The point isn't to threaten to win a F2F roll with Achilles, it's to place it in position where Achilles needs to walk into repeated templates (first the B2 Flamer then the B2 Heavy Shotgun) and risk losing wounds. The HSG Peacemaker is always better than the Spitfire in a defensive role.
Preferably been positioned in a way that Achilles must enter the repeater range of the Peacemaker in order to engage it, forcing hacking attacks on Achilles.
As I said, the terrain did not permit it. With half-table deployment of the old Mechanized Deployment, that would've been doable here. With Forward Deplyment +8", nope. Actually that's how I got Achilles Hacked - an Infiltrator with a Deployable Repeater. But neither of these survived either, so it was a pretty intensive first turn.
Terrain is always a key factor, I do not use Peacemakers a lot specifically because they are so terrain dependent.
And these is one of the most important things ever said. Infinity is extremely terrain-dependent. There has been eternal discussions on this forum about the viability of a given unit or the OP-ness of another that boils down to terrain in the very end. It would do wonders to the balance of the game to have strict guidelines on terrain and scenery.
In this case, there was no Total Cover that would let me block Achilles right away within +8". There was perfectly adequate cover piece mid-table... but I didn't have the extra deployment reach to set up the Peacemaker there. Hence, terrain not permitting such a defensive deployment.
I can understand that, do not worry we are talking about the theoretical deployment of Peacemakers, the actual deployment varies tremendously, I once had to deploy mine almost inside the deployment zone because it had no better position. And then run it to the opponents deployment zone...
It means that should have null deployed because at the curent state of infinity there is only couple of troopers that can reliably win a reactive f2f roll. vPano doesn't have any of these. CB could easily fix the problem for Varuna by returning Kamau to its former glory. vPano has camostate jammers that are excellent in null deployment defences.
Nothing in the entire game can reliably win a reactive ftf roll. Dice will screw everyone. Ask anyone who plays a linked Bolt sniper how many times they rolled a 1 and a 20. AROs don't have to be reliable, they have to threaten enough risk to the opponent to make them alter or at least reconsider their game plan. And vPanO has more than enough pieces that can be threatening enough in ARO to be useful, starting with almost every single one of their TAGs. Also, returning Kamau to their "former glory" would make playing against Varuna boring again – as well as listbuilding for it. Varuna is far from underperforming anyway. And Kamau are fine.
@burlesford You say boring. I say in par with MAF, SP and new Torchlight Brigade. What’s wrong with having multiple gear check factions? Players just need to come up with better tactics against those oppressive ARO forts.
I say listbuilding for MAF and SP becomes boring when you start every single list with a core linked Yaogat sniper or a core linked Phoenix. I wouldn't advocate for more of that, but less. Bakunin did it right imo where all the Observance models link pure, but they're still janky enough that you won't go for the linked Riot Grrl ML or the linked Cenobite HRL every single time. That's more interesting than 4 Fusiliers with a Kamau sniper.
On one hand such powerful combos give an advantage, on the other hand such established elements make planning ahead and having counters for them a necessity making them less effective and creating the need to plan for other elements a necessity.
Some of this boils down to - Predictability is targetability. If you become too predictable then your opponent is just gonna make slight changes to his list and just be able to face check everything you do. Having options doesn’t allow your opponent to pin down particular list concepts til you put it on the table. It’s an intangible outcome more than anything cause it plays on your opponents psychology when squaring up against you on the table.
@burlesford my experiences with MAF is that the “true core” of ARO fort is - Dartok Hacker - Suryat HRL - Vanguard paramedic You can tailor the oppression by including some but not all of the following - LT (Kornak/Vanguard/Yaogat/Suryat) - Yaogat Sniper - Kaitok Feuerback - Additional Dartok - Additional Vanguard All options are effective thanks to that “true core”. Any trooper becomes an excellent trooper when it can easily benefit from fullcore bonuses. The only exception to this rule are basic linetroopers because fullcore no longer gives burst bonus to flashpulse. I’m sure if CB reversed this decision, the forward observers would once again populate the battlefield.
Seeing all the comparisons TLB has to MO has scaled back a bit. They are by and large closer to IA. At the same time MO should be pulled closer into line with the PanO formula.
I'm not sure about that, it's good that it kinda does its own thing. If anything I'd just rework and strenghten its lighter units and fireteams.
Only fireteams rework is a partial solution, Mo need a more in depth rework to increase functionality. I do believe MO can be more in line with a PanO gameplay and still remain themselves.
Hence the suggestion to look at their support structure. Order Sergeants, basically all MI, Characters. Out of their HI KoJs and Hospitallers need some work. I agree completely, though we haven't been able to really pinpoint yet what PanO gameplay actually is. MO is still army of solid gunfighters, just more top-heavy than other PanO sectorials, and also more able to hold their own in CC.
If I could crudely summarize it, PanOceania gameplay is ranged gunfights, basic units have just brute force and refined units add mods stacking in favor and negating mods of opponents. In a way this is why when you compare Orcs with Hospitalers, while Hospitalers have better stats for the same price, they do not feel that much better. I hope this gives some basis for discussion.
Units like Hospitallers pay for increased versatility, which some players - those preferring minmaxed, optimised to the bone profiles - consider to be pure bloat. I happen to disagree, even if I see other issues with the unit. As for MO, I've always felt that they feel much more comfortable in CQB than other PanO sectorials, this is probably why I see them as a slightly different animal, while still keeping to PanO core tenets. Back in N2 and N3 it was reinforced by MO having very little access to weapons with effective range longer than 24". Many people complained, that this made breaking out of Deployment Zone prohibitively hard. Again, I happen to disagree. With N4 changes this became a moot point, there are more options for both long range weapons and Forward Deployment. I think there should be more of them, in particular Hospitallers should have more FD choices, maybe separated into a different fireteam so that they couldn't field a whole Core that way. But I'm rambling a bit here.
