The biggest issue that I have with hacking being "too good" has absolutely nothing to do with it being too good, it's got everything to do with several factions are fucking shit at it. The equaliser is making everyone good at hacking but keeping factional identity by making them better at different things. If I can actually put Defensive Hacking devices on the table that can, you know, defend me then there isn't as much of an issue in being forced to go toe to toe with another hacking based faction. If you give Ariadnans the ability to compete in the hacking sphere they won't feel compelled to bust out 15+ camo markers and Pedobear lists that are functionally immune to hacking as a counterplay because they're sick of being spotlit and watching their fireteams explode to guided fire. Congrats by the way, the changes to N4 hacking means you the Nomad player are actually still going to play N3 hacking where your hackers are all a big waste of points because for some factions to be competitive means the gear check forces them to build hard counter lists. That's my go to for Vanilla Yu Jing and White Banner. You wanna hack? Too bad, fuck you, here camo marker. Nobody gets to hack anything now. While effective, that's less fun for my opponent and completely at odds with CB's goal of making N4 hacking consistently useful instead of either being good or a total waste of points like it was in N3.
I couldn't love the hacking game more. When they turned spotlight into an effects all programme I was over the moon, it finally meant you 1-2 hackers actually had a use over objectives when playing Ariadna. And who the hell thinks TAGs are useless in N4?
I don't agree that this is an issue. This is mainly a challenge for CB to design a game environment where both factions devoid of hacking and faction replete with hacking can compete. Making everyone good at hacking is taking the path of making everyone more the same and arguably Infinity's biggest single weakness is that every faction is already too damned similar. Why does it have to be a defensive hacking device? Don't think I understand this at all. I think you're mostly conflating problems here. Pedro and pals are basically a self-contained issue in how they're priced while Rokots are the truck that broke the camel's back when it comes to camo spam AVA. Neither really have anything to do with hacking as such and alterations to hacking won't really do anything to incentivise massed camouflage markers because it's a highly effective tactic regardless if there's a missile threat on the table. Wanna hack and your opponent is part of Big Hack? Yes, you're SOL even if they don't go all-in on hacking. That's an issue. Wanna hack and the opponent is not? I find hacking in that case to be fairly enjoyable and strategic, because VYJ and WB have the tactical tools to do hacking. There's factions that don't (ISS, Tohaa, etc), but VYJ and WB are not those factions
I read this posts and there is only one thing i can say. If you are facing a Hacker with high BTS and in a fireteam protected by a Tinbot, why the hell are you trying to hack him? Why are you playing the worst possible way you can? Were it your last resort, give it a try. Otherwise? Bullets, Glue, Missiles, cabinets, cars... You have plenty of ways to deal with them APART A SINGLE ONE WERE THEY EXCEL. You are trying to use the right tool for the wrong use.
Another thing to consider it's BTS value. The fact that it's just 3/6/9 is a remnant from N2 ? Now this is useless and could be like ARM with different values.
The one thing I would want to see changed is to nerf Oblivion in line with E/M to DAM13. Still punches through BTS9 just fine. But doesn't laugh at Firewalls anymore. It has all the same problems Redrum had in N3, being superior to Carbonite in 9/10 cases should be easy enough to fix.
The thing about Hacking is that it doesn't follow the same terrain and range considerations as the rest of the game, which can very, very easily create no-win scenarios for a lot of lists- unless you're blessed with easy access to an ideally-unhackable assassin piece, or good mobile MI, the Jazz+Morans-on-roof combo doesn't really have a counter. The game's mechanics don't make a foot assault on a position you have to Climb to reach viable unless you have 2W, and most 2W units get shut down by Hacking. This could be repaired pretty easily by making Grenade Launchers remotely good at their jobs again, or in a more difficult and satisfying way by narrowing the total gulf in Hacking capability.
Then you weren't using hacking effectively in N3 tbh. White noise, supportware, evo supportware - these were all great in N3 when your opponent didn't have a counter
Again, this is where reading comprehension comes into play. We're saying that it *should be* viable, not that it is and it isn't working. The other issue is that a hacker can be the most protected model in the enemy army, so if you have a non-hacking solution to deal with them, then you could probably deploy it against anyone on the table anyway. I've talked about this before, but with a TAG, developing the piece (moving it up the board) comes with risks, it can be flanked etc. With a hacker, developing the piece (expanding its hacking area) doesn't come with meaningful risks if you're sufficiently protected. That should change. Well when it says "Killer Hacking Device" on the tin, and it worked that way in N3, we're left wondering who made the mistake of undertuning it in N4 to where it can't accomplish his goal, which is to punish expansive hacking networks. Because there are hacking TAG equivalents in N4 (BTS 9 hackers behind firewalls etc) we need the AP HMG equivalent as well - but it doesn't exist.
To be perfectly honest with you, any model that can be described as "the most protected model in the enemy army" should probably not have the luxury of having meaningful AROs until a hostile brakes that protection open. Maybe that is the problem, no?
Possibly! But if KHDs could effectively attack them through repeater networks they wouldn't be "the most protected model in the enemy army," and thus that wouldn't be necessary.
Horses for courses and all that. Trying to turn your Shire into a Trakehner isn't likely to work. Doesn't mean there's anything wrong with either breed, or with the course, just your approach to it.
For a certain definition of "not necessary". Not necessary against Combined or OCF, maybe, but most factions would still have the same problem, plus also being massively less able to keep their modest hackers alive, so for most factions it'd be one step forward two steps back.
The solution is still for you to learn to play the game better rather than complain about how you don't want to and insult people who disagree with you on the internet though. Just because you insist your things should simply beat other peoples things, that doesn't make it true. Just like if you say your combi is designed to shoot things dead, but doesn't do that against a Jotum in cover so it's broken, you're wrong. Because you're insisting on ignoring or discounting the context of all the other things you could do instead of learning how to master the better options. There's not an AP HMG KHD, but there are templates on cheap non hackable warbands (often with climbing plus or super jump) who don't care about spotlight and can trivially take out repeaters and / or punish clustered links null deployed on a roof. As one of many situational solutions. The game is all about finding good solutions in a well balanced game, not about complaining that the ones you personally insist should work don't and trying to drown out any other opinion to the point people stop listening. Jazz + Tinbot lists are hardly winning every tournament, far from it. Because it is costly and counter-able, and good players counter it. I'll leave you to continue to brow beat anyone who disagrees with you endlessly. But I'd really rather that since you aren't particularly a Nomad player and don't have anything particularly constructive to say about them in what is normally a largely constructive sub-forum, that you didn't.
No, you won't get to bleat out "git gud" and have me take you seriously. It's not insulting to point out that @tox failed to understand what I typed, and it's impertinent of you to say so. It's Nomad players who insist that they should be able to project their hacking game across the table, and the only recourse should be jamming a piece deep into their DZ, through all of their LoF-ignoring defensive pieces, with no meaningful counterplay through the repeater net possible. I'm saying that that *shouldn't* be the case. What *is* is closer to the former. No, actually, you're the one who's ignoring the context of what's going on. A Combi Rifle is not explicitly called out as an anti-TAG weapon; a KHD is explicitly noted as being an anti-hacker weapon, and in previous editions was particularly good at this role. So your analogy and argument fall flat entirely. No, most warbands do not have climbing plus or super jump, and it's incredibly disingenuous for you to claim so. As someone noted earlier in this thread, it's generally understood that if you have to climb or jump to get to a piece, expect to take a wound getting there. I'm not so stupid as to fall for your lie on this topic. If someone could attack Jazz or an Interventor hiding in the DZ with a warband or drop troop, then why not the Nomad lieutenant? The answer is it doesn't happen until they've opened up a bit, because the defending player has probably deployed troops in such a way that that deployment or line of attack results in being shot at. "Hurrr durrr use a warband" is not a good solution to the problem, and just falls under you trying to explain away the unique unassailability the Nomad hacking game has. When the game isn't well balanced, I'll talk about it. Your insistence that it is falls flat, especially as you're misrepresenting the game, seemingly intentionally, at multiple points throughout this post; if you had an argument that didn't rely on obfuscation, I'd presume you'd use it. Its counter is marker state spam. Not available to all factions, and generally considered bad for the game. Congratulations. Nah, this is a public forum, I'll talk about the game where I please. This isn't facebook where someone who reasonably disagrees with a warcor's take on the game gets banned in a childish fit of pique.
I think you seriously overestimate how much I care if you take me seriously, or take you seriously ;) Have an excellent day. Oh and P.S. I've been playing Combined instead recently partly bc they are stronger for me than Nomads IMHO, with or without repeater nets.
Please direct your whining to CB, it's the only way you're going to change anything whether you are right or wrong. Please let's keep the forums positive.
"Isn't well balanced" is a bit of an overstatement. There are some things that could use a tweak, but thats true for every game, and tweaking them will probably bring something else up that will need a tweak. This is definitely not a badly balanced game by the usual standards of wargaming! Fuck I wish I could like this twice. I've seen something similar to this used in that new game KILLWAGER, where you use intel resources to find the opponents lieutenant, list composition, or similar. Having hacking be an element of that would be so fucking cool. I agree quite a lot with your points of view here. I mean it goes without saying that the DHD should, like, do something (I can't believe that it worked in 2nd edition, but not in either of the editions since), but more in the idea of everyone hacking and specializing in different 'schools' of not-magic. It would make the factions feel more distinct in their hacking than they do now, where they are mostly divided along two axis of pitcher/repeater access and device access that isn't all that interesting.
