"jUsT mAkE iT wOrK!", completely disregarding the cost of achieving the goal (human, tactical, strategic, materiel), the force disproportionality, the suicidal character of the "working" tactic. It's literally the "Avatar is not OP and non-interactive because you can simply D-Charge it with a SAS! Just make it work!!!" brand of un-logic. Intellectual dishonesty and laziness at their finest, with the added side of implied "if you cannot make it work, then there's simply something wrong with you, not the situation you're in or the "working" tactic".
Except that I make it work without any of those. My 'at N4 launch' Starmada to-go list was a cheap Kappa core with a hacker and an ARO piece, a Cyberghost, one varangian, a lambda engineer, an Oko, a Kytta, a psi-cop MMR, an Epsilon HMG, Cho CoC hidden somewhere safe in my DZ, and a Zeta Lt. And even after all the changes and improvements made to Starmada... the list is essentially the same, but with some of the pieces either swapped or improved. As you can see the essence of the list plays exactly how an standard TAG pano list should work: Your TAG support your dudes to make the mission happen and allowing them to move up the table, instead of the other way around. And even if I do not actively play Pano, neither NCA, and I am pretty sure you could mimic the basic structure of the list in all the sectorials of Pano. Uma Sorensen is a non-hackable Camouflage, Specialist Operative, with Terrain (Total), Stealth, MIM -3 and Climbing Plus, that happens to have WIP 13, Forward Deployment +8', suprise attack and e/m mines. Just pointing it out that in the case you're in the very very need to have a marker state deployed non-hackable specialist operative midfielder in NCA for your playstyle and accomplish missions... you already have one in her.
My answer against the Avatar is the same answer against any other TAG in the game following. If I go second avoid him rampaging my DZ thanks to direct template corner threats and a repeater network spreaded through my DZ. If I go first and such TAG is presenting himself as a target, punish him until it is forced to retreat into full cover or he overextends his courage roll into falling uncouncious.
The clutch pieces in there are the Varangian and Cyberghost, which PanO really can't replicate. Smoke and White Noise give you full options for avoiding fights, Pitcher access via the Cyberghost lets you ignore anti-Hacking screens, and the Varangian's CC is leagues ahead of anything in PanO save expensive Knights. You've also got some extra high-quality Unhackable Specialists not chained to a link. To be clear, I'm not attacking your argument here, I'm actually pretty stoked to see what someone's doing with the same strategy in another faction with different tools, just pointing out that there are differences and tradeoffs in capabilities that frankly aren't there if you compare with, say, CA. I genuinely like that there are things NCA and Starmada can each do that the other can't. My version of the list uses a full Bolt Core including both the MSV Sniper and non-MSV Missile Launcher, as well as my CoC and Engineer, a Fusilier Haris with another sniper rifle and the LT, some Auxilia, a couple cheap REMs for Repeater coverage, a Tech Bee and the keys to the list; a Swiss Guard Hacker and Hexa KHD. The Bolt team watches objectives and baits in enemy attack pieces to be ambushed by the Swiss, which pushes forward with that momentum alongside the Auxilia in an attempt to clear the midfield and force the enemy's rear echelon units and hidden Skirmishers into a fair fight. The Fusilier Sniper watches nearer approach paths to the DZ, and shifts to covering objectives after the enemy's main firepower has been eliminated. Usually the other link members are only used when counter-attacking nearby targets, but the CoC Bolt and Engineer can be dispatched to complete objectives that the Swiss can't be present for. The Hexa is my reserve piece, kept back to handle Hackers once they move forward or make late-game objective runs. The Tech Bee does its own thing usually; its Irregular Order is usually spent walking to a midfield objective over the course of the game and the list presents enough other threats that it used to actually be my Datatracker; it would just get left alone, even to the point of being able to make a LT assassination run with its pistol once.
Welcome back :-D That sounds like an echo from a few pages ago... It´s kinda refreshing to see this .... emotional fallout happens somewhere else than a Nomad-related forum, but this time we are bashing PanO for beeing unplayable to the point of self flagellation (which is, in the MO case, at least fitting) As someone playing a little bit of PanO myself (coming from Nomads and Aleph), there are some good points to find in here. PanO IS limited in what they can do. Starting with a nearly complete lack of options to obscure enemy LoF (and lets be honest: neither the Guarda de assolto nor the BS10 auxbot is a unit you see regulary on the field). And to have no access to this most basic of all tactical options is quite a bumb in the road. Yes, there are other sectorials without smoke or white noice or eclipse, but i have not a single one in mind that lacks all of this options. I will, btw, use this combination of statements in every Nomad thread it fits. "There is not one Nomad army anywhere to find in the top ten, therefore cannot be such thing as "too much" or "OP" or "Nomads have everything". When Nomads need anything, then it´s a buff to catapult them into a spot at the sun!"
Lol, see, this is what happens when you’re away for a while; you start quoting other people without realising it! I’m not sure I’m having the same experience that others are having here when I play PanO. I have very positive experiences when playing them, they can still outshoot pretty much everyone or at least go toe to toe with the scariest and best. I’ve been able to utilise the large amount of MSV units to great effect and what I can’t deal with outright due to lack of options is usually dealt with by a boarding shotgun to the face. Not an optimal solution but whatever works. PanO is limited in what it can do but what it does, I find that it does it very well. NCA is still terrifying with its bolts. If the issue is that you’re not able to use some units due to the fire lanes not being optimised for a particular weapon type, then that’s possibly more to do with the board than the unit itself. I do agree though that there are limitations on the army that may be far more useful and could now be included in PanO. I can understand where the salt is coming from but my experience as I’ve said seems to be different. Possibly due to our player group or other factors like the dice gods liking my Neoterra. I’d love to see more love for NCA and Acontecimento as they’ve been neglected and getting new minis for them would be equally sweet. But in that vein I’d love to see support for the older forces across the range. I miss my mrrf…
It's not about the Avatar, it's about the toxic and dismissive attitude towards somebody stating "My faction has problems handling the Avatar". You present a solution and happen to have decent tools for it. You're not part of the problem, mate.
I can assure you that the people who complain about having difficulty with Nomads come from a limited subset of factions, having been on these forums for a while. This is why I am starting to get the feeling that this whole situation might actually be more to do with certain Sectorials and factions falling behind rather than Nomads being pushed ahead- they seem to be oppressive and boring for PanO and Yu Jing to play against due to lack of answers in those factions for the heavy board control and weak backfield puzzle the faction presents. The other brand of complaints, concerning erosion of faction identity, seem to be coming from all quarters though- especially many Nomad players themselves.
I do understand your point here and you have worded what I wanted to say: If that strategy of fully DZ-bound deployment could work in N4-release Starmada, it can be made to work in any PanO sectorial even if you have different tools. There is a totally different question if that is a playstyle you enjoy, which is valid to have.
See, your leaning into what PanO is rather than complaining about what it isn't, so it obviously doesn't apply.
Hmm… damn. You’re right. Oh well. I’m going to reward myself with cake regardless. Also by purchasing stuff that I’ll likely not paint for ages. Possibly something with an auxbot. You can never have too many auxbots.
Cupcakes, built in portion control. Just make sure not to paint anything PanO, because it's all useless.
Well, when it's the unit designed to be one of, if not the most imposing and powerful unit in the game, yeah, it's going to end up like that sometimes.
It's going to depend hugely on table layout. If you have really limited lanes of approach that are fairly long then yea, I can see how that helps. If on the other hand you can't sit up in a sniper tower and cover most of the map then the objectives are going to get done without you playing the game. PanO is weak at a few things. Being slightly better shooters doesn't make up the difference. But hoping for CB to approach a faction for some tweaks if they aren't selling new minis for it is fruitless.
Yeah, table layout is going to be an issue especially if it’s set up to favour certain weapon types then of course you’ll be more limited in what you’ll want to take. Speaking with your opponent so that the table supports multiple if not all weapon types means your lists aren’t limited. It encourages more immersive play, at least from the perspective of my player group but I do know that some missions heavily favour certain profiles and weapon loadouts over others and PanO may or may not have the best profiles to necessarily deal with the mission compared to their opponent. (Haven’t really experienced this though in my player group either playing as or against PanO). I’ll still play the mission though, it’s fun and I get to play with toys that I like. I have to disagree with you that being slightly better shooters doesn’t make the difference as from the experiences I’ve had playing PanO, it does. They do have weaknesses, I’ll certainly acknowledge that but then so do all the other factions. To me, PanO can be generally summed up as the faction that SHOULD have all the toys to deal with a situation but doesn’t need them as their go to is to put a bullet in it and to look stylish whilst doing so. Lol, hey now, I can hope all I want. I know it’s unlikely but I’ll keep dreaming. Much as I do in any other Wargame I play where a faction that isn’t selling well has some underperforming units or hasn’t gotten any updates in forever. If anything, me hoping and wanting it may encourage them (any manufacturer not just CB) to make new minis and update the army/create rules for it!
I think that talking out table layout is great. But that has nothing to do with ITS events. And really, that's where game balance matters. Playing for fun at home or at the shop with friends is great, and you can work your lists to be fair and even along with the terrain and missions and all that. It's great fun. But it unfortunately has nothing to do with whether or not balance is a problem.* *This is how we play historicals, narrative 40k stuff, and "for fun" Infinity, it's great, but it's not competitive play
I’m mildly confused how ITS events have gotten into the conversation. I may have missed something earlier when reading the thread. Apologies if I did. Yes, casual play, narrative play is fun and I feel that sometimes it suffers at the hands of tournament gaming. Even playing ITS games we have in the past talked about board layout. It ensured that each player had a good time. If I was solely concerned with the tournament scene then I’d do my research about each army. I’d look at their play style and decide which one was best suited to my play style then I’d work out lists that were optimised for each mission and purchase the miniatures as necessary. On the other hand that’s not how I got into wargaming and it’s not how I’d try to get new players in. I generally go with the army I think looks coolest. If however the argument that seems to be going on in this thread is based on the ITS scene and tournament play in particular then I could see how PanO isn’t entirely the optimal choice for tournament play then as there are certainly some cases where they don’t necessarily have what they need while other factions may. It’s why I do understand why there’s some salt here. I’d still play them though. They look great. On a final note, your last statement seemed to be patronising which I don’t think there was need for. I get that people are upset in this thread over how things are (once again, not my experience with PanO) but I’d like to keep it civil. If this wasn’t your intent then I apologise.
I am primarily looking at PanO from an ITS environment. I dont think PanO maps great onto its lore from gameplay with several pieces highlighting that such as the Boyg, Aquilla guard and locust, but thats a separate subsection of issues that would delve into overall faction design and balance arguments. I like the overall design of the models. I miss the more narrative elements of N3 that were sacrificed for N4. This nerf is rather a sticking point for me as it doesn't fix any issues that are omnipresent in the game and by any metric doesn't seem warranted. With a growing stack of profiles that just shed points for no discernable reason, the bulleteer has existed more or less as is for years. The only major change up has been linkability, but thats neither universal for sectorials nor shown to be a major issue post fireteam update. I find the rational argument of someone doing extensive research into factions, balance and playstyle doesn't really pan out, even for someone interested in the competitive aspect. The people who hover around saying they're doing research either go in on a random thing that catches their eye, or they don't get into the game at all. Its not an infinity thing, this applies to basically any wargame I have experience with. I find that thinking about a playstyle and playing said playstyle are two very different things as you are often relying on a subjective anecdote to explain a particular facet without a greater contextualuzation of the game. This is why I usually point people to something that they like the look of or go for a very broad strokes approach factions suggestions to new players.
