To clarify - I'm not saying they're doing a particularly good job, I'm saying that they're trying. The original question was - paraphrasing - "why do people think Infinity development is neglected?" - and an absence of effort is a major indicator for me. I play both, and while 40k might be a bit less balanced, especially at it's worst, problems are unquestionably addressed. I'd say adressed faster, but it would be disingenuous to say Combined Army has ever actually been fixed when PanO has been nerfed more. Ultimately, I'd rather have Eldar be on top for six months and know Fortune's Wheel would eventually turn than have Combined be on top for six years with every indication they always would be. Maybe that's just a matter of taste. Ultimately, I don't really think it comes down to resources. Extensively playtested overhauls are resource intense, but minor tweaks that are small enough not to break anything really aren't. If they're going to only ever make ultra-low-impact changes, then the least they could do would be to make conservative changes on occasion and let it shake out. Raise the price of every irregular with a template weapon by 1 point and see what happens. Raise the price of everything below 11 points in CA by 1 and see if that curbs their massive overrepresentation. Raise the price of every hacker with a pitcher by multiple points. Gradual moves in the right direction would at least be a good indicator that they are trying something. And also make the game slightly better. It wouldn't fix the larger problems, like PanO not having a niche, but it's something (and you could just hit every other apex gunfighter in the game so you force it to exist). EDIT: Oh, and kill the Libertos dead. Raise its price by the number of armies that take it in every list.
In my perfect world, vanilla armies should be purged of merc profiles (Libertos included), and they should be restricted to sectorials or NA2 armies where they make narrative and balance sense. I would love if CB committed to releasing twice annual points updates the way that GW started doing. Whether CB intends to or not, it feels like they don't care about game balance because they are terrible at communicating plans with the player base. All we see are hype updates for new models or new games they are working on, with no visibility to the equally important maintenance work of balance and playtesting. I'd even settle for an annual "state of infinity" blog post where they talk about what they feel is working or not working as intended based on a player feedback questionnaire or something.
I get the issue with mercs in vanilla from a thematic perspective, but from a balance pov? Ehhhhhh, outside of Libertos, I think people overstate how problematic they are balance wise. Beasthunters are good for sure, but they do have some faction exclusive options to make them feel a bit apart from each other, and it's not that crazy as a defensively optimized skirmisher. Diggers are pretty good on the defensive, but not a must take in most factions. Offensively I think Diggers look a lot better on paper than they are on practice - if your opponent lets a DZ bound 4-4 HI with absolutely no ability to get past basic AROs or hacking nets get into CC with something important, that's kinda on them tbh. Libertos are pretty silly, but for what it's worth I have been seeing less of them around - it does feel a bit to me that a lot of factions (esp the one I play, vHaqq), has better uses of the SWC and/or irreg slot. I'm not even sure that I'd say Libertos are a best in class defensive irreg - I know that at least I'm never taking a Liberto before I take a Muttawi'ah. For the most part, you see a lot of mercs in factions with poor low ends and poor close assault tools - vAleph and vPanO really. There's also a ton of mercs that are kinda trash and I've almost never seen hit the table - Cube Jagers, ABHs, Wild Bill, Oktavia. I also do agree that I'd love to see more general balance passes and communication from CB. Some kinda bi-annual update would be sweet af. Mind you I also do think that people tend to be a tad hyperbolic regarding balance issues here, especially in threads like this lol.
I think Mercenaries are extremely thematically appropriate for PanO and are super helpful in Vanilla. The Monstrucker, Beasthunter, Krakots, and diggers gives Vanilla powerful cheap pieces that can fill typical PanO gaps. Aida provides an important minelayer. Samsa and Szorfa provide unique Ammo types. I think mercs are great for PanO. But we really, really need more auxbot profiles. Have a couple different ones, like heavy flamers, shotguns, and grenade launchers. Maybe a heavy, two wound auxbox (on maybe the Guard units). I feel like if the dropped an Auxbots Box (with like 4 bots) and added a 6-10 auxbot profiles on existing units, it would solve a lot of issues with more disposable attack pieces.
There's a difference between a corporatocracy prudently hiring mercenaries for additional versatility and having great honking holes in basic military capability, and if you need mercs in most armies then it's the latter case. Notably, however, better Auxbot access would fill most of those holes, as you have pointed out- this has been so widely requested for so long I have no idea how CB haven't caught on. The other point is the Monstrucker- it's just better than the Mech-Engineer at its job, and so much else besides. In a faction that wants good Engineers as much or more than other top Engineering factions like Combined or Nomads. Getting the Specialist Operative on the Tech-Bee upgraded to full Engineer is probably enough to fill that hole, though- the Mech-Engineer tends to be very accessible and gets appropriate upgrades in each Sectorial Army.
Nb. I don't think the world would break apart if the Machinist was a bit more competent Engineer than he is. Sure, being WIP 12 is a very PanO thing (and being totally-not-a-PanO-player, I have no problem with that ;)), but it feels weird when one of the most technologically advanced factions has the least capable engineers. So, how would the folks around like the Machinist to keep his WIP 12, but have Engineer (WIP=13? =14? I guess =15 would be a bit too much).
15 (or +3) would actually be consistent with Haqq's Doctoring boost, and Haqq's base WIP is higher to start with, so I think that would probably be fine. Only issue at that point is potential niche infringement on Nomads, but that faction's scope creep makes it hard to avoid. I would bring up the alternative of upgraded Servant bots, though- having a fairly bad base unit working through improved technology to have a big impact is interesting from a faction-flavour perspective as well as a gameplay one.
I would go with Engineer Plus (3+ on engineering rolls) so it could stay with the typical 12 for missions and show the technical superiority of Pan O at the same time.
There's a place in PanO for both Engineer (+3) and Engineer (2STR). There's always a possibility of locking them into a specialised unit, great at fixing stuff, but of low combat value, or giving it to an elite Combat Engineer unit, balanced by low AVA and high cost. Another cool concept - Remote Engineer. Pathfinder chassis, no FO, Sensor, or Triangulated Fire, Light Shotgun instead of Combi, Engineer (+3). Fast and capable, but also fragile, hackable, and harder to hide.
If we want solutions for PanO, we just need to see how CB manages it in White Company. They are a PanO base (Fusiliers, Karhu, Orcs, Bulleteer, Nisse) with warbands with Smoke, Hacker Plus, specialists with good WP... and it's not a case of power creep!
For what it's worth, there are PanO builds I've seen that can do some nasty stuff, and sit pretty comfortably in a competitive context. Not super top tier, but def threatening. MO has the tried and true Tik+Tuet+Trin builds, VIRD can run interesting defensive skews, SAA can run probably the most balanced lists and gameplans in PanO, vPanO has some compelling stuff going on as well. I've also seen some cool but unproven theory craft stuff like using the Crocman FO to enable GML and hacking plays, and hacking and board control focused MO lists that utilize Robin Hook, linked hackers behind a firewall, and minelayer Trins. They do have some sectorials that feel pretty dire (NCA, SWF), and a decent number of trap options (MO especially with big Knight cores, that whacky MI+Machinist pure core in a lot of their sectorials, trash units like the Jotum and Knight of Justice), but that's not exactly exceptional - even Ari, CA and Nomads have less competitive sectorials and bait options. I think the issue is more that PanO's design space seems limited for reasons that don't need to exist anymore - I don't think it'd break the game to give say, NCA a compelling midfield and close assault option, or give MO access to smoke. While there's def some stuff I'd like to see buffed in PanO, I think the perspective for adding on to at least a decent portion of the faction should be less from the perspective of outright buffing them, and more from the perspective of giving them a greater breadth of tools.
The +3 is a way to keep the low WIP and also show a mechanical and Pharmaceutical aptitude a high technological society has, reroll could also be an option.
Jotum and Knight of Justice are fine for me. I wasn’t a fan of Knight of Justice before, especially the hacker one. However, he worked pretty fine in WinterFor for me. They aren’t the obvious powerhouse like cutter or must have like helot or karhu, but trash is not the word I would use for them.
I would like to hear more about the usage of KOJ Hacker in SWF please. Can you please provide more details about it's use in your hands and the kind of lists that you build her around?
The problem with PanO is not that the units are individually bad or good, the problem is the lack of tools to help the main/alpha units do their job. For example, Jotum is a cool unit with arm10 and bs15, but it costs 29% of our points, so we need to protect it properly. But, PanO doesn't have Smoke to help the Jotum advance and prevent a Noctifer from killing it. PanO doesn't have a good midfield game to help clear it. And, of course, PanO is bad at preventing enemy hackers from hacking our Jotum. I've commented on this threat before, WhiteCo is a good example of how PanO would be.
I guess to explain myself, I really don't rate the Jotum - I think it's very overpriced for marginal benefits over the Squalo and Dragoe. Arm 10 and BTS 9 are cute gimmicks on paper, but vs a Squalo, you get 1 more arm vs AP, and 2 more BTS vs Oblivion. I'd go as far as to argue that the only meaningful upgrade it has versus the Squalo is it's HFT. Which for around 10 points, is not enough. People often discuss the Jotum as requiring specialist tools to deal with, but I don't really see it tbh - at least, it doesn't require special considerations in the way that a Sphinx, Cutter, Uhlan or Avatar do. Dealing with basic MBTs is a common, basic consideration when you are building a list, and the tools you take to deal with a Triphammer - the most budget basic MBT out there - will also deal with Jotum. Maaaaaaybe you take the Jotum in SWF since your only other TAG option is Maximus, who is his own can of worms, and SWF does have issues with a lack of durability, but in vPanO? I really do not see it at all. For the Knight of Justice... it's got good stats, but I think it's loadouts are very mediocre for the price you pay. 47 points for a base BS14 Spitfire? Maybe you can justify the FO and Hacker profiles are a kind of toolbox, but again, all of those points for a base Combi Rifle feels rough. To contextualize a little, there's been a decent number of Haqqislam players I've been talking to who have been increasingly cold on the classic AP Spitfire Asawira - it's got great stats and is very cost effective, but a BS14 AP Spitfire sometimes can feel like a bit too much of a middle ground between cheaper options and more expensive, punchier options. But this is very much still a debate, and I don't think of these people would actually argue that the Asawira is a bad unit, or a poor inclusion in a list. If some people are debating where or not the Asawira is worth your time, I don't think that bodes well for a unit that is more or less strictly inferior. I get the comparisons between the Asawira and units like the Crane Agent, Knight of Justice, and Knight Hospitaller, but I honestly think the fault doesn't lie with the Asawira being over-optimized or OP, I think it lies with all of the later units being mediocre at best.
The big high-ARM TAGs really show their value when the enemy doesn't have the tool in place to handle them, and even the humble Squalo puts in good work if you can manage those threats. Pair with AD or Hidden Deployment gunfighters and drive the list well, and those big guys can carry a game. And as someone stuck using the base Squalo, I'd pay 20 points for a DTW. Damn thing gets isolated and destroyed by Warband-style units so often I had to start bodyguarding it with a Black Friar.
That's kind of my point. If you can scalpel out your opponent's anti-TAG guns and/or whatever main, the Jotum will probably straight up win you the game - but the same is true for really any TAG. I can maybe sum it best by saying the Jotum pays extra to be very very good against things TAGs are already really good against. And yeah, a DTW is a very nice piece of defensive kit for a TAG - it's why I think the Dragoe is a tad under looked in vPanO, and something I'd personally always take before I look at a Jotum. It's cheaper, it shoots better, and it has a HFT. As far as standard MBTs go, it's got all the stuff you'd want at a very reasonable price point.
