Excellent point that the problem of complexity just got hidden in profiles, instead of being in a list of different programs that people could at least sort through and consider. This should be addressed in the next version of the core rules. For now we're probably stuck with it. I'm with you in missing the plethora of hacking programs, and I actually used Icebreaker, Basilisk, etc. (RIP Overclock in particular!). Ironically, the voices of people on forums insisting loudly that those programs were "garbage that never gets used" probably influenced the designers' choice to cut them. Those posters were wrong about the tools, and it sucks that vocal abrasiveness lead to a poor design change. A happy medium where MOST hackers use an expanded list of actual programs, many of which may be unique or heavily restricted and which represent these little -3 or +1 B tweaks, would be best. You could find the program in a list, a list that you have looked over before to get an idea of how that program measures up. It would also allow those boosted programs to also have drawbacks like lower Burst, which none of the current boosted Hacker profiles' enhanced programs have. The approach that you mention at the end there seems legit: not using hacking -but paying a tax to do so- seems like something the game -should- allow. There's a strong incentive now for any given army's list to engage in hacking, but they should have the option to do so and just pay for it either with protective measures, or by knowing they're going to get Spotlighted. Ariadna does have some cost there, and they do suffer a bit even when they simply skip hacking. They get Spotlighted and then push that Spolighted template warband forwards anyways. But then your guy's smoke toss is less likely to succeed on an F to F, and HI etc. can actually get Obilvioned.
I'm not saying it shouldn't be allowed as an option, the problem is CB tried to encourage more interactive hacking with N4 but ended up doing the opposite by encouraging players to drop active defenses for passive defenses. They had a goal but failed to achieve it, and in fact straight up did the opposite of what they wanted. Picking passive defenses should naturally be a thing but it shouldn't be the overwhelming meta way to defend yourself as a mid tier faction.
Not sure I agree there. Playing YJ, camo hackers are still pretty useful at taking out Nomad hackers. I've been on the giving and receiving ends of that equation in N4. We tend to exaggerate the degree that unit choice presents when looking at stuff on paper. In use, the active turn vs passive turn Burst differences still help even stuff out in hacking, much like they do in shooting. It usually comes down to having a couple tricky approach vectors to use to get there, or having your hacker and a way-clearer (warband usually) in separate groups. Using Supportware for Firewall can also boost those attacking skirmish/AD hackers to be more likely to win F to Fs. That's play-use choice that doesn't show up well when considering a direct confrontation while looking at lists.
Not even close. Trinity bounces off their top end hackers. I played the CJC matchup for months, trying to dig Jazz or a Brigada hacker out of a link with a Ninja is a joke.
Jazz with a Tinbot -6 does suck to attack, and that’s appropriate for Nomads, CA, Aleph, etc. Same for a Zhanying attached to a Tinbot Hsien or Wu Ming though, or any hacker with Tinbot -6 cover. Only difference is a single point less Damage on Trinity, and they’re probably AROing with Oblivion anyways. Put a Firewall on that Ninja with an EVO and it will do better. I use that option with Zeroes when attacking Tinbot targets. Evens the odds. But the same Ninja’s sword is a better option, and a worthwhile use of the points and orders. This is what I mean by not just looking at head to head frontal assaults, either hacking or physical. Same model, same points, used differently. Still has the option for the KHD even, if your opponent has carefully protected the hacker and you haven’t been able to open a hole with your other combat group.
Yeah that's exactly my point though, the hacking gap widened in N4. You can't, as a mid tier hacking faction, expect your basic hacking equipment to compete anymore. Which pushes players to abandon active hacking defenses for passive ones which makes the hacking meta game less interactive which is the opposite of what CB was shooting for in N4. There was more F2F hacking in N3 than N4, which is the opposite of what I hoped would happen with the edition change. Seriously run the numbers dude, it doesn't come close to pushing them into a viable range. Trinity is pillow fisted, and when a native decent BTS stat combos with a firewall it just bounces off them more often than not.
Well, you're saying that as if Ariadna's game plan changed in response to N4 - it really didn't. Half feels like CB's trying to force Ariadna to play less camo spam than in N3 by making a bunch of their non-camo units really really strong and totally immune, but I remember many a thread throughout N3, all iterations, where Ariadna was complained about because it was difficult if not impossible to pop camo units in anything approaching order efficient way. It's simply been a solid and strong way to play since the first edition. Also, while the hacking game in N3 was cluttered with non-choices, it's not quite the same in N4. Those MODs that you claim are creating 'new' hacking programs aren't optional. Gromoz does not have the option of using the bad version of Total Control. While I agree that the state of hacking is currently one-dimensional, I don't agree that it is because of the MODs (that's mainly causing unnecessary troop profile pollution and cementing how there's a few factions that can and a few that shouldn't bother), but rather that there's one hacking program that's so much stronger than the others that there's seldom a real choice of what effects you want to create. Which is kind of the Redrum situation without Trinity as an option. And Trinity is fine. Seriously. It's got a good dynamic on more regular units and you can't put a hacking program that's strong enough to deal with highly competent Tinbotted BTS 6+ Hackers with Sixth Sense on more than like one or two units (+2 DAM, coughcough) without invalidating almost all hackers that's seeing a bit of table time now that it's no longer a certain death sentence. On a completely empty table, who is king? Reactive player because the active player won't be able to get enough burst from their resources to win against all threats. That's a bit like what hacking is. There's no partial benefits from movements, no way to create uneven benefits from distance, and no way to dynamically use cover the way it is with shooting. But that's still better than N3 was at any point. Much better.
It's not about being cluttered with non choices, it's about it not being simplified despite what people claim. That hacker has a Hacking Device doesn't mean shit, they could have any random program and if you don't know their profiles off by heart you have to check on what they actually do. People who couldn't play non KHDs in N3 were people who did not understand how the hacking game worked in N3. I will stand by that statement to the end. Every damn time we have this discussion it starts like this with you complaining that ADS weren't viable in N3 and every damn time @Hecaton or someone drops in to remind you they saw play at top level events. Hacking in N3 was an active fight with hackers actually trying to bait each other out and get the upper hand hunting each other down in the midfield. Hacking in N4 is largely somebody from a position of complete safety (frequently their DZ) beating up some idiot who's got no ability to contest them through a repeater, it's a fucking brain dead joke in comparison. The biggest issue of N3 hacking was there were alot of shit hacking profiles that were pitfalls to people who didn't understand what the fuck was going on. That wasn't a meta issue that was a legacy issue of CB leaving garbage trap profiles all over the place like LT Airborne troops.
The example you gave of a mid-tier hacking faction was YJ, and you’re ignoring the Zhanying hacker plus Hsien Tinbot example I gave right after Jazz (which has MSv2 defense against most warbands closing with smoke to boot, which Jazz does not). YJ hacking can definitely compete. As can most hackers operating through repeaters. Discarding all that out of hand is as silly as people were for saying AHDs were useless in N3. (Froze plenty of KHDs with my AHD and then killed them with a gun from a skirmishing hacker. Also stole a lot of TAGs, proving harder with all the ECM: Hacking around. Those were the days!).
How's that not simplified? It's dumbed down to where you basically have one option. And as I wrote, it doesn't create more hacking programs, it pollutes the profiles. Martial Artist are some of the hardest units to use in the game because they're really difficult to read. When we asked CB to consider un-entangling MODs, some noted that it'd create a lot of text on the profiles, but that was before CB added a large number of extras that they use to tweak unit performance with. You must mean AHDs. And what do you mean I bring that up? I've often been the one pointing out to Hecaton and you about that AHDs saw use during N3. What I'm reciting is the conventional wisdom that scared people away from using hackers other than KHDs. The reality that people generally said were happening to them during N3 wasn't always the reality that I personally faced, but I sure saw the effects of what KHDs did to a lot of player's choices and how they created a lot of trap profiles that you refer to - which wasn't the case before the KHDs. But that's not saying that the before times were all rosy, either, 'cause there wasn't a benefit to opting in to being hackable like there is now. That's some rose tinted goggles right there. That's exactly what hacking frequently was in N3 as well. It was just a lot less frequent because of Pitcher (aka Marker) distribution and how the hacking factions also didn't have access to the best quality tinbots and the more restrictive fireteams made the fewer tinbots that there were inaccessible to most hackers. So yes, I do agree that there were some things that were better, there were also a bunch of things that were worse, and the simplistic changes that primarily Hecaton tends to argue for just doesn't work so well with a bunch of other changes - changes that if they got seen to might make reverses so frequently suggested needless. Hell, Code One probably has the healthiest hacking game of they've designed so far for Infinity
I ignored it because it's absolute garbage, it'd be a total waste of orders trying to use them to crack the top end hackers. Again, run the numbers. You seriously need to check some math first. YJ hacking with basic devices does not compete with top end hackers, you need specialised programs to deal with them. You literally have better odds MOV+Reseting your way forward until you're either past the repeater or close enough to shoot it. I decide to hack with my Deva, it's got a Hacking Device, so Oblivion will be the stats I know. Except will it? I don't know the Deva profile off by heart, neither does my opponent, so I have to pick up my sheet and check it again. Oh it's a normal Oblivion. Fine. Then I hack with my Danavas and don't bother checking my sheet again. That one was +1B, whoops. My opponent contests with a Barid, he has to double check to make sure it was actually Trinity and not Oblivion that got the -3 attached to it. They didn't simplify shit. Want to go hack that dude? Well there's not guarantee they don't have a bunch of random MODs on them so you'd better double check what they actually do before you commit to the action. Contrary to the often parroted "they cut down the amount of programs in N4" they really didn't, they just removed the amount of unique names while adding more unique but nameless programs and odds are we'll see some more in both Aleph and Haqq in a couple of days... Hacking in N3 opened with KHDs seeking to assassinate other hackers to allow AHDs to establish board supremacy, but that actually had some cat and mouse game to it and over indulgence in repeaters were a double edge sword, there was movement and actual decision making required to facilitate an attack on designated targets as more hackers were operating in the mid field not from their own DZ. N4 in comparison is HURRR DE DURRRR TOSS A REPEATER HACK A THING FROM MY DZ DURRRRRRR ME SMART. Brain dead. In N3 the majority of my hacking was done by midfield hackers who had to hunt their targets and I needed to make a real decision as to whether it was worth the orders to make it happen because they couldn't be everywhere at once. In N4 the majority of my hacking is done by some idiot Zhanshi/Yemao hanging out in my DZ in a fireteam while one of several Guilang, or Krit shit a repeater out somewhere for him (or there's a mobile repeater upfield like Jeong or a Chaiyi being moved onto a roof). The repeater meta allows me to force project all over the table, God forbid I ever get access to Pitchers and it'll just get even dumber.
I did run the numbers, I think you had them wrong on the one you ran. : You had adjusted the stats for Firewall above, but then also added a generic blanket modifier below. You also let the Ninja have Surprise Shot which he doesn't get with Jazz in a Fireteam. Stats should look like this: The KHD Ninja has even odds against Jazz with Tinbot, 22.98% in favor of the Ninja, 21.80% in favor of Jazz, if Jazz is linked with Tinbot -6 (which has a point and opportunity cost of at least 10% of your list and a troop slot BTW, if you are keeping a Brigada in the rear with the gear alongside Jazz, where their multi-rifle or boarding shotty isn't useful offensively). Against something as annoying as and over-optimized Jazz, I don't think even odds are a terrible shakeout. It's worth risking the KHD Ninja at the very least (that is, assuming you can't just kill Jazz with an AD troop, or even that same Ninja just coming in to chop him). Regardless, I agree with you that things are distorted, but the culprit is pretty clearly Tinbot -6 access, not a generalized problem spread to all hacking. Very much agreed. It would be better to just have more programs that do the enhanced things, grant them to only a few units as upgrades, and give them unique names. At least then you'd remember the weird mythical animal name attached to that hacker, so you'd always look it up. Having 3-4 more entries in the Hacking chart is not gonna break the game, and means you have -one- chart to look at every time you fight, not two unit entries. So two decent fixes for N4 could come from equipment tweaks: Problem Number 1: Repeater proliferation (mainly from linkteam-carried Pitchers): - Solution: A way to neutralize Repeaters fairly easily with a specific tool (Deactivators that actually matter!) A ZoC application of Deactivator that allows an Engineer to take out the Repeater. The tool is already widely available (every single FO bot and Engineers iirc), and is already designed towards killing repeaters (in addition to mines etc) but needs a buff to actually be useful. If allowed to work against Repeaters carried by troops too instead of just deployables, this would introduce some really fun counter-play that Infinity has rarely had before (only from Jammers). bonuses - At the same time, linked Pitchers do need a nerf. Take away Burst bonus for linkteams for them (but don't make them a Technical Weapon, we really don't need BS15 Rev Custodiers...). Problem Number 2: Tinbot -6 skew, and Firewall skew in general - Solution: Brainburst anti-hacker program: B2, targets Hackers only, halves Firewall bonus. For Tinbot -6 the solution is a bit trickier, as it needs to target the -6 without removing Firewall completely like the old KHDs did. A Hacking program for KHDs that targets Hackers only and halves Firewall in exchange for reduced Burst seems warranted. This would be quite different from AP ammo, applying only to those factions with really crazy Tinbot access. It would lower basic Repeater firewall by only -1, but would be more powerful against the Tinbots that are currently blowing the curve. B2 seems like the sweet spot. Unlike AP ammo it would not screw lower-BTS hackers or solo hackers. This would require a lot of testing, but seems like a good idea in abstract. If that Zanshi etc. does not have a TInbot attached, I do not think this is a problem. A basic hacker with no Tinbot is dead meat against a KHD that attacks directly or through their own Pitcher.
My stats were for the Zhanying tinbot you suggested vs Jazz using her improved Trinity, that's why they're different. Ignore the surprise shot box being ticked, it doesn't actually function on the dice calculator. Those are terrible odds because the impetus is on you to beat Jazz. Otherwise you get to enjoy Jazz crippling your list from her DZ, the superior hacking faction has all the time in the world, you're on the clock as the underdog. BTW just to be clear this isn't just Jazz as it stands, she's just an analogue here for discussion. CB continues to add other hackers up in her leagues such as the Dartok. This has been discussed to death, yes you can potentially brute force Jazz but to do so requires you to basically table your opponent because they're going to be in the most protected position possible. This isn't a good state for the hacking meta game to be in. The demand of literally alpha strike your opponent off the table or get fucked over is not a good thing. Alternatively if you can't do that you go right back to the other option which is full on passive defenses like camo spam. Again, as discussed, not what CB were after in promoting an active hacking game for the new edition. It's not, the bigger problem is the -3 damage on firewalls and Trinity bouncing off BTS.
Ah gotcha. I wasn't actually saying the Zhanying with Tinbot support is a worthy head to head opponent for Jazz, I was saying the Zhanying with Tinbot coverage (and its built-in Sixth Sense) is about as powerful as Jazz, as a defensive hacker. And that Zhanying Tinbot is available to YJ, a second-tier hacking faction for sure. YJ is not toally out of the game because Tinbot-protected hackers exist. Main difference is Nomads' availability of repeater nets, which definitely makes the defensive hacking game easier for Nomads. You can still extend your net in ISS with Lu Duans though, while also moving an effective attack forwards (seriously underrated, that remote). Again second tier, but not out of the game. Seems pretty balanced, and has been for me in play. Agreed that adding this defensive repeater castle element to more armies is dumb. Morats getting the Dartok sucked. At least he can only get a -3 Tinbot, not -6. Again though, since that cat is out of the bag, adding tools that cut through those nets easily is probably the best solution. An enhanced Deactivator seems like the easiest possible solution. Doesn't even need to add new gear or entries, just add to the existing rules. Disagree. A basic Firewall is analogous to cover. First difference is, a Tinbot is cover that you can never get around. I'd argue they are bigger problem than basic Firewall from friendly repeaters, which is easily equaled-up by running -your own- Firewall for one order on an EVO from your support combat group. Second difference is that Firewall is meant to allow units that can be attacked from anywhere they have a repeater to get cover. It's an answer to combat that is less limited to physical space, in which it is harder to protect your hackers using terrain or other models. So the designers thought it should be harder to remove. Getting around a Firewall from a repeater is annoying but not impossible. Getting around a Tinbot with anything but direct attacks is very difficult (get a Jammer nearby and make the roll basically). Clearly they erred on the side of it being too hard to remove, you're totally right about that. We seem to disagree about how or how much to make that Firewall possible to cancel or lessen. [And yes it's been discussed but clearly not settled: Firewall -3 is fine IMO, because it can be equaled easily by the attacker. If not accompanied by really-high Tinbot protection, I'd argue that Firewalls from your friendly repeaters are a positive addition to the game. Extending hacking is great as long as the opponent can enjoy the same protection while you duel it out.] Third and most serious difference is that Tinbot is essentially -6 cover. It's too good, especially when crossed with being very difficult to negate. Solutions to the Tinbot -6 overprotection are: - A hacking program that halves Firewall bonuses (see my post above) for KHDs. Not a hard addition. IMO the best solution. B2, Halves Firewall bonuses, maaaaaybe AP. Icebreaker for N4 basically - Pull Tinbot -6 out of the game (unlikely) - Make Tinbot Firewalls not apply to fireteam mates (slightly less likely, still leaves the Brigada Hacker as a complete god but at least she has no crazy programs/bonuses). - Scrub Firewall from repeaters altogether (not good, makes hackers die the turn after they shoot a repeater every time, like being automatically overextended with no cover and no possibility to retreat). - Allow KHDs to ignore Firewall (punishes lower-tier hackers while higher-tier hackers still hide behind high BTS, etc.) @Triumph would be interested to hear if you agree with any of the above measures, especially the first. If you think something else is a better counter, write it out here. Summary: The best solution to overprotected defensive hacker castles with widespread repeaters is one or more programs to cut through Firewall bonuses, as well as gear to offer better counterplay against Repeaters. ¡¡ZoC Deactivator Now Por Favor!!
Jazz and the equivalents can go on the offensive though, that's what leaves Yu Jing as a solid mid tier along with not having hackers with programs that are solid at busting through strong defenses (such as B3 Oblivion profiles or better versions of Trinity). Meanwhile the example you give can protect against physical intrusion into the hacking network, but it's fucking useless at deterring someone from dumping repeaters on your important guys and taking them out of the game. It's not the -6 that causes the main problem, even against a -6 bot Trinity still clocks in for even the most average hacker rolling on 10s which is reasonable. It's the -3 Damage combined with Trinity's weak base stats that makes it so awful at dealing with the targets with BTS6 or higher. Something along these lines is the simplest fix, create a new program that is statistically good at busting the shit out of hard targets, but statistically inferior at hitting BTS0 or unfirewalled targets compared to Trinity. Trinity as an attack program is fine. Trinity as the only program is fucking awful. If all you did was make a second program like Trinity but with increased damage (like 16) and made it ignore BTS while removing the +3 MOD as a trade off it'd do the job. It'd be statistically inferior to Trinity vs low end and unsupported hackers, so the status quo wouldn't change at all, but against Jazz level problems you'd actually have a fighting chance. We used to actually have a tool that did that, it was called Blackout.
Increased DAM instead of pulling out Firewall bonuses still hits other hackers who are not Tinbot/Firewall-protected harder. It seems better to focus directly on Firewall. I do recall Blackout, and used it occasionally. Unfortunately as a hacking program the user would be vulnerable to the very overprotected super-hackers we have both been complaining about. I'm suggesting a tool that would -not- be on Hackers, instead giving good anti-Repeater tools to units who are likely less vulnerable to the whole hacker-castle problem. That's why a Deactivator that works in ZoC is a good candidate: Sending in an Engineer to dismantle repeaters with lower risk than having to shoot them is a worthwhile form of counter-play. So would be sacrificing an FO-bot to the probable Oblivion, while its Deactivator shuts down the link. It will still cost orders, but is likely to be effective. Clever repeater-using players can in turn use that incentive to bait traps etc. It's also a cool idea that will make combat engineers really worthwhile for something other than fixing robots and broken comms gear. I know Jammers can do most of that right now, but they are a much-wider tool really, and proliferating Jammers to counter overuse of Pitchers would definitely be swallowing the spider to catch the fly. Plus they're Disposable.
For what it's worth I am finding properly executed N4 killer hacking to be incredibly lethal to the point that it's causing me to change some of how I do list construction, including with nomads. The critical element is offensive network projection rather than whatever program you're specifically using (although upgrades help), which actually tends to put Combined Army, OSS and Haqq in the driver's seat of the counter-hacker hacker game, with nomads doing ok but not having a pitcher game that's quite as easy to spin.
If you trade off the +3 to hit so it has no MODs it comes out statistically weaker than Trinity against non firewalled hackers who are on the low end with 0 BTS.
No, Trinity is not fine. There needs to be more risk to expanding repeater networks. Trinity should have AP natively (and Oblivion should lose it). That way you hurt the high-BTS hackers more. There needs to be ways to deal with hackers behind firewalls and tinbots via KHDs, and the fact thst there isn't is a big part of why N3 hacking was better. Yup, the problem was they listened to the players who complained about their hackers getting killed by KHDs - really they were complaining about hacking having counterplay. There's a certain segment of players in games like this who always favor noninteractive strategies because of their efficacy, and another segment thay favors them because they don't like to take risks and think there should be risk-free play. That latter segment should be actively punished and driven to find new playstyles. Ir's like why people complain about bears - they're frustrated that this unit can effectively attack their null defense. It's a good thing they're frustrated. Fucking how
