Perhaps, but I don't know of any good way to qualify "What If" games, and it appears the current discussion is around what is currently taken, rather than what might be taken. There is definitely going to be some lag built into the numbers, but this is the case with most observations. People live in the past, and everything they're reacting to has already happened, it's just a question of 30 milliseconds to 30 years, or somewhere in between.
But there is a difference: But still, they cost the same SWC. I do appreciate your approach, but access is either binary or (yes/no) or the AVA, but not the number of profiles. Yu Jing e.g. has 7 Ninja profiles, but only AVA to 2. So can you use them? (binary) - Yes. How many can you field? (AVA) - Two of them.
And the second is much less valuable than the first. Example: If PanO had access to cheap smoke, going from AVA 0 to 1 would change the faction tremendously. Going from 1 to 2 would make redundancy possible, but bring much less change than that first profile because it would not open up new strategies that the first AVA didn't.
What I'm finding interesting about this discussion is that it focusses on SWC as "shooty stuff" which is *mostly* true for PanO. But as a Nomad is far less true. Nomad players will regularly spend 1.5-2SWC on 'not shooty' SWC. But rather specifically on the types of things that we're contrasting with PanO's guns (Minelayers, Morans, HDs, ADHLs and Meteors all cost SWC that enable "no shooty'" orientated strategies). This supports something I've long considered: the way to introduce things like accessible Eclipse to the PanO is with an SWC tax. So say an Auxilla with the Eclipse LGL Auxbot at 0.5/1SWC. This allows an alternative approach but at an SWC premium such that it limits your more usual options. It's similar to what we see with high SWC Lts. The reverse is also true: I'd have far less issues with a Kriza HMG if it was 2.5SWC in Vanilla.* None of this addresses the OP. But SWC is an extremely strong tool for limiting the desirability of certain profiles without undermining their effectiveness. * My issue with Krizas is that they're very much a "just shoot things in the face" unit. That type of unit should be at a premium in Nomads.
2 SWC for a BS 13 HMG with -3 to shoot back and the ability to put it in a Haris without putting it into a Haris (on the active turn) seems pretty reasonable. I always wondered why people got so stressed about the Kriza. We've all faced Hac Tao and Swiss Guard, they're just as mean if not meaner, and not thaaaaat much more expensive either. But yes I agree that it's basically a tax on profiles that are extremely faction efficient. Machaon pays 0.5 SWC because he's just so fucking good, he needs something to balance him out. Hakims pay 0.5 SWC because they are so efficient when it comes to objective grabbing (for the cost, a WIP 15 specialist rolling in from the board edge? Fuck yes).
I was under the impression that SWC represented more of a hand craft/story based element and less of a balance mechanic. Be it a heavy gun, an AD specialist, a lieutenant, or whatever. It simply isn't as common and using it is a matter of consideration versus all of the other hypothetical operations going on. Sure. The bin laden raid was 600 points and 96 SWC. But that's a scenario, not a common occurrence?
The argument seems be that Kriza is effectively a Fireteam rolled into one model -- a -3 you can't take away no matter what and always being B5 makes him one of the most powerful single active turn shooters in the game.
2 SWC is the standard cost for a HMG/Spitfire in the hands of a HI. The lower cost on Zuyong HMG is to "artificially" promote them.
Kriza is one of the msot efficient shooting units in the game. In a faction that does not promote that approach. To compare him you had to do so with things that are ~15 points more expensive. That is a *lot*. Thing about him is that he is a bit too especialised in a faction that is not especialized in shooting stuff dead. Something like him wouldn't be any strange in faction like YJ or PanO - that tend to favour a much more direct approach.
This. I'd prefer to see a 0.5 SWC tax added to the Kriza and the 0.5 SWC tax dropped from the Prowler Spitfire and Wildcat HRL. Also the SWC tax dropped from Intruder ADHLs, Meteors be 0.5 SWC and the 0.5 SWC Tomcat / Hellcat profiles combined into something useful. At the moment the SWC cost of many oblique strategies in Nomads is comparable to the SWC cost of a Kriza. This undermines the factions character. At 54 pts / 2 SWC the Kriza is a no brainer in Nomads: but is completely at odds to the stated faction characteristic units (MI, Hacking and REMs). It should be easier to run a Prowler + Meteor in Nomads than it is to run a Kriza. Right now it's not. I'm not saying that the Kriza should go, just that a specialist BS FTF HI shouldn't be the go to profile of Nomads (see Bromad propaganda for an example of what I mean). This is the opposite POV to PanO where I've long believed that the direct approach should be encouraged and the oblique approach taxed (but still be viable).
To drop the SWC cost of the Prowler you'd need to point out another infiltrating camo model with a heavy weapon with a burst above 3. As it stands I believe the Prowler is the only model in the game with that combination, much the same as the intruder is the only model with both Camo and MSV2.
There's the Daofeï HMG or spitfire, who only pays 1.5 SWC for his spitfire if it's the lieutenant profile.
Things is though, the appeal of Nomads traditionally has been as a hacker (in multiple senses) plucky tricksy outcast faction, not a shoot you in the face with overwhelming firepower faction. So if they're gonna power creep, you'd expect it in that direction. Kriza, Hollowmen (and even the whole PanO-ish design of Tunguska tbh), Riots being some of their strongest takes undermines that a bit. It's neither good nor bad objectively, but it feels a bit off to me when some of the strongest Nomad lists have no (at least non KHD) hackers, for example.
And when MI options are derided in favour of their HI competition. The thing about SWC is that it does (and should) vary by faction. So a Kriza HMG at 2.5 SWC in Vanilla vs 2 SWC in TJC shows how SWC can be used to shape list design. This is part of the reason I don't think trading SWC for points (or vice versa) is actually viable: it removes constraints in list design in particular ways. Constraints are a necessary thing. So I think a better approach is to apply a 0.5 SWC fudge based on the over or under representation of certain profiles relative to CB's intended design. So take Gazi: Gazi have almost entirely surplanted Kum in Vanilla Haqq lists (based on what I see reported in the forums and in my meta locally). A 0.5 SWC tax on the Jammer Ghazi profile would (probably) increase the appeal of Kum as a source of Impetuous Smoke. This could be offset by reducing the SWC cost of non-Inferior Infil Daylami Panzerfausts to 0. The aim would be to promote diversity in list design within the intended design space of vanilla Haqq (and also add more difference between HB and vanilla lists). It would be an intra-faction change (IE it focusses on the performance of units within its own faction, while maintaining the balance of the faction as a whole vs other factions).* The problem I'm experiencing with faction design at the moment is a "why bother" problem. I was very excited by IA ~12-18mths ago; but, honestly, playing Nomads and NA2 I have access to 2 of the top tier HI links with a myriad of different options to list build around them, so why should I bother shifting? * I'm not actually saying that this specific change would necessarily be a good thing, rather that it's the type of change that SWC allows.
Nah, it was basically 12 guys w combi-rifles, at least if you're talking about the guys who went into the compound. All the support to get them there is where all the SWC is!
Because makauls have zero v smoke, which is significantly more useful in most situations than smoke. I'd argue a Heckler w/ Red Fury is pretty close. Please god, this.
