Well actually we can, given that the vast majority of profiles supposedly aren't changing beyond the universal cost scaling changes which keeps them all relatively on par with each other. The point being made here is we're directly adding a blatant solo gunfighter into a faction that traditionally doesn't do ODD solo gunfighters and is normally playing an asymmetric game around cheap Irregular units or sneaky assassin shit like Fidays. Except it can't anymore so we're adding these solo gunfighters normally found in higher tech factions that don't get to leverage other things like smoke, Impersonation, or advanced hacking programs in exchange for these gunfighters. So in the interests of fairness where do we go from there? Do we give everyone everything as I fear? Do we leave it unfair with some factions defined by what they don't get while some get all the toys like @SpectralOwl fears? What do we do?
If I give a surgeon a clawhammer, it doesn't change him into a carpenter. In fact, most surgeons are going to ignore that hammer, as it doesn't enter into what they are trying to achieve and how they are trying to achieve it. If they do use it, I suspect they use it differently than that carpenter. The game has changed, yes. It may be that some armies struggle longer to find their footing than others. But the presence of new tools in armies doesn't mean that armies are going to 1) use all those tools in the same way, 2) therefore become "samey" to the point of being indistinguishable, and 3) that we can understand the state-of-play under the new rules (both the tac window and the sundry other changes to how the game will play). We might all agree in the end that the above is true - that the surgeon is just a carpenter and vice versa - but I don't think we have anything like the information we would need to feel confident in that outcome at this stage.
We haven't yet, but this is simply the starting step. Where armies start getting things that are normally antithetical to their core concepts. We're at the stage where somebody starts, then other people copy to catch up. Today Bahram gets the gunfighter. Tomorrow Pan-O gets a smoke throwing warband, the day after Yu Jing steals a character from a different faction gets pitchers and White Noise. The point being, I don't like where we're going with this, and I am disappointed that it's started over trying to fix something that was implemented badly into the game despite good intentions.
I think this is where we differ. I don't think we have nearly enough information to infer where it is we are going, or in fact if we are going anywhere. I think you are seeing two points and inferring a line.
Inferring a line or not, we have indeed created a starting point to an undesirable end point that much is undeniable. I think the game would've been better served going in a different direction for sure.
I hope this doesn't sound too rude but I got honestly have got ask you, when was the last time you thought this game was going in a good direction? Is it just me, or are so many of your posts doom and gloom? Also, its not a Locust. The locust has overcost and bloated profiles. The Shujae is pretty optimized and has hidden deployment. Thats last part is a very important difference. Heres hoping the poor locust can finally get hidden deployment.
Is the point that every other thread you've started on this theme has ended up being mostly wrong or entirely wrong? If anything, spammy lists were more similar than elite lists will be. Because cheap profiles aren't all that different. So a format that encourages armies to take those midcost options more might do the opposite to what you're asserting.
And here I thought that was IA Also, even if this wasn't a step a homogeneization of armies (and I think it is), nobody is a little tired of this ultra optimization trend CB has been following for the last year or so?
A lot of charm in some of my favourite troopers is the combination of less strictly efficient skill and equipment when they're able to be used for novel tactics and strategies. A little bit of raw potency doesn't hurt, and even the most versatile toolbox needs to have the ability to hold their own ground. More and more, I notice profiles designed as it to tick off a specific set of boxes with very little fat to play around with. Skills in use designed more to crunch harder, more efficient numbers as opposed to encouraging interesting play strategies. The one that's come to bother me most lately are the Crushers. Tigers were already a very strongly optimized profile as it was, and Crushers feel like they were designed specifically to be a hit job on them (I'd include the Liu Xing here as well, but any trooper is a hit job against them by virtue of existing).
As far as overarching decisions go rather than faction specific issues? The push to move towards a more active living rules set through the FAQ update schedule and ITS specific rules injections was a good move. Wasn't perfect, and some updates required a couple of rounds to fix like the shooting in the back from the front, but in the long term I think it was a good move in for game health to more actively curate the rules set. Shame it took the community forcing the issue and causing a huge shitshow to get the ball really rolling but I'm more interested in the results than the cause.
I understand how the shujae seems very similar to the locust rules, concept, and game design wise. But it is still a different beast and rules wise they have striking differences. However i also have been saying forever that CB should be more creative and unique in their designs, even moreso now that theyve broken down how rules are applied to units so they can be even more customized. But instead of creating a guy with 4-6 mov so when choosing to risk getting shot for that sweet extra movement it seems like they have a special boosted all out sprint, cb is trying to add a rook to pano and a knight to haqq. But not to seem too negative, i do still love a lot they are doing and not everything is built like a chess piece, after all, the Namurr is considered bleh but is one of my fave and most used units.
Sadly, my favourite unit is the Neoterra Bolt... I don't think Tactical Window is going to force armies to become more similar, I agree that design mismanagement by CB is the most likely cause. Fireteam salad, Mercenary oversaturation almost to the point of parody and this weird insistence they've had lately of giving many profiles within the same unit radically different loadouts are all going to hurt faction identity more than a hard cap on Troopers already on the higher end of what many non-top players actually use.
I think we are very close to the end of the rope as far as the existing skills and attributes can create new units that don't deviate from a faction's faction identity. I'm not sure how much can be blamed on trying to balance Tactical Window as the default. Prediction for the future is that faction identity will be more defined by AVA than what troops are available, aside from PanO not having the technology that defines the the futuristic cyber-battlefields of INFINITY (Smoke bombs from the 13th century).
While I think that AVA should define Sectorials more, from my point of view the so called "Faction Identity" is still intact. Nomads for example have pretty neat hacking trinks, among other things. Pitcher and Morans in combination with Mary, Jazz and Billie and Interventors generate a pretty good hacking identity. The special programs of the mentioned hackers do help as well. And while I am not so deep inside the other factions I think at least for something like Shasvastii and PanO this still works as well. Although I have to to say that lately some of the new PanO-profiles looked very ... nomady ... So I think even with Tactical Window faction identity can be preserved if some small gimmicks are faction specific or at least more widespread used throughout specific factions.
Eh there will always be some 'homogenization' over time. As more profiles are added, the inevitable outcome is some mixture of new rules, same rules for other factions, or deletion of some rules to make room for others. Oh man, like 400 thumbs up for that. I love it when sectorials are defined by either unique profiles or meaningful AVA changes. Its a little sad that some of the new hassassins stuff for example is mostly a boon for vanilla.
The only N3 templates that work as Skirmishers are Camo, TO Camo and non Marker State Perimeter/Minelayer. Being salty about anyone having a functional Mimetism (-6) Skirmisher without Marker State is the same as being salty about anyone else having Infiltrating Camo. It's a new class of troop in N4 that doesn't exist yet. Heck no one else even has that combo available to stake a claim on it. How about indulging Hassassins with a very fitting sneaky troop that just shows up out of nowhere and only possible with N4? It's not like Haqq didn't have the tech for full blown TO Camo - remember Tuareg exist? With limited slots, excess points have nowhere else to go than into diversity. You'll probably still want to fit more things that increase Order efficiency with the capped pool, but there are several ways to achieve that (TacAwareness/NCO/Lt+COC, Links, AD, Infiltration/Forward Deployment, Faster/bigger/more efficent pointmen). And more importantly ways to hamstring your opponent's Order pool now that you can't throw expendable bodies at him to do the same.
Fluffwise Haqq and Tuareg dont have access to TO Camo. Tuareg are just so good at camouflaging, that they count as TO Camo ruleswise.
Sounds like there’s a fluff justification for hidden deployment and mim-6 then? Not all mim-6 needs to be ODD, and also there’s a several-year time jump for N4, long enough Haqq camo tech to make some progress...
