Not everyone has Dart, and tables with such spaces exist. The Moran doesn't need to do missions or shoot if it prevents your opponent from occupying a pretty significant area of the table.
You still haven't been able to explain why you're incapable of tucking hackers and repeaters in protected positions where you have to expose yourself to their hacking area to deal with them.
This I can see. Like I don't think Guided is broken as such (partially bc if you're going all in on guided first turn, you're not developing your other pieces, so there's a kind of hidden opportunity cost) but it can feel bad and be powerful situationally for sure. I feel like maybe Targeted expiring after being attacked using it's mod would make it still a useful tool, without the ability to reliably pick out pieces to delete without your opponent not being able to do so much anything about it.
No I'm just capable of moving one of the many mobile and / or disposable troops who don't care about getting hacked to them to trivially take them out. Or you know, use a troop with a deployment skill to take out squishy hackers in my opponents DZ. You know, like basically competently playing whatever strengths the faction I'm playing give me rather than insisting whatever I play against is broken bc I can't beat it because I insist on not thinking differently than I already have. And explaining it simply many times to people insistent on not learning anything. My mistake.
Yeah, I don't see this against people who know how to deploy with overlapping fields of fire protecting things like that. And not every faction has access to these supposed tools. They're not deploying their hackers at the front of their DZ in the open lol. You're going to have to go past competent gunfighters to get to them. Nah, it's just you imagining a scenario that exists in games much less often than mine to justify why Nomads should have such a strong zero-risk defense. Zero-risk, or near zero-risk plays in Infinity are generally a bad idea for balance, and typically very powerful when they exist (Symbiomates et al).
It seems like what Hammond and May have to go through with Clarkson. However, if someone insists on using a hammer for every task, I can see why “use a spanner or key instead” might not register for them.
So the question really is - is your thesis correct and this is too powerful and not really counterable or is my thesis is correct and it is a strength of Nomads but reasonably counterable by other factions' strengths and therefore more or less balanced. To look at which thesis is closer to correct we could look at actual facts, i.e., game results, for example global TTS tournaments (which helps discount aberrant local meta effects, or people who speak with more authority than mastery). Vaul's global TTS comp was won by single combat group Steel Phalanx (largely hackable heavy infantry) The First N4 Infinity Global league was won by Invincible Army (the 'Heavy Infantry Sectorial') The second N4 Infinity Global league is currently being lead (after 4/5 rounds) by Vanilla Yu Jing (the 'Heavy Infantry Faction'). None by Nomads, or by the factions previously identified here as the supposed limited counters to Nomads supposed broken repeater nets. So either these players who win tournaments not with Nomads but with the things you say can't counter Nomads know something you don't. Or you, who doesn't win those kind of events, know something they don't. I'm more inclined to believe the former, because it's been factually demonstrated (and it matches my experience so far).
Or look at the bigger in-person events that have happened, where I believe you’d be hard pressed to find Nomads of any flavor in the top 10.
Spoiler Can you stop? This is not the way to promote a meaningful discussion. And I get it, the other side is not innocent of talking shit either. But 15 reasonable posts to 11 shitposts in one thread is mental (and way worse if you don't count a bunch of one sentence posts!). I think you should step back and reconsider the attitude, then maybe you'll get a better response. The FB censorship is bullshit, I agree. Fuck those guys. But if you want actual discussion, this attitude is not the way to get it.
Have you ever taken a look at NCA's roster? We either don't have those things at all, or they're Hackable. Our faction strength is direct shooting, to such a degree that we have nearly no forward deployment capability and possibly the worst Specialist choices in the game, but the NCA advantage can be handily avoided by the use of Total Cover. "Just use the strengths of your army" is a very irritating argument when they aren't applicable to the situation. My best answer to the constant appearances of Jazz (she's very popular locally) is using the Squalo and hoping it's tall enough to see the roof Morans, anything else I may as well not even play my faction. It's probably even less reassuring to the person you're arguing with, considering he plays OCF. OCF is possibly the best KHD faction in the game, and having a faction strength be completely useless is an even worse feeling.
I own and have played NCA and OCF some myself. Double Swiss is obscene. It's one thing I've given new players to play when I want to make them feel good by winning. Doesn't change the argument. And if it did it would change it from 'This is generally uncounterably overpowered' (which is the argument being made) to 'This is difficult to play against with my one sectorial' which is a totally different argument. And possibly one people might be more willing to consider, because it's more within the the realm of reasonably possible given the facts.
If you can kill the well-protected Jazz/Interventor/whatever with non-hacking means, you've already got the Nomad player outmaneuvered and outmatched. There's no meaningful counterplay without stuff that would counterplay anything else - so it's bad for the game design space. Very fun for Nomad players when their opponent has to get lucky and make risky plays to make it through their low-risk defense, though.
If said spanner has a more likely chance of wasting the points you invested in it than succeeding, it's an insulting direction to give.
I agree that spotlight/guided is not broken and that if you're going all in on this attack vector (especially in factions who don't have pitchers and other tools that help facilitate the attack vector) its not great. However, I do think it's pretty efficient and rather too easy for some factions (e.g. nomads, HB, onyx, CA, white company, Haq, O12) to just delete some targets with a pitcher. I also think that factions with a turn 0 or turn 1 repeater net are able to accrue probably too much value over a game because they're able to get spotlight AROs off all over the board with very little risk. I have not play tested it at all, but I think curbing the effect slightly would be good (e.g. making spotlight require a save on BTS or reducing the max range of pitchers).
God forbid you have to outmaneuver and outmatch someone with your strengths rather than theirs in a factionally asymmetric game of tactics. You're right, unassailable logic, game is clearly broken
Obviously you are not aware, and are just plain wrong, because Anathematics have Camoflage and Hidden Deployment which means you can't hack them in those states. Therefore it's harder to hack than Jazz behind a repeater.
Nomads/Corregidor aren't lacking in the other strengths, though. Except they can't hack without exposing themselves. Moving on... Ah yes, insults. Not really an argument.
