A jammer can't jam if the warband stealthes around. And as soon as it breakes it's stealth it might already be where it has to be.
For what it's worth I don't think msv 2 is the silver bullet to solve this problem. (If it even really is a "problem" from a game balance perspective). As is, it's a risky move to leave something like an intruder or agema out in ARO. A (maybe linked) AP hmg will probably kill it in short order anyway, and the expensive msv 2 piece can't be everywhere watching all lanes war bands can approach. Not saying it's a bad tactic when the matchup calls for it, just saying it won't automatically solve your problems. Really the weaknesses is in a lack of ablative bodies, not a lack of msv. That's a deliberate weaknesses of Tunguska. If you go second, you really need to think about setting up aros on limited approaches. Covering a 32 inch lane zone to zone is probably bad, a shorter 24 inch coverage, may be a lot safer, and models like a Kriza have a good chance to survive multiple orders before needing to bug out into total cover. You also need to wisely use what ablative bodies you have, like transductors, you don't have many.
I think this is the biggest issue in Tunguska. At the moment, they can't compete with Vanilla, Corregidor and Bakunin if the format is not Limited Insertion.
My problem atm is, that if I look, what I can build with Vedic in LI or with Thunguska, Vedic will win. No such fancy things like V:NWI, MSV2 or Mimetism, only superjumping HI. I dindn't play JCoT and plaid against it only once, but it seems so boring to me. Their Linked Fireteams aren't bad, but compared with other sectorials, they are to expensive. We are lacking: - Warbands - cheap Linkteams - Range mods (offensivr and defensive) - CC in common Thungsika brought some good units for vanilla, that's it.
Well I hadn't yet played against Tungusha (yet) but 6-2 MOV HI with superjump sounds crazy good. Especially as 100% tables I play on lacks terrain rules ^^.
If they are useable or waste hinges on the tabel layout, yes. If you play with your own table, you can influence it. If you drive to a competition it's a gambling I don't want.
That's what your other list is for. That being said I largely agree. My PanO friends tell me that Tunguska list builds like PanO, which I think is fairly accurate. OTOH Tunguskan troops work quite well in Vanilla.
We will have to agree to disagree. I'm about a dozen or so games with with Tunguska and for the most part have done very well. Last months tournament had some flukes like Perseus and 3 friends failing to kill Achilles. It certainly takes a different mind set and deployment strategy. You can't force your opponent to burn orders on chaff, since you don't have much. You instead have to think about how to force them into burning orders moving, and how to screw them once they get there. ATM the emauler heckler is my favorite for that reason, and he's cheapish. I play aleph and nomads, I like both. The Aleph forum is crying about how crappy rudras, and yadus are. Whatever, I think those units are good too. The grass is always greener on the other side. I've been building a lot of LI for next months tournament, elite securitate links, hollowman links, two solo, or even duo Kriza, the special Perseus haris, ect are all great. My initial reaction is is Vedic is stellar in LI, and I still think that, but after building and playing Tunguska LI lists I think we do really well in that format too. (I can also see puppet links excelling almost as much as post humans do.) Don't forget Vedic lacks smoke. If I had to choose between smoke or msv 2, I would pick smoke every time. We also get fancy things like hrmcs, odd, full auto 2, and NWI characters, just not on everything.
Why do Corregidor and Bakunin have things that Tunguska doesn't? It should have been the ultimate Nomads, removing any reason to play the others. I shouldn't have to sacrifice the advantages of my last faction to get the advantages of the next one.
Right? RIGHT?! /s On a more serious note. I wouldn't mind the absence of any kind of MSV in a sectorial if it is consistent with the background at least on some level. To omit specifically MSV2 in a sectorial that carries itself with a palpable aura of paranoia and surveillance mania just seems like an extremely weird design choice. The lack of any warbands and most skirmishers makes total sense on the other hand. It's hard to control those "out there" chaotic elements so why even take the risk?
I'm of the opinion that Vanilla Nomads is stronger than any of the three sectorials. It's worth defining what I mean by "stronger." In this context I mean that I don't have to work quite as hard to problem solve in vanilla. I have access to a much more varied set of tools when list building, and I'm not concentrating my threat in a particular corner of my deployment zone with a link. Playing vanilla, I simply have to work less hard mentally. Also, I think Vanilla lists degrade more gracefully so in that sense, vanilla is "stronger." This is of course my experience, and others find links lessen their cognitive load. It's really about what works for you. That said, I don't think I've ever been in a situation where I can point to a game and say: "I wish I was playing <X> faction or had <Y> tool and that's why I lost." @natetehaggresar and I have crossed swords many times with various flavors of Nomads, and I can definitely say that it never comes down to "oh, I took Corregidor and Nate took vanilla, therefore, he wins." It always comes down to: "I did something stupid, or Nate's dice sucked, etc etc." And besides, sectorials should feel different and vary the level of challenge for you. Perhaps I'm alone, but I want to have "arbitrary" limitations placed on me moving from sectorial to sectorial. I don't want to have a MSV2 unit in every Nomad sectorial, nor do I want warbands in Tunguska. That's the interesting thing about Tunguska! It doesn't play like anything else in Nomads. Infinity is a game about tactical problem solving and resource management. It's not interesting to me if everyone starts with the exact same problem and resources--then it just becomes Yahtzee with a tape measure. I will agree that it's a bit odd, fluff-wise, that they don't have MSV2, but I'm happy to suspend disbelief and roll some dice. If I want to feel the most comfortable, I'll play vanilla Nomads. If I'm looking for a different flavor, experience, or challenge, I'll pick up a sectorial. You win the game on the table, not in the army builder.
It's a fair choice, and my usual direction as well. But it does leave you vulnerable to these issues. I don't like heavily skewed tables for this reason (ie the whole table is a low vis zone): but I do feel that 25-50% of the table as a terrain zone is reasonable and cool. Ideally you'd see a roughly normal distribution of special terrain coverage based on a median of 25% (IE two 12"X12" zones). This table is one where you can readily meet that standard (all of the hills with trees are forest terrain gives 25-30% coverage), but doing so will really limit the options for a mobile Hollowmen link (depending where they deploy). And I wouldn't say that it's imbalanced with Terrain effects applied.
I suspect Grenzers are viewed by CB as the Tunguska MSV unit. With AVA5 and linkable with Line Troops it suggets they are really common on Tugunska. I know from a game play view MSV2 is far superior to 1, but from a fluff view there probably isn't that much difference. And on top of it the Grenzers also have Sensor and BMVs so that probably covers all the paranoia needs for Tunguska. :/
I am aware of the fact that Tunguska needs another approach. But apart from LI tournaments I can't see the reasoning why I should pick Tunguska over Bakunin, for example. We have some issues in Tunguska who make them fit only certain missions and opponents. At the moment we face a first turn rush to an objective like the AC2 or into our deployment zone we can't do much about it. Same for CC focused rushes against our army. Perseus lost CC fights in a link on my side as well. These are the top two issues to me with Tunguska. Rest of the sectorial is fine but these problems are huge if you go to a tournament and face JSA or TAK, for example. I used to believe this as well. Played about 10 tournaments with Vanilla, won one as well. But to me, Vanilla is a 50:50 bet. With ITS9 and ITS10 more focused on combat defensive links or strong HI fireteams are more potent than solo models in Vanilla in my opinion.
I want to know who thought the Kriza Haris was worth making in such a useless manner. What possible gains are there in running a 130pt+ Haris with no specialists and no added firepower.
You can stuff three Krizas into the armory and... have b2 pseudo suppression I guess? The Mk12/SMG in a haris on aro duty sounds okay on paper, but not half my list okay.
The Hollow Man brings a Tinbot for hacking defense too. 2 Szalamandra and a HM+2xKirza Haris leaves 70 points left for a 400 point list :P
