If you can't understand read again. You're exaggerating to the point of silliness and don't put words in people mouth.
Vainilla nomads is our best, but also far from "strong as fuck" too. But I know that is more debatable and completely outside topic
I am not implying that I'm unbiased. My opinion is based on my subjective experience, just like yours is. I'm not saying your opinion is invalid. It is a challenging sectorial to play, I agree with that. Maybe they just don't fit your play style or you haven't found your groove with them. I had to completely adjust how I look at infinity stat lines and where I think they fit, and then be able to write off a 30 point unit to a six point warband and be able to see it was a good trade given the state of the board. TJC was not an easy sectorial to adjust to for me. EDIT: Also look I am also not trying to take some "I'm better than anyone" stance here. I have had success with TJC and it's also been a tough learning curve so I have had my fair share of losses and dealing with TJC's shortcomings. Every sectorial has it's strengths and weaknesses. My feeling at this point are that TJC doesn't have it all that much worse than most. Yes there are some sectorials and factions that are more forgiving and easier to play. Maybe that's all you are trying to say.
No msv 2 - visual modifiers do suck but they aren’t game losing, we have tools to get around it. Mines, hacking (if possible), some template weapons on mobile troops, etc. Or is it the lack of smoke tricks? I think MSV is actually an exploitable crutch that we take advantage of really well with white noise and plenty of repeaters. No wildcards and less flexible link teams - how is this falling short for you? We got about and much wildcards as other factions and the mix links feel ok to me. Plus we can also field a 3rd link in the form of puppets if you chose to do so. I honestly think too much of a mix makes things more confusing, it’s why I can’t get into tohaa or spiral. Weak midfield - yeah it kinda sucks but it’s not a game losing like MSV. Marry has forward deployment and climbing plus, raoul can walk on a board edge or AD in on a 16 if boosted. Spektrs are great mid fielders and hecklers are just phenomenal, I especially love the fast panda profile to support my hackers. Puppets and hollow men are also extremely mobile so I don’t feel the hole that the lack of a mid field provides. No mid field minelayers I can understand though. No chain of command and no Camo LT - I honestly haven’t taken a Camo LT since N2. That was back when LoL was extremely painful so I was scared to take anything else than an intruder LT when I first started. But tunguska can play then LT shell game between Securitate and interventors. Hell I go with Securitate LTs because interventors are obvious and everyone wants to go for them. The face when I say I’m not in LoL is priceless! Plus linked Securitate is just as defendable as a Camo LT. Only thing I would want CoC for is classified objectives. No cheap WB - yeah morlocks and jaguars are nice and provide a lot of pressure, but we still have options for providing that. Zondnaut, hollowmen, and especially puppets since they don’t generate orders. We can still get smoke from Perseus and the nauts, can still get templates from other sources as well. Is it cheap warbands? No, it’s not. But again I don’t feel the hole this presents as much as you do I guess. TJC definitely has the tools and means to get around its shortcomings, all of the factions do. Just have to think a little outside the box and get out of comfort zones. If I missed anything or got something wrong please let me know :)
But I didn’t put words in your mouth lol. Just confused at your stance on TJC. Let’s play nice so mods don’t come in and yell at us :)
Tunguska has the tools? Yes. Can field all it needs in enough numbers or are good enough with low numbers? I haven't seen a list that once in the table has a vibe of "I'm in the same field". The top factions put more tools, with more quality, Beign easier to play with or more forgiven is just an euphemism. If you admit that is harder, why is it? I say because it has some flaws, and that is what we are pointing And puting this into topic, this new profile does nothing in helping with the flaws the sectorial has. Doesn't help against warbands bullying, not against smoke, not against high shooting malus, it helps a bit in the numbers because it is a sensor cheaper than the grenzer, but not cheaper than stempler (and worse than rhe grenzer in almost everything else). It even doesn't help with the new liason officer secondary (something we have only 2 expensive options), or bring new options to links (we have some awful fireteams, like the kriza haris, one of the worst dessigned)
Sure that’s not the forums in general? In person and the wgc is. WAY more chill and discussive lol. Swear all the old warmahorde power gamers are in here just number crunching and not playing...
Anonymity adds to that... real life and (to a lesser extent FB) force us to put a face and a name on our comments.
Lists are typically so scenario/event (and often meta) dependent that just seeing a list out of context is not as meaningful as it sounds. It's how that list is used that matters. Tunguska does struggle to cover all of the missions at 5 round events, it's impossible to get everything you want so you compromise into what you can make work in multiple scenarios. Because of the higher cost units, this means you are often picking imperfect tools because it's the lesser of "evils". Some factions play practically the same list for every mission, and I think those tend to be more forgiving factions, but that doesn't make them better, just often easier to play and more familiar from round to round. Call it a euphemism, or whatever, I'm disagreeing with you that TJC is below average on the power curve in any significant way; I'm not saying they are perfect. They are flawed by design, but all of the factions are in one way or another. TJC has some nice strengths that I don't think you value as much as I do. You are right, Kovac didn't solve all TJC list building issues; but she wasn't meant to because the weaknesses are intentional. I had hoped for her to be inferior infiltration with SSL1 (normally I'd think this was totally unrealistic expectations, but after some of the insane Defiance profiles I didn't think it was totally unreasonable) so I'm disappointed too, but I can see where she can be useful as she is. Fortunately the Liaison officer is only 1 OP and only in like 2 missions, maybe 3.. but yeah, I agree that TJC is hosed on that for this season... it won't last past that. When it's a hacker in an upcoming season, we can all laugh in Interventor. Kriza harris is not worth it IMO, I agree. The Kriza+HM duo is interesting though, but I haven't played it yet. Our other fireteams are not bad, so calling out the only one that is: well it's something pretty much every faction could do, that doesn't make TJC especially bad because it's there.
So a sectorial that is harder to play, less forgiving, that also seems that has worse results is not in bad position? In this game any faction can win any other, nobody is saying that TJC could not, but being worse is that: is harder to win because some different reasons. But what I see is that seems hard to accept it Other factions have flaws too. The problem is that they don't have as much as TJC, or directly are less punitive. Of course there are some other low tier ones that are in worse place than TJC, but that should not be used as excuse. There are a lot of factions (vainillas, sectorials and na2), there have to be some in worse position than others. Years ago nomads were one of the top, but ITS changes, n3 and new releases have moved them from that place and TJC is just not enough well rounded to overcome that
I don't mind games having factions that are high difficulty to play but reward you with higher success and toolsets, there's an incentive there to plug away and git gud. TJC just seem like they're hard to play, their power pieces work well in vanilla and other factions have power pieces that are near-enough in their own way to make TJC a head scratcher. I love TJC because theyre cool as hell models and fairly scummy/sleazy moral fluff. Can't say I wouldn't do better in placings with any other faction though!
I used to reply to every Nomads help request. I even reposted their own lists that got screwed up by the broken army export link and explained how to fix it. But I got tired and the releases were too fast to keep up. I don't even know what's in the game anymore until someone plays it.
I don't think Tunguska can't be competitive, I just think the design space for competitive lists is tiny. Put another way I think Tunguska has some competitive builds but I don't think Tunguska is competitive. JK *could* have been used to expand that design space. Instead she adds marginal utility to a core that already has a lot of options.
Well, apparently the way to get your units changed to become workable is to whine incessantly. Nomads have known the issues with Grenzer for years. We just shrugged and went 'it doesn't matter, we just use the Grenzer MSR as an Intruder anyway'. So no redesign to make them useful for us. Admittedly JK isn't as bad as Bipandra used to be. But even you're arguing that the reason that she works is that she displaces Grenzers from your lists, and not in the "well she can allow me to build a cheaper Grenzer Fireteam". How is this a good thing?
Well she is objectively cheaper than the Grenzer FO with a similar role and if you're used to taking the Spitfire then she is another Veteran order in the second Grenzer's place. I mean for me this is how she would probably function, where I wasn't taking a sensor in the fireteam (I only have one painted Grenzer unit), I may now when I take the spitfire and play it in midfeild. I really wanted her to be Inferior Infiltration with SSL1, frankly after the Defiance profiles and the Libertos it didn't seem that unreasonable, so you're kinda preaching to the choir. I'm just being realistic about her potential. She may never get into my lists, I dunno yet, but I do frequently end up with about 6-7 points left over and I can see switching out the paramedic for some scenarios.
From the beginning I've thought she's playable. I'm not annoyed because she's an unplayable mess. I'm annoyed because she doesn't really do anything that Grenzers don't or should do. This is a problem because it means even less reasons to use Grenzers in Tunguska (apparently their most picked profile was the FO...). Amongst the new factions Tunguska is under-represented (compare the TAK, Vird, OS's and IA spikes). Once the 'new toy' appeal dies down I can honestly see Tunguska being the least played Nomad sectorial if nothing is done. I see this as a problem, because Tunguska should be a drawcard sectorial.
Wouldn’t that be true of any faction then? Competitive is in the eye of the beholder I guess. MO is considered low tier and won interplanetario a while back, MRRF is considered a dead faction and won Armageddon last year. Every faction can be as competitive or casual as you want them to be. All this tier rating bullshit is asinine and anyone trying to rate them should just drop it and have fun making things work.
@inane.imp This is the current Rumble faction breakdown for the Armies you listed. Varuna Immediate Action Division- 2 Invincible Army- 7 Tunguska- 5 Tartary Army Corps- 3 Operations Subsection- 3 At i4 there were 3 Tunguska armies out of 30ish. That has been consistent with other events I've been to. I don't feel it's all that underplayed at the events I'm at or going to.
