I think the balance problems are not exactly on having this or that troop/profile which is "too good". I'd say all armies have some of that. The real balance problems I think come when the flexibility of the lists are limited. Some armies can easily fit lots of different tools and still have room for more troops, orders or whatever you think you might need for different situations, while others struggle a lot and have to be contented with a very limited playstyle (yes, OM, I'm looking at you). While this is not exactly "weaker", in the ends it's tedious and difficult to deal with. And you end up getting tired of it if you have the shorter straw.
Let's see if you agree with this slightly overly complicated statement: Chain Rifles have an inverse relationship to the cost of the carrying trooper as modified by the number of wounds on the trooper. (Or in simpler terms; Chain Rifles (and other DTW) on really cheap models (e.g. Shaolin Monks) are probably underpriced, but probably not on more expensive models where the trade-off using them is higher (e.g. Kanren) and in the latter case it makes for a very interesting balance situation as regards to gameplay impact of your decision)
Chain Rifles are massively dependent on terrain and many people are absolutely playing with too much los blocking stuff.
But not forget, that the 13-15 orders are not useabele like a normal army can use ist. Yes the extra order on the HMGs maybe gold to kill threads that leave their heads out. But the TA Order on the combi rifle only get useful if you are in range - or for movement (thats great, no doubt). In a normal 14 + order army you can use the extra orders for button pushing, for your support troops etc. IA has potential, thats for sure. But I still think a TAK army, that can put potential gunfighters in a cheap link, while they are covering the midfield in camo-markers has more turnament-winnig potential. IA has toughness on their side but not less flexibility.
I would propose that the discussion may be better if we think about game balance in a slightly different way. I used MMCafe's teir list as a template. Pick it apart, I don't claim to be an expert.
The question I have, in what ITS mission is vanilla Aleph not viable? And list variety is Achilles + Posthumans + X Ariadna more viable in missions then PanO? And better list Varianz too? WTF?
Did you mean ISS? I'd say Vanilla YJ has gained some Viability with ITS missions since it gained some IA troops.
Here's the powerpoint I used to make it if you guys want to rearrange: https://drive.google.com/open?id=199hb9IrhCO-R8lLzGjgtAatqN3E4-b7b As to your questions: Yes, I think vanilla Ariadna has better list variance than Vanilla PanO and is more viable in more ITS missions. With regards to your Aleph comments sure, you can argue for them being higher on the list. As for list variety though, players can realistically take all kind of combinations of post-humans and don't need to play with Achilles.
Another question, which I know you might not be able to answer; why is HB ranked so poorly? They're easily more ITS viable than QK ... Not that QK is exactly a great competitor anymore.
Yes. Personally I'd put ISS just east of JSA (I don't have many other reference points since Yu Jing and JSA are the ones I play) Yeah, multiple edits left it weird.
You need to put those TacA orders into the link teams. Now, that's suddenly two free orders for the link team. Yes, the Combi+Tinbot needs to be the Team Leader for it's order, but as you said that's a move-move to get you out of your DZ. The HMG is for the assault. And more importantly, those TacA orders free up orders to spend on things like the Zhencha and Haidao.
Probably because people are echo chamber-ing them from the past, when they didn't have all the fun stuff that they do now. Rather than actually playing them, or re-evaluating them for what they are, people just regurgitate what they've heard in the past. HB is very flexible and is a ton of fun. The only time I feel like you'll run into issues is if you are running trading lists and go up against Tohaa or SP.
Seconding this. Armies with luck insurance (Symbiomates, effective doctors, high order counts) tend to perform better. HB is a solid B, as far as I'm concerned. I think it's one of the hardest sectorials to play against as a beginner until you realize you can basically ignore most fidays if you're playing an even somewhat swarmy list. No HB player is going to ARO with a fiday unless you give them a beautiful shotgun shot, and they're expensive enough that you don't want to lose it without taking something with you. HB's big issue in an ITS situation is that it's surprisingly bad at button pushing for being Haaq. Your only options for button pushers that deploy out of your DZ are Farzans (or the Ragik AHD which is... questionable) and Farzans are very basic skirmishers.
TBH I think I have only ever seen HB used in tournament once and I didn't get to play against them. Like I said, I am more hoping that is more a starting point than a final product.
Is Tunguska really that low on the chart ? I remember ppl yelling being overpowered when sectorial arrived in july.
Tunguska brought some interesting pieces, but most of those reinforced Vanilla more than anything. The sectorial itself ended up being lacking in defensive department, from my understanding, meanwhile not being as overwhelming in first turn as things like IA can be nowdays.
TG has some powerful links/units but it's game plan is pretty rigid. You can't adapt lists to a lot of different missions like you can Vanilla/Bakunin/Corregidor. I think in some missions they are godlike (Hunting Party, for example) but not many. That lack of flexibility, coupled with that they get shredded by warbands, means they have more bad match-ups than good IMO. I'm still very much a novice with them, so maybe I'll revisit what I think of them after awhile.
