I'm fine with 8 pt bots, just as I am with Netrods, but I don't take them every game either. I mentioned their downsides because it sounded like you weren't aware of the disadvantages to them. I see your point about buying 3, and getting one "good" one from the bunch. However, even just sitting in the DZ the Thorakite provides utility you're not going to get out of the Netrod. While most cases it's going to sit there looking pretty, it still has the potential the move down field, killing dudes, claiming objectives, etc. Just sitting in the DZ it provides DZ protection. So it's worth a bit more than the netrod, which does none of those things. Further you've also spent another resource, which is space in combat groups, which is also a limited resource, in a way that the Thorakite does not. Also I think you're glossing over the difference in killing the two models. Assuming you're correct, and everything goes right, and both the Netrod and Thorakite are deployed in full cover, and you get to shoot both with no action or cover for the Thorakite, the Thorakite is still ARM3. However, while the situation where the model is without cover, and takes no action is a guarantee for the Netrod, it's far more likely the Thorakite is in cover, and shooting back. The different between the Netrod sitting there and taking a hit (87% attack success), and the Thorakite being in cover shooting back (35% attack success) is ~50%. Further it means on average the netrod is going to die to one shot, the Thorakite to 3. Out of cover the odds drop to (50% attack success) which is 2 orders, and out of cover doing nothing still puts the Thorakite at 10% better odds of living.
I have no idea where these numbers are coming. A Thorakite caught in it's bad range (which is more likely for a Thorakite than any other line trooper due to the SMG) is pretty much just as likely to go down to a Spitfire volley as a netrod is. He's certainly not 3 times as likely to survive.
That Thorakite might go down to a Spitfire volley (a heavy weapon with SWC cost!), but that same Spitfire trooper could split his fire, using only a single shot to take down the netrod, and the other three shots to deal with something else. A netrod can scatter off the board and destroy itself during deployment! And yes I know you can mitigate that chance by careful placement of where you drop them, but that same careful placement greatly restricts your deployment options. Look, I love Netrods, they are a regular inclusion in my Aleph lists, but they are incredibly fragile. A Thorakite is easily three times as tough/effective as a netrod. If it wasn't for the netrods awesome interaction with the Posthuman, I am not sure they would find there way into many of my lists.
I was assuming a Fusie with a combi rifle at 16". Mostly because it's a pretty middle of the road profile and scenario. I'd argue the Combi rifle profile is better for exactly that reason, but there's a 30% difference in the likihood that an SMG in the bad band vs a spitfire is still an improvement over the netrod. Further Spitfire in the backfield is pretty close to worse case scenario. I'm assuming 16" because the nature of DZ makes these engagements pretty close. Santiago Knight w/ Spitfire at 16" Netrod at 97% doing nothing vs Thorakite at 71% shooting back And that's ignoring the fact that you can assign B1 to the Netrod or make a full move in LoF of the model without taking cover because it's not going to shoot back.
Taking a small second group with Netrods also pretty much guarantees you'll lose 2 orders from the main group if you go first, which you're immune to in ITS if you only have one group.
Except that you have a net of 2 more orders, and you will always have a Shukra so it's just one order you lose with an lt order you can always use. You're already better than most LI lists at that point. Shukra can even be in group 2 with 3 Netrods to push buttons if you need him to.
Or the 13 points Forward Observer, which has very few bad range bands and are significantly more likely to force your opponent to deal with it where it gets partial cover, which increases the likelihood of wasting that Knight's orders from 29% to 41% with a 7% chance of stopping the Knight from attacking for the rest of the turn. By the way, worst case scenario for the Netrods is that they all scatter off the table and never get to contribute orders at all.
You are assuming that there was space for the AD template in the middle of the table (and I do mean at all, not just in good place). I played on many a table where this was not possible.
That's an area which is 16x16" large (or 4 armouries grouped together). It is true that this is an area you should be able to set down in, but it's also common for that area to be unusually exposed. You'll have troopers passing through going to objectives and you'll have sniper lanes criss-crossing it. I'm not sure I'd call it greedy setting down outside that area as much as it's greedy setting down inside it, but they're probably a lot less likely to survive turn 1 if you stick them down in this area. On the other hand, this is not really what or why I was pointing that out so much as answer the question "what could possibly go wrong?" :p
Actually no, there are massive drawbacks in doing so. You get diminishing returns with essentially building your list on top of a house of cards. Anyone with good experience, and knowledge of the faction, can easily exploit this and plow away your order pool as Kaung Shi's are (contrary to popular belief) quite easy to kill, with all the Shock Ammo going around. Besides I've built plenty of 16-19 order list with "only" 4 Kaung Shi's and those lists contain very heavy hitters and really doesn't actually benefit from an influx of 4 unstable orders. Although I will, of course, never contend the fact that a minimum of 4 Kuang Shi's is about as auto include as it gets for Infinity. However, it's ludacris to claim that you're essentially handicapping yourself if you don't use 8 Kuang Shi's.
I don't think any missions have exclusion zones that leave less than 16 inches deployable, and you can game it a little by choosing a position where the 16 inch scatter is at an angle instead of a straight line. Even the very slight change in angle means you will always have a deployable position where leaving the table is not possible.
You're probably right. I guess the greater point to make is in line with what @Mahtamori was making, that is, "yes, you can deploy in a "safe" area, if by safe you mean not able to disperse off the table, but you'd be hard pressed to find such a place that also provides enough cover to survive the first game round, and nearly impossible if you actually scatter." Don't get me wrong, I grab Imetrons in many of my lists, but they are by no means auto include.
Exclusion zone may not actually impact a netrod. A lot of people argue that a netrod lands as an equipment, and exclusion zone only applies to trooper.
All Exclusion Zones block this 16x16" since they are all 8" on either side of the centre, I'm also not sure you can game it since your Netrod dies if it so much as toes the outside of the battlefield and it'd have to be deployed fully outside the Exclusion zone. I haven't done the math, however, and it's possible that there is sufficient angle on the dispersion template that you can regain that lost 1" and then some. Although, as Kinginyellow notes, Exclusion Zones should not apply to AI Beacons for exactly the same reasons as AI Beacons can't benefit from EVO Hacking Devices.
I thought the reasoning was a bit different. Something like the EVO doesn't grant its bonus until the start of the game because deployment doesn't have much of an order to it beyond reserve units and player order. It smells a little fishy to me, but it is true that you can place your EVO, move it around, pick it back up, place something else, then put that unit back down somewhere else. So it gets messy if you allow it to grant the bonus during deployment by virtue of being on the table. I would say that it would follow the same ruling as to whether AI beacons can use the landing assistance rule (no need for a template), since they are both specific to ITS missions. If an AI beacon benefits from landing assistance, then they would also be restricted by the exclusion zone. Unfortunately, that questions has yet to be answered in an official capacity, AFAIK.
My point Is ... It's not only better. It's also worse for the reason I mentioned. In almost every case by the way kill a 40 points troop with elite stats and gear is less order intensive than kill two average 20 points troops ... And if you "manage to lose" only one of the two 20 points guy in one turn the other one is still there to generate order and do things . Mask
