Is that what they were called, Null Zones? Now that I think about it, I think I do recall those being in the game. They just weren't on my radar because I'm primarily an Ariadna player, and most of my gaming group has not learned the hacking game.
Nullifiers were basicly "anti repeaters", you place them like a deployable and generated a ZoC field within you could not use hacking, technical weapons and sepsitors. Moreover targets inside ZoC could not be targeted by those attacks which included access to repeaters. A neat little thing to counter a repeater net (remember: there were missions with repeater-objectives. Fun times). Unfortunatly, Nullifiers weren´t that common, if i remember correctly it was mostly a tohaa-only. I would love to see nullifiers back in the game, but unfortunatly they went the year-of-the-tohaa way.
As in the official terrain that Corvus Belli makes doesn't allow you to shoot a Moran tucked against a rooftop barrier with a super-jumping model without having to get so close that you are getting hacked anyway. So saying that you can just get around it with super-jump is wrong; CB didn't intend people to be able to. When people like Mao and @Gwynbleidd go into the conversation mocking the opposing viewpoint instead of discussing, yes, it's insulting. And the fact that you continually give people spouting the most servile version of the CB party line the chance to do it over and over but say that people who criticize CB's balance decisions in a polite manner should shut up is very telling.
No. That assumes that both CB cared to do it and they knew what they were doing. And I don't think there's been a coherent design philosophy behind PanO units since VIRD was developed. The difference is honestly stark.
Yes... shooting that Jazz tucked away inside a building... super easy. You know you have to Target them to use Guided first, right?
I think we should all just chill out a bit here, and steer away from points made against other posters in either direction. It is frustrating to be told repeatedly to just play another faction, or to try it out on the table (as if many of the posters in this discussion haven't racked up hundreds of games over the past decade!), but nothing is improved by responding in kind. It's also important because the moderator is heavily involved in this discussion, and so it's going to be hard for them to moderate, and so keeping things civil is at a premium. I also think the most important point here is that, in response to the arguments regarding the extreme asymmetry in hacking, and the binary good/dead style of Infinity's game design in hacking, the most prolific responses have been: A) You can always get lucky! My X killed Y the other day. B) If you're not enjoying it, why not play another faction? Or another game? C) Shoot hackers, don't hack them! D) Killer hackers with tinbots on active turn can serviceably get through and put something like Jazz unconscious for a turn. I think A and B aren't really worth responding to, right? They just throw chaff in the way of discussing this topic as far as I can see. Happy to be corrected if I'm missing something. C is worth considering, but it seems to ignore (or minimise for rhetorical effect) the stark differences in these two game elements. One demands LoS, stacking mods such as rangebands, movement and therefore, because of all these factors, high threat of failure or loss (a threat that is significantly increased by facing hacking). The other requires a small subset of equipment and skills that are extremely asymmetrically distributed among factions, and does not require LoS, etc. C is suggesting that the way to address superior hackers is to do exactly what you'd do to any other target as Pano (shoot them), even though this target is harder to score shots against than any other because it – by design – requires no LoS and its game mechanic is built to reward you when your opponent tries to do just that. Now that's fine; we can say the game is purposively designed to reward hacking play vs traditional shooting-based play, and we can further say that shooting based factions need to have poorer hacking otherwise they'd just ignore this asymmetry and hack the hackers. What's not fine is to pretend that this isn't how the game works when people talk about it. (Note that this problem is compounded by the fact that the best hacking factions now, in late N4, also have very strong shooting, leaving the original shooting faction feeling a bit badly treated. I guess that's another topic.) D Is the best response by far, and I think it's important to acknowledge it. Even against Tinbotted Jazz, a killer hacker can do work if you want to spend the orders and roll the dice. Santiago is an option, but because success hinges upon leveraging the active turn, I by far prefer Zulus or Hexas, and I think both these units can be considered good hackers for Pano. So maybe that's the most constructive thing to date in this discssion? A hexa & zulu KH with a pathfinder can do serviceable work as an anti-hacker element of a Pano list.
there are advices for table-setup: Not too open because of oppressive long range shooters, not too dense because of DTW-massacres, etc. why aren‘t there advices for setting up a table in which you can not (for the most part) shoot a repeater near/into the enemies DZ? table design should not be the only solution for game balance. But when my table is totally open and I complain about how my melee force gets obliterated by long range units - maybe my table design plays a big part in the imbalance. again: I do not advocate that „let the table do all the balancing“, but for a given state of the game, you can „homebrew“ a solution with the table, until the issue is fixed. So if you see repeater into/near the DZ as a gamebreaking mechanic, you can do something against it
"why aren‘t there advices for setting up a table in which you can not (for the most part) shoot a repeater near/into the enemies DZ?" - Because repeaters have an 8" effective radius that goes through scenery. Imagine a gun that shot 16"-wide impact templates that ignored terrain, and now try to set up a table to address it.
E) Put a wildparrot next to hacker // hacker and their support fireteam, and then proceed to use your own hacker/killer hacker on the offending 'superior' enemy hacker. They either dodge, and thus you can hack unopossed, or they hack you back, and thus eat a E/M template. And by the way why you say put something like Jazz unconscious for a turn in option D? What is preventing the KHD to use another order to 'double tap' the Jazz with another Trinity and remove her for good for the rest of the game? Now unopossed thanks to her being unconcious.
While interesting as an idea to have again hacking null zones it was a mostly? if not entirely Tohaa thing that further gave advantage to N3 Tohaa not many miss them as part of Tohaa, on the other hand some form of radial ecm would not be bad idea to consider or test. I am honestly unable to see how you can say that and that was before the changes in Super Jump, I am wondering at what terrain setups you play? Please stop stating your assumptions as facts.
Wild parrot is an option, and the echo bravo is pretty cool I think. (not so much the Locust imo). Good point, if a little dicey. And yeah, you can pile more orders into her, assuming she was the only hacker you were dealing with. 43% chance to kill her prone body, per order spent, assuming you're going through a repeater. You most likely took three hacks to knock her unconscious, two to move into repeater range, and so sticking an average of two more orders into it will seal the deal, for a total of 7 orders. That's why I thought it was the option worth talking about. What's going against it is the very high number of orders to deal with her.
That is a good question and topic, I was thinking yesterday that, unsurprisingly, PanO hackers are better at defending themselves from shooting attacks than most other hackers. Seems to be the case of tinbots and Surprise attack killer hackers doing the job.
Also adding to this list the Sensor profile of Vargar Maximun Security Team. Let's think why a player would would want to do this: You either are afraid of a Spotlight + Guided Missile attack that can ruin your battleplan. Or either you have a HI - heavy list that you want to move up the table to imposse their superior BS and superior Resiliance to dominate the game. Or your specialists are hacking vulnerable and you need them to do the mission. If using 7 orders in your first turn you're allowing your other orders for the remain of the game to be able to move freely the board, I would say those are well-spent 7 orders. Specially if you're fielding a 15+ orders list with a well balanced splitted groups to have 7-8 orders in the one group who is designed to tackle the offending superior hacker enemy, and 8-9 orders in the other group to further advance your table position. Of course another altogether question is if it is good for the game balance that you have to spent 7 orders to handle this, when the superior hacker has only to spent 3-4 orders in active turn, or just passively ARO when the situation is right for it, to wreckle your game plan.
This is also problematic because these problem hackers are frequently in the most defensible position on the table and quite possibly part of the main core fire team. Can you rush them down and shoot them? Sure, it's not impossible. However it's not that simple. Like we said, this problem hacker is probably behind several layers of ARO defense, possibly at the rear of a core fire team. A conventional attack against them means you practically need to table your opponent. I've certainly found myself in this position before, I've successfully murdered my opponent's high end hacker on turn 1 before it caused problems but in the process to get to said hacker I had to kill 6 other models including an LT and their core fireteam. At this point realistically the strategy wasn't to neutralise said hacker it was just alpha strike the shit out of my opponent so he can't fight back. Forcing players into an all in do or die turn 1 rush to table their opponent because they absolutely need to kill a single model via a conventional attack is not a healthy state for the game to be in.
Please mind that all the following is within the boundaries of the approach response of "shoot them" Airbone Deployment and Hidden Deployment Infiltrators, both available for all Pano in one way or another except SWF, are specifically designed to be able to attack a problematic piece that is positioned in the enemy DZ behind several layers of defense without the need to table them. This of course is walled behind a roll that is needed to be made to be able so, which is healthy for the game or otherwise no DZ would be safe for anyone in the game. Of course there is a balance question why they have to risk such a roll when other strategies such as Impersonation-1 not requiring a roll for its setup or Pitcher Hacking nor risking anything with their roll for the seteup other than wasting an order. Speculative Attack, and specially Grenade Launchers, are another way to attack a problematic piece that is unaccesible behind several layers of defense. This is also available for all Pano except Military Orders, who can still speculative but only by "hand". Speculative Grenade Launching have the additional advantage of being risk-free, other than the lower % of succes. Eclipse Template, which is available for SAA and Vanilla Pano in the form of the Guarda de Asalto, assure the access to such problematic piece for your attack except in fringe cases. And finally, Marker State combined with Mobility Skills and/or Stealth, available to all Pano in one way or another, can get behind those layers of ARO defense thanks to their 'ablative' defense of marker state in order to finally get into a position where they can shoot the offending Hacker without the need to table them first. Yes, this is hard to do, yes this table and scenery dependent, yes there is not an assured payoff even if you're able to get into the position... But it can be done.
We have smokes against shooters VMS against smokes LI>MI>HI>TAG playing at "who's the biggest fish ?" Killer hackers against hackers Deactivators against mines EVO against airdrops Yet we have no tool in this game to deal with hacknets. I think the core of these problems always fall into 1) Faction designs are overlapping 2) No true gameplay elements to counter hacknets
Huh? CB still makes terrain now and super jump is how it is. Apparently stating my opinion by saying "I think" is too much for you. Get off it.
I’m only answering you on this occasion as I’m not sure where or when I ever said that the game couldn’t be critiqued or that your opinion didn’t matter. As for respect, to quote Duke Leto Atreides; “sir I honour and respect the personal dignity of any man who respects mine”. You have constantly stated things that are untrue regarding things I have said. To that end I do not feel that any reaction I have given to your statements has been disrespectful. I will also claim that respect is something that is earned. Again, I’m not sure where I have mocked those in this thread or indeed you personally. We appear to have very different interpretations on that matter. I have consistently stated my opinion based on what I have experienced, nothing more. That others have experienced differently does not invalidate their opinion or experience and I certainly would never seek to silence someone. When you silence someone, you do not prove them a liar, rather you fear what it is they may say. I would rather talk with people than have them be silent but I would ask that the talk be conducted politely and without anger. Would that were possible. Now, since it appears here that I’ve given you, @Hecaton, a small amount of what you wanted I will remove myself from further inflammation. My apologies to the thread and those discussing things in good standing. I’m going to go paint things before Tears of the Kingdom drops and I get nothing done.
