Is Pano average-below average Vs all Factions/Sectorals?

Welcome to the Hyperpower!

If you look through the forums you'll notice that we PanO players have a tendency to feel like "PanO can't have nice things". Sometimes this feeling emerges in a wave of negative posts and threads over the forums, the most recent one was just in July/August. The most widespread notion is that CB designers aren't as passionate about PanO as they are about Nomads or Ariadna, and while updates and new units we get are perfectly playable (two notable exceptions, Teutons and Bolts), they're not very imaginative or exciting. PanO is the "efficient, yet boring", "just slap +1 BS and Mimetism on it" faction

In terms of raw strength I'd say vanilla, ASA and NCA are top of the line, and it's only MO that struggles behind. ASA is also the most rounded and fun to play of our sectorials, with MO again being the last. All signs point out that Varuna will be at/near ASA when it comes to strength and fun.

"It's not your list, it's you" is under fire for a few reasons, mostly because people feel that it suggests list building doesn't matter at all. I, on the other hand, like that saying. Overall Infinity balance is very level, with just a few armies straying from it. There's no "easy win" buttons here, neither in faction choice - none is significantly better than the others, really - nor in unit choice, though there are some units that are very strong, possibly too strong for their points, and others that are underwhelmning or simply rendered obsolete by better constructed choices. The bottom line is that while list building matters, it's more about creating a list with a plan in mind and flexibility to deal with opponent's surprises, than about choosing the best faction, taking max AVA of the most op unit, and having opponents to resign before deployment. Just look at the faction and sectorial lineup at big tournaments, most sectorials are well represented.

There are also different reasons as to why some sectorials struggle. For example Shasvastii are still stuck in N2 era, because CB took their time to rework the whole army. This is open knowledge. On the other hand MO is very limited in what it can do, with poor synergy and multiple units competing for the same role. It's still very strong if put together in a way that plays to its strengths. It's similar with MAF, though red monkeys have more diverse unit selection. FRRM is actually a very good army, but unpopular because of its obsolete sculpts and USAriadna having the spotlight since its introduction.

 

Vanilla Nomads can be brutal in good hands. Tohaa usually is really forgiving when making mistakes, and also gives quite "easy" set of solutions to the most of problems (B2 eclipse, then CC). Ariadna (and now TAK) utilizes very powerfull and "easy" tactic of massed CAMO.

MO became significantly less "hard mode" since HSN3 introduced native Specialist to OS links (OS paramedic) and allowed of mixed links (especially Hospitallers+Magisters). Those changes alone allowed actually to play MO without handicapping yourself. On the other hand almost all other options are inferior to this list (except occasional things like Joan, Santiago DUO etc). Also MO has a problem of neither being that excellent in single combat group, while usually ending up in ~13 orders level (which is bad from meta level).

Don't mix "fluff" with gameplay-level . (though apparently CB isn't that careful when giving all the candy's to Nomads)

Bettter wait and see what Varuna will bring. In meantime you can explore this forum and learn about "PanO&nice things" dynamic.

 

Well list building can be tricky in infinity. There are some common mistakes made by newbies which can make a big difference in game results (for example building 2 combat group list and putting all "active units" into single combat group), using massed AD+TO in single group etc. itd. A lot of people miss the fact that in saying "It's not your list, it's you" it was also "you" who made this list, so that the list itself might be flawed same way how the creator was (mostly due to lack of play experience).

 

They also have top-of-the-line HI TECH flame mines xD

 

True, same as going all fighting power - no support units, or massed HI without screen, etc. Still, most proper listbuilding rules can be boiled down to a few easy to remember guidelines, and it's almost never "take max AVA of unit X" ;)

 

Unless it's Ghazi, Morclok (yes I know xD) or Chasseur.
Or Avatar ;P

or Maruxt &Asura xDxDxD

Yes, but again this is some learning curve, lists can be builded "wrong" but botton line it's usually better for player learn about it by experience than being immiedietly shown "proper list".

Just the same way everyone learns this lesson about "congo line troops/fireteams" xD

 

And even that's not a universal - it's pretty common to see two Combat Groups where one contains the active units and the other contains support troops and warbands.

 

Posthumans, Spetznaz, Joan... :P

Yup, and that's a legitimate argument against the "it's not your list". You need the context to understand the line properly.

 

As always: it depends :) But I've also saw enough PanO lists which obviously don't have any super efficient&dangerous WB in 2nd combat group neither proper disposable "ARO pieces" but rather some more or less random stuff "to fill points".

 

Yep, exactly ;)

That's an amazing thing in Infinity that you can just make really pickup games (worst case things simple like Anhiliation or any "dominate zone" ones) and there is little in terms of "cheese" lists (except for those few factions which are so heavily skewed towards "single mechanic").

 

It's definitely more common in other factions than PanOceania, that's for sure.

 

@Nisse2MeetU!

1) Those are pretty much the top tier factions. Not only because their troops have a slight edge, but also because they are easier to use and forgive a few mistakes. While a single mistake still can end the game for them, it's less of a problem than let's say for Vanilla PanO when running a TAG.

2) FRRM is underrated after the update, AVA4 Chasseurs, their excellent new Mixed Link and Para Commandos alone are already enough to fill a list. They rely more on Regular cheap troops than people are used to. Warbands and Irregular Chaff are a lot less prominent here, which takes some getting used to. They're definitely not bottom tier any longer.

Morats, Druze and Shas are about right if you wanted to point fingers at the bottom feeders. All of them still have at least one good list concept that performs well, but usually just not on the level 14 Orders Tohaa triple Triad + Rasail + X does.

3) MO is hard mode, mostly because it's hard to get the most out of them without experience. List building can already be a big challenge as the clear cut Magister Link is the best bang for the buck and you'll have to make some important decisions on how to support them. There are a few things you'll want and you won't even be able to run half of them next to the Knights. Learning how to leverage the Magister Link, to see past the BS17 B5 HMG, takes a lot of time. There is so much potential crammed into the Fireteam that's basically just swords and guns on the first glance.
You'll have to figure out when to disband a Link to avoid AROs or leverage Impetuous Orders for extra efficiency. When to tuck behind a corner and have them come and get you and when to leave a Panzerfaust out for the ARO threat. Also how to use Stealth and dealing with Hacking.
That's just the tip of the iceberg and the other troops in your list need to be played to their potential as well.
Over all MO lists don't are satisfying to put together, you'll include a lot of scrappy fillers to have enough Orders to do what the game requires you to do. Playing the Knights on the table while steamrolling defenses and abusing game mechanics to makes it all the more worth it.

NCA is equally hard mode as soon as mission variety is part of the equation. Button pushing outside of their DZ is not NCA's strong suit. You have to tools to win any shooting duel, but you also rely on actually winning them, as a result NCA has a tough time playing from behind if someone manages to take out 2 or 3 of your key pieces.
Defending against CC and Smoke with an utter lack of Mines can also be tricky. Fighting at close range and into Hackers leads to issues you have to bring answers for.

SAA is a place of comfort with a few SWC issues as main challenge. There are a lot of choices but the main one will always be Regular vs Bagh
Core Link and you can expect the Regulars will win this argument a lot.

4) As the ITS Data shows, Vanilla PanO is pretty much the only Vanilla Faction that is less played than one of it's Sectorials.

There ususally is quite a gap in between a Vanilla Faction and even it's most popular Sectorial. However PanO Vanilla is significantly lower in terms of player count than NCA and almost equal to MO.
I'm not quite sure why that is the case, but PanO's best choices being either Links or expensive solo pieces is probably part of it. Building a Vanilla list can be quite unsatisfying, as you'll basically trade access to Links for secondary Attack pieces like the Nisse and Auxilia, Regular Sensor&Minelayer, Krakots as well a Joan in one place. Running TAGs and Guards is for the most part mutually exclusive so people often prefer to do it in their respective Sectorials.

5) This is Infinity and leading the power curve is really not the point. Unlike 40k where constant power creep always keeps escalating things, there are pretty damn old Factions like Ariadna that remain strong since forever. I'm not even sure the new TAK releases made them any better, beyond adding the Strelok. Everything else is nice to have, but already has an equally powerful equivalent.

Buffing everything over time can't be the goal, but variation is what makes a faction good, so that's what needs addressing. Simply adding a bunch of strong Varuna troops to PanO would make PanO a lot better and maybe Vanilla even needs that. Personally I'd rather see the existing underused troops rebalanced so they can keep up with the competition depending on circumstances.

 

Achilles

 

I think the saying needs to be changed to 'It is not your faction, its you'. It is possible through inexperience to make a weak list, but all factions can make a working list. Infinity is tactical enough that I think player experience is more important than list mechanics differences. There is a certain baseline of a workable list, but it mostly revolves around having a variety of tools to take advantage of. I have never seen a list put down, and think 'This will be easy'. Occasionally it might be 'This looks easy, he must have something devious up his sleeve!'

Absolutely not! Infinity is pretty well balanced. There are a few highs and lows, but the differences are close enough, that they can be surmounted through skillful play. I do not want an 'army of the month' game. Keep it balanced!

 

Welcome to Panoville, each factions has their strong points and their weak points and keep in mind that everything can be killed, So, find a faction that fit your play style, if you like tossing smoke then Pano might not be for you but if you like shooting the crap out of somebody's army then gear up, Pano is for you.

 

Everything in Infinity is more or less balanced with some scarce, yet notable exceptions *cough cough Tohaa cough*

 

I don't think the following is particularly important, but given how you're framing your questions, I think it might provide useful context:

I compete a lot. I travel to a lot of events. Last season, I was very well ranked in the United States. I estimate I've played about 800 games of Infinity since I started 6 years ago, using almost every faction. Of those games, I've used Shock Army of Acontecimento or NeoTerra in about 500 of them, because I love them the most.

I mention these things because I understand your question of whether or not an army can thrive in a competitive environment. I understand the reasons you're trying to define these criteria.

Note that I don't think they're particularly important to Infinity. The external balance between factions is amazingly strong. But to address the idea of why PanO can be competitive:

PanO's power as a competitive army is their ability to project consistent attrition. Consistency is one of the hardest things to establish in a tactics/strategy game that uses dice. While PanO gives up the diverse range of support tools and options that let players solve problems in a lot of different ways, PanO is about solving problems one way, and doing it very well. If you develop a high level of comfort with utilizing that main strength, you can be very competitive with PanO.

That said, they may be a fit for you, and they may not be. But if you personally like the army, you want to succeed with them, and you enjoy playing them on the tabletop, then those are all key components for being successful with them.

 

That's why I like Acon, they don't lack in diversity of options, while sacrificing very little of PanO's power. "Nomads that can shoot", indeed.

 

Perfectly phrased, as usual.

When I break out my NCA I'm under no impressions that I'll be pulling off anything particularly shifty. I do it to throw massive amounts of lead downrange and then sort out the debris.