to the table but mainstream powercreeps (looking at you, varuna), or at least the same set up over and over again. But maybe thats just whining from an old man who misses times, when boxes with 4 LI-SWC units werent a huge waste of money. edit: NOTHING against charakters beeing an actual part of the units they are linked to (Lupe and jazz as Alguacils, Joan as hospitaller, Krit and Tai Sheng with invincibles,...) cause they are part of that. And everything else could be a stand-alone trait for mercs. But going back to Linkteams like that could solve a lot of problems mentioned in the forum atm, for example Jazz hiding behind a Mobile Brigada tinbot, eskorted by a X-visored Pitcher and still beeing a ARO-threat.
As someone could read I already admitted that "imbalance" isn´t the right term to express what I ment. And like DaRedOne already mentioned, "Asymmetric" seems to be the better term. If someone wants to consult the Oxford Dictionary, "Imbalanced" is defined as "a situation in which two or more things are not the same size or are not treated the same, in a way that is unfair or causes problems", so see now (as a not native speaker) were the valid point was, which caused people to disagree with the term "imbalance". I think we can all agree, that dropping free orders and Marksman on variouse units is far from "causing problems". And in terms of things beeing unfair and causes problems for the game we have people in this forum with outstanding knowledge and extraordinary expertise =)
This. This game is reaching a state where it's loosing focus on sectorials/factions unique features. It's only saved by a really good core of rules and missions. If we continue to add plethora of new profiles based on minor points/skills differences, balancing will continue to be harder and harder to maintain. I hope one day they will do something as "Infinity redux" where we will have less profiles; old miniatures can always make proxies / specific loadouts so our collections are not wasted. Yu-Jing won't suffer if Wu-Ming/Zuyong/Jujak were merged into a single unit with distinguished Assault/Orders/Flamethrower loadouts. New profiles start to become a marketing tool and we know where it could lead us *GW whispers coming from beyond* I still think CB is a great company and that they will do what they can to avoid this.
Let's do a bit of thread necromancy. Supposedly there is a big balance patch on the horizon and maybe, just maybe, CB could consider some of the changes for CA units that surfaced in this thread - or at least note that some units need changes. I'd personally love to see aspects (specifically the Anathematic, Charontid and Skiavoros) being updated to N4 standard - they are iconic faction units, but other than the Avatar, they feel a bit too N3 to me. What are some of the changes you'd want to see in CA? Do you think vCA nerfs were enough to put it in a good spot or are they still too strong? What about new Morats - any glaring issues that could be easily fixed while still maintaining faction identity? Or perhaps some units are underperforming compared to others and could use small buffs (link changes etc)? Throw your ideas around and let's hope that CB will maybe consider some of them!
Jayth with taigha - give to him s4 silhouette and guard or give to taigha chain colt/light shotgun. Cadmus - reduce cost and bs (9) and ph, i want use morphoscan) Specula - reduce swc cost. (She lost improved impersonation, so she looks like hassasins impers.)
It's the other way round, all Impersonation works as Impersonation Plus now, unless stated otherwise. I do agree that Speculos could use SWC discount, maybe to 0.5/1 for the Minelayer. Some other changes that we could really use: Raktoraks getting NCO on all loadouts, not only VS one Kyosot getting T2 CCW to keep in theme, Shock CCW is useless on unit with a Heavy Pistol Sogarat getting a CC Attack (+1 Burst) instead of (+1 Dam) to make it a bit more rounded Changes to Bultrak to move it into a different niche than Raicho. I'd go with 6-6 MOV, less ARM, better CC and ranged weapons useful for CQB instead of long range fire support. And I'd scrap that abomination of a mini, too. Tensho remade into something actually useful in the context of Nox fireteam Calibans getting Zappers instead of Pulzars, or even losing DTWs altogether, to make some more space for Jayths. Maybe giving them Panzerfaust/Blitzen/Flash Pulse instead. MA1/2 and lower CC, for the same reason. Jayths getting more focused on CQB and CC. 6-2 MOV, Sixth Sense to reflect their nature as tunnelers used to fight in the dark. Hell, I'd even give them Eclipse Grenades. Sargosh getting Strategic Deployment and Hidden Deployment (no Surprise Attack or camo). This would represent him making a tunnel and attacking through it with other Jayths in tow. Noctifiers finally getting a Combi model. I know it's not a balance issue, but man, will we ever get one? :D
Noctifier Combi Rifle is probably coming out the same day as Mukhtar Red Fury and Hortlak Sniper I do really like the Sargosh idea, that was also my fix for him. It would help Jayth with their biggest weakness; being a short range unit with 4-4 movement starting in the deployment zone. Nice chain rifle and melee stats, too bad you will never get that close.
