Unless I am mistaken and didn't understand your messasge, I think we are saying the same: a model's cost is equal to the sum of its abilities/stats/equipment. But I also showed examples of correctly priced units that loose badly when directly compared to their counterparts in other factions.
Sure, but this assumes that each ability is correctly priced and the points system doesn't take synergy vs skornergy into account. Also, incidentally, there's this one ability that a certain TR HMG has that's oddly inexpensive on specifically that TR HMG and only that TR HMG....
In Infinity, though, the cost system overvalues ARM and undervalues multiple wounds, relatively. So low Arm + multiple wounds + Mates is basically a "hack" of the rules/costing system. I wish my factions had similar "hacks."
Yup, the Symbiomates are exactly that, another "hack". Yet, Tohaa doesn't win tournaments right and left. Other famous examples are Muttas and Proxies.
Yup. And those are problems too. Though Tohaa does have the highest win rate percentage whenever they measure these things IIRC.
This statement is comparing similarly *roled* units, not similar units. TR HMG REM - S3, REM, Hackable, Ph 10, Total Reaction, 6-4 move 25/1 HMG Chaksa - S2, Living, Neurocinetics, Ph 12, 4-4 move 25/1 Sin-Eater - S2, Living, Neurocinetics, Ph 11, Arm 3, Mimetism, 33/2 These units are not the same. They have a similar role, but cost different amounts and do different things. Nomads pay +1 pt for Climbing Plus. CA pay +1 pt for mimetism. You say that it is undercosted. Can you provide an example of another s3 REM that has Mimetism next to an identical s3 REM that doesn't to confirm this claim? The pts metrics they use, so far as I can guess, wouldn't generally be based on whole numbers. Maybe the actual costing of a TR REM is more like 24.55 points. Maybe Mimetism on an S3 REM equates to +1.9 points - so that the REM rounds to the nearest whole number and is therefore 26pts?
This argument is flawed. The fact that X sectorial doesn't top every tournament does not prove that Y unit is not broken. The fact that X Sectorial doesn't win every tournament also does not prove it is not the strongest/best sectorial. Your argument hinges on the basis that broken unit = broken faction. That the best tournament players would only interested in playing the best faction OR that Tohaa pl. That playstyle has no impact on faction selection or army composition. That army aesthetics and theme have no impact on faction selection or army composition. Etc, etc.
Has it crossed your mind that maybe it is Mimetism on this REM that's hand-adjusted to create this outcome rather than the REM itself? As in the point I was actually making; that your fault is the assumption that the formula is without fault and that it can't be used to create a biased result?
Back to the mates topic. They are busted because they are so good that symbiobombs are literally never used. If something is so good it makes all the other options useless, then yeah it's too good.
I remember Carlos saying something about that earlier this year, that they don't think Mates are over powered, just that bombs are a bit underpowered, so there's little choice there I guess. I enjoy running bombs myself, but it sucks when you lose them with the symbio armor, might as well have taken a mate at that point.
I tell people in my local community that your list is simply bad if you dont have 4 mates, as they are too good to not bring. Hacing such "no brainers" is a sign that something is busted, in my opinion. And I say this as someone who loves the idea behind symbio bombs
'mates are located on a CoC profile, itself very situational and expensive, and I dare say that warning bells should be screaming if more than one CoC is regularly taken (especially in a faction not known for their LT suicides). They could put this to the test. For an ITS season, just move CoC to the 'bomb profile, but don't alter the price. It would be very interesting to see what the ITS data tells them which of the two profiles people take.
Do not have any hacker againts hackable targets and that isn't a drawback for you? Yes, you could do the same twice with the Symbiobomb, but only on models who can be set up in your own deployment zone. You have nearly no posibility for midfield control if you didn't get the first turn. Without hacker, I don't want to play my HI either. For our single 30 points killer hacker we don't have repeater. Yes, Tohaa has strong abilities, but is on the other hand in some ways verry limited in their ways to go. I've run into PanO double tag, who my oponent choose, cause he knew, i could't hack his tags. The last time he played the list, he had a very bad day againts Nomads. I've made many mistakes, so I rightfully lost against him, but without all these litte special things from Tohaa, Eclispe Makaul and Symbiomate Sukel, there woult be no chance to win these fight. But YES, you are totaly right, Tohaa has no drawback at all! [/sarcasm]
Once. But, yeah. It's repairable with a higher degree of ease and adaptability than many factions' TAGs at a lower investment, but can only be done once. Still, that's repairable. Though, neither repairing nor health-bombing really compares to fully negating several wounds suffered, I guess.
A trooper with Symbiont Armor cannot receive more than one SymbioBomb. Only once, it's really not comparable to other tags.
Simbiobombs are VERY GOOD aggresive choice equipment, the problem is that you have to renounce to the simbiomates, and they are a EXCELLENT defensive choice I use to use 2 and 2 on +10 order lists, the simbioboms allows you to do some good showtime, but... yes, it's awful when you lose 'em on the reactive turn because you lose the simbiont armor, but... it's a risk :p
The formula - faulty or no - is their creation. I have seen numerous posts on this forum regarding the use of the formula, and with it's existence backed up by numerous posts from moderators telling people not to outright discuss the points balancing. I have seen *you* post your personal opinion to say that it is hand adjusted, with no evidence provided save your own opinion to justify. All I have pointed out is that there is a formula, as evidence has shown, and made no comments either way as to it's nature being flawed - merely that your understanding of it is limited and you leap to the conclusion that they disregard it and do their own thing when they feel like it, instead of accepting that you are ignorant of it's workings. CB - We have a points formula. This is how we create profiles. Do not discuss it. vs Mahtamori - I think they hand adjust as it pleases them. I could be wrong. They may hand adjust. But you are just continuing to push your own opinion, as fact, without any evidence to back it up.
