It also supports a higher win percentage from TJC than any of those factions. I'm sorry, childish I know when we don't have all the details on the data, but I couldn't resist. Forgive me. :D
Childish response: you do realise that this data is probably just a subset of the other data that you’ve already rejected. :p But there’s clearly something interesting going on. Tunguska isn’t as popular as say Varuna or OSS but appears to be doing better in this set of data. I really want to look into the common list designs in that data because I suspect we’ll see what I’ve been arguing: it’s not that Tunguska is uncompetitive it’s that it has a very narrow set of competitive builds. But we’re unlikely to get that data. I also think it is important to look at why Tunguska wasn’t as well received as, say, IA. Competitiveness is part of that, but there’s clearly more to it than that.
I do. That's what makes my comment so much fun especially after being accused of ignoring data just because it didn't fit my points, despite being clear about why I rejected the data. I still feel that way about this data until there is a clarification about how the data was pulled and where from. I disagree that TJC has a narrower set of competitive builds or templates outside of choosing which core to take, and my opinion is that very idea is why you feel they are not as good as I feel they can be. I kinda feel that native Nomad players try to fit TJC into some kind of older Nomad template, which TJC doesn't fit nicely. TJC does have issues fitting 2 lists to 5 round events with a diverse scenario selection; but that's hardly uncommon with a lot of sectorials. I have a feeling that if I showed you my lists from my last event, that you'd scoff and say they weren't competitive/good lists. They don't fit any template I've seen or come close to fitting the "conventional wisdoms" of this forum; which I often think suffers from echo chamber group-theory rather than actual table experience at problem solving with TJC. If you know how to play a list or unit in a scenario or match up, then play it and screw what everyone else thinks about that unit or list. Tunguska will never seem to cover all of the bases that other factions can on paper, but they can do it on the table in unconventional ways. Anyways, that's just like my opinion man, and it seems difficult for me to quantify in any format that would be accepted here.
You clearly don't remember this 30+ page thread... https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threads/invincible-army-pre-pre-mortom.26062/ Or this 70+ page one https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threads/invincible-army-post-mortem.25451/
Tunguska was vastly better received than IA. The dummy was well and truly spat out over IA, the toys weren't so much out the pram as in another continent.
It feels like people don't value Sensor as much as I think they should. It's so helpful. I would have loved a another sensor option in Haqq.
I think it's less that people don't value Sensor and more that she's just a cheaper Sensor than the Grenzer. Saving 5 points and swapping around some stats and equipment is pretty boring. If there was no Sensor option in the link team people would probably be pretty hyped.
I'm starting to think there's nothing we can say to clarify that she isn't a bad unit, just sort of pointless. Just have to let this one go.
Exactly this! In a vacuum she is ok (I am just curious why she has no improved stat line over the standard Securitate like other dire foes) but she eats away the last pieces of the cake for the already massively disliked Grenzer. A unit that should be iconic for Tunguska. Especially when mimicking the somewhat ok FO profile.
I do and yet IA seems to be played significantly more than Tunguska in 2019. That's what I actually meant by 'well received': my phrasing could have been better. It's important to to note that the Nomads forum doesn't have a tradition of massive whinge threads: we tend to shrug and just play what works. We'll do the same with JK: @loricus, @Smiler and @Ghost neatly summarise the 'JK hate' crowd, and it's hardly vociferous whinging (guys this is not how we get Grenzers buffed, much louder whinging is required!). Whereas post-Uprising the YJ forums where ripe for a megathread if IA at all didn't meet expectations. Aside: it's amusing that I get told off for placing too much faith in forum consensus in the same set of responses that I get told that I'm forgetting forum consensus. Not actually unreasonable, but amusing. @jfunkd Sorry, if it wasn't clear those digs where meant to be taken in jest: I felt that's what we were doing. Your reasoning for rejecting the evidence is reasonable even if I disagree with the assumptions underpinning it. I'm legitimately interested in non-consensus ideas for playing Tunguska. I've moved on to really wanting to like Tunguska for what it is. I just can't get past myself at the moment and keep falling back into the same list building traps. The only way you'll break the forum consensus is by openly discussing different ways of doing things and explaining how they work to people too thick to get it themselves. I'll start a thread where we can discuss non-Hollowman, non-Kriza Tunguska.
abscence of warbands or similar cheap meat to screen against enemy warbands harsh point tax on essentially fusiliers restrictive wildcards (Interventor only in a grenzer team) only ava 2 of flashpulse bots in an expensive sectorial Those are not problems fixable with a single profile and I dont think Tunguska is competetively viable compared to the spammy Bakunin or Corregidor with an extremely flexible and raw power core team.
Crazy koalas, fireteams, and other usual suspects can normally keep warbands in check. +2 WIP and veteran makes them nowhere near "essentially fusiliers" sure there are very few wildcards(i think none), most of the important stuff counts as each other and we have access to good mixed teams having access to more than 2 FP bots is an exception not the rule, even in expensive sectorials
CB's data is from the last months and only , the other data is all 2019. With CB's data we can see that TJC gets more wins than the average, but with all the other data we can see that those winning games are by the minium, making TJC a not so good for winning tournaments, even if it is good in the 1vs1. our only tool against warbands is the jammer, our fireteams cannot see against smoke, and people complain more about the heckler tan its bigger pano version I agree, securitates are well pointed and they are not fusiliers, but its role in the sectorial is the same, and the tools they are allowed are worse than the ones fulliers have access to in the new sectorials. There is no wildcard in TJC, not one. Also, we have absurd fireteams (kriza haris, no other faction has a haris as expensive that gains almost nothing for expending so much points), and weird combinations. Securitates in the lore work toe to toe with interventors, but no interventor in securitate fireteam. B told us that grenzers were the "glue" to fix the fireteams...but the only thing they can do is go as securitates. Stempler should be able to go to the hollomen haris, but also, not an option, and the bro-haris could get a superjump option for raoul, but instead created a haris that is worse than all of them separated. In fireteams composition, is one of the worst dessigns of sectorials Factions told as "not as remote focused, that is a nomad thing" have better avaiability to remotes than any nomad sectorial... CB just uses lore to limit us, not giving in our strong points as do for other factions
I think you're fundamentally on the money with the rest of this analysis. But I think you overstate this point. For the lack of Warbands we got Puppets and for the lack of AVA3 Transductors we got Hollowmen. So as much as the lore is used to limit Nomads it also gives unique options. The way I see it is a lot of Nomads issues with our strengths are structural rather than specific decisions: MI are structurally weak, ARM based REMs are sub-optimal because of the way CB prices ARM, Hacking is too situational to be reliable. These are precisely what we've been told to expect changes to in N4 (MI losing FD1 for another advantage, Crits being revised - which should help high-cost single wound models most - and Hacking that is universally useful). So it looks like CB is addressing the underlying causes of our concerns.
I'd rather leave design space for something that makes sense in N4 than a rushed update. That's why I'm not concerned about some untouched units in Corregidor. The new gal still could have been something in between but I don't want Tunguska genericized to be stronger then not able to be made good but still unique later. The current N4 teasers really look like they'll open up what's good for Nomad's style.
I am pretty confident in the part you quoted. CB has limited nomads lots of times based on the lore, but at the same time, they do not use lore to put out our strong points (remember that hi tech sectorial from nomad with almost no-hitech and the only sectorial with no cheap smoke and MSV2 in the entire game, as an example). Not only transductors got no better avaiability (there are some sectorials not remote focused that have it), but also our special remotes are more expensive (and worse) than some of the other special remotes, and while they are supposed to be from the highest technology in remotes (they were the first to win a war using remotes) ours have worse tools, tech and so (yes, better arm and bts... but better arm is just putting metal there, as ariadna does). We got a few changes for 2 of our remotes, and that's a good thing! but then... the jumper stempler can only go with the hollowmen core, zombots are also limited, in the hitech with lots of money sectorial, they put a countermeassure in pupets (The puppetmaster) because "we are not as hitech as aleph" jet we have the bank with the most security of the sphere, protected against infiltrating TO by... grenzers? . pupets for warbands? 50 points to stop warbands seems not a good thing to me. And if the warband is a krakot and get the option to get near the master and speculate a grenade to him, bye bye pupets (if the enemy starts, you will not put the pupets in a ARO position, because most alpha strickers will hunt them easy, so the warband can move freely, and if you have to help them with a long range ARO, you are spending 70+ points for that. not a good trade for warbands even if its what we have) now, we can do something we could before, but 4 points cheaper, loosing in one of the new rules from ITS (not liason officer), better range but worse at shotting within range (yes, x-visor, against MSV1 and better BS), and without option for some secondary missions. We got something cheaper, but worse at the same time, so no gain (also, is cheap enought to say no lossing). I cannot see nothing in her that says "inspector from tunguska".
As far as countering warbands. Some times I’ll place marry or a revealed heckler as bait up front to force the impetuous order in front of my ARO units. Only thing that gives me issues sometimes are linked makauls but then again who doesn’t hate those things lol. Im sorry to hear that TJC isn’t what you want though. I love them, I love the theme, the challenges and unique tools they bring to solve different problems. It forced me outside my comfort zone and got me thinking outside the box to approaching different situations. Now TJC honestly feels like my best army.
