Who to play in a campaign?

I would always choose corregidor because the other guys are freaks.

 

Depends on what will you face and the mission. Usually, when we played campaigns in my local scene, there was a rush to identify who plays with what (that info was not revealed... you had to piece it together with the help of your teammates; this was critical for Steel Phalanx players, since a casualty against the CA could meant losing that character for all the players...).

Usually, if Limited Insertion is in action, Tunguska and Bakunin have good options, but Corregidor has gotten some extra ones with the last rework. Biotechvore is a mission that, like the LI extra, favours the order efficiency Fireteams bring.

For killy missions, depending on how good you are moving Fireteams, the three sectorials can keep their ground, but only Corregidor has MSV2, Bakunin has a lot of MSV1 with the Riot Grrls and the Zeros & Morlocks, the Moiras for ODD, the Heavy Grenade Launcher of the Lizard, etc..., while Tunguska has the Hollow Men, Interventors, Kriza...

For example, against Ariadna (specially TAK), or even Shasvastii I might prefer to use Riot Grrrls before Tunguska, because of a HI core with MSV1 to compensate for all those camos, the Morlocks to neuter enemy units in melee and lay down smoke, Zeros to grab objectives... Vs YJ I might prefer Vanilla nomads because of Tomcats & Zeros for repeater-laying helping my "Oblivion ARO" against non-veteran HI, etc..

The thing that can be talked about is where to start in the army evolution when spending points. I am partial to the +3 to the promotion roll per level (because of the +1 SWC in two of those levels, too), but you might prefer the extra merc to always have a Saito, or Uahu, or Emily, or McMurder...
Or all players might be going to the uncontested "I win deployment rolls always", effectively forcing everyone to go there and spend points into something that won't change anything unless you face rivals with too few points to spend there.

 

We're playing through that campaign in my meta right now with the caveat that if we locked in a single vanilla/sectorial for the whole campaign we'd start with 2xp. I picked Vanilla Nomads to claim that XP, gain flexibility/unpredictability, and decrease my reliance on characters. In exchange I gave up raw firepower and some choice mercs.

I don't know all the campaign missions, but in general I'd say vanilla will serve you best in objective focused missions thanks to so many Infiltration/AD specialists and abundant cheap smoke. Sectorials may serve you better in murder focused missions with fireteams and options like McMurrough and Raoul. Naturally both choices can do both mission types, but you need to understand your own strengths and weaknesses as a player to choose how you want to approach each mission. Definitely worth reading over the strategy guides for each sectorial stickied here and found on 1d4chan, that'll help you decide which hammer to bring when you do field a sectorial. (Hint, unless you're facing camo spam a Hollowmen link with engineer support is truly disgusting.)

One thing I will say is that the military specialties are probably more worth your XP than the spec ops. Getting your spec-ops killed is a brutal loss of XP and some of the specialty tracks are sweet (I went Psi-Ops for Hannibal/Emily/McMurrough/Raoul). While I won't say Nomads got bad spec-ops options, but we didn't get the top tier options like a BTS 9 Total Immunity Nexus for 12xp or the WIP 15 + Jammer for 6xp on the Holoprojector wildcard Hafza for QK... It's always likely that someone sees something in our spec-ops options that I don't, but compared to extra army points, extra swc, or extra unit availability I don't see it being worth the points.

 

I think dying during a Campaign (failing Medevac & Casevac) means not being able to be deployed in the next fight, but coming back for the next one after that... It applies to characters too, regardless of enemy (so Aleph characters can be totally killed against CA and they get send to the bench for 1 battle, instead of for the whole rest of the campaign).

 

I don't have the book so I may have it wrong, but I thought:

If you pass the medevac the character is fine next game.

If you fail medevac but pass cubevac the character is out 1 round then back.

If you fail medevac and cubevac the character is dead for the rest of the campaign.

 

Is that old Paradiso?

 

Maybe? We're playing from the Daedalus Falls book but the guy who told me that may have been remembering rules from another campaign.

Is that not how it works in Daedalus Falls?

 

Jep, it's wrong
If you fail medevac and you have no cube, you are dead.
If you fail medevac and have a cube, make a cubevac roll. If you fail, you are out for one round.