But fluff and faction idendity are quite a big part for some people. So big, that I as a mostly HB player argue against that stuff we got now and see the Sectorial, that caused me to choose Haqq when starting Infinity, namely Ramah, to be a failure thematically so much, that I rarely play it. Tuaregs dont have real thermooptical camouflage. They are just so good at with standard camo, so that ruleswise they work like TO Camo. And Holos are not that high tech imho.
I think the thing that really just makes this whole situation a whole lot stupider is that the answer to "Ghazi/insert warband/cheap unit is fucking broken and spammed too much" was to balance them better. Which to CB's credit they revealed they did in the video! Then their next step is to promptly fuck this balance up by trying to hamfist Tactical Window into the situation.
Tangential, but I really think that the Tactical Window ruling had more to do with speeding up the game than it did nerfing warbands. I don't have any evidence of this, just a gut feeling.
I don't think it really does. You give a slow player any army the result is they play slow. One of the people that I have to keep an eye on for time at local tournaments plays LI Pan-O. Meanwhile 8 Warbands for me doesn't cause me issues because they often play themselves. Run screaming into the enemy and wind up getting shot.
There's also a prevailing, but not universal, feeling that playing into 16+ orders with 10 wasn't fun.
I would give more credit to that than time constraints for sure, but of course the question is did it feel not fun because there were too many models, or was it because people didn't like playing into hyper optimised warbands that arguably needed the N4 Ghazi treatment?
You know, I did miss that Panzerfaust on my first check of that profile. That's going to be problematic.
First of all, releasing multiple very similar units across all factions was an issue for some time now. But it also not as much of an issue as it seems. As @Brokenwolf aptly explained, units' factions provide different context for them. ODD midfield skirmisher in PanO is a different creature than even similar ODD skirmisher in Haqq. Much worse damage to faction identity was dealt by over the top fireteam combinations, and overcharged Wildcard characters.
That's kinda the point, it's a different creature because it's a Pan-O creature being supported by a Haqq army. But as has been pointed out by @SpectralOwl the gravy train is only going one way here right now, if in the name of balance and fairness we reciprocate and give the Pan-O version the Haqq army support then it's the same shit all over. If we decide we don't reciprocate to keep things different then everyone else is Pan-O with smoke, except Pan-O, who is just Pan-O with no smoke still, and that raises other game balance issues. I don't disagree with this statement but that's a huge argument that we'd have to unpack elsewhere.
I'm not after much, Haqq can keep all their weird stuff. I just want NCA to actually reliably win active turn in exchange for everything it's missing, ideally without taking the same Swiss HMG to every game. Give us higher Mimetism, deployable Low Vis Zones, Spotbots or something new, just deliver the experience I expect from the no-compromises brute force sectorial.
Is it possible given the tac window constraints, the numerous rule changes, and the new profiles and costing - and hang with me here - that the N4 game space may end up in a quite different place than it was before in N3? I kinda expect our ability to evaluate what's going to be good or bad is going to shift around quite a bit over the next few weeks - right now we have a dozen or so profiles from a handful of armies so it's challenging to determine what "strong" is going to look like once we get dudes on the table.
Sure it is - the claim is that by adding a profile to an army you make it more like other armies. The counter claim is we can't know that based on the presence of a few profiles, b/c we don't know 1) what other profiles are going to be there/look like/cost, and 2) what good is going to look like (for either army).
