Interesting. As someone who started with Aleph after the point increase I didn't feel the nerf the same way. Sure I am aware that the lists could have 2 or 4 more points to spend pre nerf but it still feels like Netrods are a way to go.
And that's okay. It would make for a very boring game, if everyone was finding exactly the same list to be working for them. I've long said that - in an ideal game as I see it - no unit or loadout should be an autoinclude, and every one of them should be a viable choice (possibly with specific scenarios making certain units more or less viable - in a given scenario). As for lists not working post-update, I take it as a default. Then again, seems that I use different approach to the lists than you: except for one QK list that stays with me since N2 (and I call it "I don't have the strength to think" list), I make up a fresh list before each game. Yes, the "no-thinking" list had to see a number of adjustments due to the updates along the way.
Agreed. If all units are viable as choices then all lists should be viable. Certainly there would be missions which could not be done easily with some lists but it does make for a more engaging and fun game. It’d also give people the excuse they needed to paint up that one mini that’s been sitting out for ages…
when i play vanilla nomads, i feel very relaxed on bringing new things. lets take a gator this time , why not a heckler thats ok, tomcat or better carlota my points are fine. why not a prowler spitfire this time. etc. In sectorials like OSS, i found myself in a situation that it is a must to bring a dakini core+ posthumans. i never take yadus. never asura , never a haris . after playing 10 games i realised that i was changing 1-2 units like bringing a naga or dart etc. Small changes in the link. like csu or deva decisions. Because i had to be competitive. What i want to feel is like i feel in nomads actually. I want to try to new things and still feel competitive.
Isn't this a weird request? Vanilla should always be more flexible than a sectorial. That is the point of Vanilla.
It does feel like the "Someone was wrong on the Internet" XKCD strip sometimes :P While I'm ranting about bad takes that annoy me, this one hasn't come up yet in this thread I think but I see it around: Joan, Uxia, and other resculpts don't cause SKU bloat There have been two SKUs for each since shortly after Uxia got her alternate profile in Campaign: Paradiso, one each for their quite different profiles. Resculpts directly replace the old one in the catalogue, so still the same number of SKUs, limited edition minis don't increase the size of the permanent catalogue, so don't create SKU bloat.
While these are all markers and therefore minis aren't really necessary, I would definitely buy a deployable equipment pack.
No but it is bloody annoying to see endless resculpts of the same few models when there are ancient ones in need of an update, well used profiles without a viable mini, profiles that have never had a mini, or majorly awesome stuff that's been mothballed and never re released like uhlan/tik going wanting.
No argument here, but there always seems to be a "But what about SKU bloat" comment too, to the point where I don't think some people know what SKU boat actually is.
That's because CB uses the term themselves without rhyme or reason. They first used it as reason to slash entire factions like Tohaa and MRRF, then to spam us with wildcards and Defiance characters before the KS even shipped and now they're just adding new profiles instead of filling out the glaring omissions that existed for years.
I think he's arguing more about how unnecessarily limiting OSS and its ilk are, with only one viable Fireteam and expensive scoring pieces which restrict your options in a competitive list far too much. I find NCA, for example, to be far more flexible with its viable lists (unless playing into Morans, who soft-counter the whole army and require deliberate counterplay) due to its Fusilier- and Bolt- based links both being viable, its defensive and scoring pieces being more affordable and utility options usually being linkable into a Haris for little cost. You can even run a TAG list with minimal sacrifice of capability if you take your cheaper options for most tasks. While Vanilla PanO certainly allows a bit more "throw it in", many of the game's other Sectorials do still allow for variety and creativity- especially the older ones, which saw a lot more support over the years.
I very much dislike the "there's only one way to play sectorial X seriously" argument, as people tend to dismiss any alternatives for very superficial reasons, and arguments that this or that unit should get streamlined and cheaper would only make everything - both within an army and between them - more homogenous and less interesting to play. This is extremely common reason for which people dismiss units - based on cost alone, without seriously considering the increased capabilities of units in question. Just because a unit is expensive doesn't mean it's useless.
Expensive units do, however, limit what else you can fit into a list. ITS's specific unit requirements for scoring (Specialist Skills, decent LT options, unit classifications) and the increasing number of gear checks to counter the current wave of alpha-strikes mean certain factions suffer greatly in many ITS scenarios or in certain matchups, being forced to spend large amounts of points just to stand a chance at victory and leaving less room to play around. OSS is probably the standout example in Infinity currently, as they have such limited and expensive options for most non-Hacking roles that force players to leave the fun stuff at home if a scenario lineup is even mildly varied. I've seen people having fun with OSS, make no mistake, but they have to give up things like Skirmishers or a Hacking network to afford those Yadus, not just a few points of WIP or a level of MSV, and if opponents can exploit that weakness they get cleaned up fast. A lot of factions don't have to worry about that as much, but it's a real problem for OSS.
It's brick-and-mortar store centric. I do not believe for a minute that in-store purchases of Infinity are higher globally than online purchases (either from CB or all kinds of stores, resellers, etc.). Store shelf space is not and definitely should not be the reason for cutting SKUs by a game company.
Doesn't matter if online or B&M stores or more, it would be shooting yourself in the foot if you miss an entire revenue avenue.
Online stores still have to manage shelf space, not to mention that many are also B&M stores. Most places I order from have a physical store as well as their online one. We also know shelf space is the reason CB has been quite aggressive in cutting SKUs, they've been quite open about the fact its based on feedback from existing and potential resellers (digital and B&M)
Not to mention that a lot of people prefers to support their local businesses, especially since local stores often double as gaming spaces. And the online price isn't that much lower with shipping included. So it's an important sales channel for more than one reason.
I still make my UK orders from Leodis Games simply because they're a store that provides playing space where I used to live. Prices are pretty much the same as everywhere else so I like to give them the money. The linked article is very relevant for them as they're a B&M store with an online presence.
