Not exactly. People want it now, because what's being shown is actually quite nice, and I agree it looks like a superior rework of PanO's old design philosophy. I think it'll be a very good army, a good fit for those fond of Acon, hell, I'm about to start it, but it wasn't what people were asking for, @Wizzy is right about that.
Imagine where Infinity would be if CB gave in to the loudest critics. Every major change turns up the quality of the game. Certainly in the long run. And with every major change a very vocal and very minor community swear of Infinity for ever. I just wished all of them stopped posting as well…
People liked them? Yes. People asked for new JSA and PanO sectorials before they got revealed? No. Is not the same. You could take Acontecimento, said they formed an expedition team to colonize a new planet, resculpt their range and people would like it the same way as Kestrel
I'm not saying CB should be giving in to those voices. I'm saying that argument that CB gave people what they were asking for is false.
I’m maybe in the minority, but I’m absolutely stoked about KCF. I stopped buying a while ago and I really feel the craze for painting new PanO miniatures in a new colour scheme, and with a new sectorial dynamic. Would I have had the opportunity to vote knowing what would happen, I would have voted KCF even knowing my beloved VIRD and SAA troopers would have stayed in the fridge for an indefinite amount of time
Very much so this. I adore the look of NCA's high-tech troops, and would have happily expanded my collection had CB actually had anything for sale. Despite my critical tone, I'm still in wait-and-see for how Kestrel turns out in full; whether it can fully replicate the playstyle of the Sectorials it is replacing with appropriate proxies is important, and doing it well will lead to me forgiving most of what's happened. The only real screw-ups in this wave IMO are the Achilles thing, and the truly awful information drip-feed- the Sectorial cancellation status and any dropped profiles need to be more up-front and accessible rather than in bits and pieces of info scattered through a half-dozen interviews, though the main-channel Sandtrap stuff is good for building hype and honestly, on its own merits, KCF looks like it has serious potential. By all means! Just because I'm critical doesn't mean I don't respect those with different opinions, I just don't like other people telling me I have no right to be unhappy. I hope you enjoy KCF, truly. If you're happy, let everyone know it to provide some balance to the detractors!
Oh, I'm a fan of what we've seen of Kestrel as well. I really like how they managed to make PanO look more sinister. The minis shown in today's video are great
KFC is good, even if I'm a Nomad and I'm absolutely not starting PanO for it. The main issue with KFC is that it is trying to be Acon 2.0 in playstyle, but somehow is not Acon 2.0 in lore and old Acon is now squatted. This, in my opinion was a bad and customer-unfriendly decision by CB.
My litmus test for this is can you, one-for-one, play an Acon army as Kestrel without the weapons or troops being too different. We're still missing too much to get a full image of whether this is possible, though sadly the Guarda de Assaulto just seems gone with no replacement. If they can pull it off, then the Acon lore and look can be applied cleanly onto the new rules.
One: I like your litmus test. Two: regarding Guarda de Assalto, would parting the Guarda (to work as one HI or another) and pairing the Auxbot with another troop (say, to act as a Drummer team) count?
I'd probably do it this way, though Kestrel's weapons are weird so far- almost no Combi or MULTI Rifles or HMGs at all, save on the basic Fennecs and Griffins, and the only confirmed Spitfires are on the Armbots. You could almost do an Acon Combi=Kestrel SMG force at this point with how many KCF seems to have.
This litmus test, however, will fail the MO rework and the Bakunin rework, however. Otherwise, I like it, but it is a bit too strict.
Oddly enough, they just announced the weirdest weapon of all: a Multi Red Fury I'm a big fan of how KFC is displaying PanO's technological superiority while enveloping a reworked SAA tactics-wise. Not a huge fan of a whole range of models being squatted (though I guess you could sorta-kinda 1-for-1 proxy them into KFC?), but mechanically this looks good on the backend.
There is a non-zero (and I would say quite high) probability that this is just one of the many mistakes these previews often contain...
probably that Multi red fury is an errata, like the whole JSA paratrooper dossier, and is written as Red Fury Multi, when Multi usually go first in the name
Thought so as well, but look at the weapon on the Hetkari render. It has the distinctive Multi Rifle drum on the barrel, just above the front grip
Well, it seems as odd as a (purely theoretical at this point) Multi Spitfire would. I guesstimate it as a Spitfire-ranged, DAM 13 (well, PS 7 in new money) wea[pon with Shock, AP and possibly Burst 1 DA ammo. Also, we have had some technological advance in the 5+ years since Shattergrounds. Advancing Multi tech to fit into a Spitfire / Red Fury frame, rather than just HMG frame doesn't seem ilke a big deal. Especially if you compare it to plasma carbines being issued to some JSA troops...
Absolutely, never even thought you weren’t respecting other people opinion :) And I fully appreciate your or Time Bandit perspectives. My first message in this post was exactly that. It’s perfectly and fully legit to be pissed. You have your minis, that you love. You have your sectorial, that you love playing. And out of a sudden you’re stripped away from it. That’s more than enough to be pissed.
If I'm following: CB knows what's best for serving customers and, therefore, will make the best tough decisions to server those customers. However, I think you are making a leap of faith there that CB knows best and I think companies can make bad business decisions. Customers should voice their displeasure, especially in regards to the broken promises of rules support with a revolving catalog. Which leads me into my next point: I have an huge issue with this. You said effectively the same thing about the uprising leaks, which all were proven true. And I can't remember you take on the N4 Sectorial leaks, but I imagine that you would say the say about the same: Be level-headed and wait for the the full release. But I think as a customer or supporter of that's truly bad advice. Allows me my own leap of faith here: It's obvious that outcry following the leaks around missing sectorials in N4 were true, after the response of the community. So I would encourage anyone who has suddenly found themselves with a mountain of unsuppported metal or who just wants to see Corvus belli succeed by building a solid game with a trustworthy name: to voice your displeasure now and often, that leads to change. (And not just here, CB has mentioned in the past that the forums represent a very small part of their community, and they prefer to hear from the larger body on Facebook/Twitter) If you think my guess about the N4 Sectorial leak (which I linked to Koni's response on above) requires to much of a jump: keep in mind that Corvus Belli directly implemented FAQs with regular updates. And we got far more communication from Koni in the forums about the faction going OOP then we ever saw in the past. Which is why this is so hard to swallow: Communication has gotten lax. I am surprised something as large as 'we are not supporting a number of sectorials we previously had said we would, they are as follows..." Prior to N5 even launching. I won't speculate that their isn't anything other than ignorance on the part of Corvus Belli here, but it does seem odd that something so monumental has slipped their mind regarding open and honest communication with the community. In any event, if I can't trust their word on rules support, what's to say they won't cut support for proxies in the future. Afterall, If people aren't buying new models from Corvus Belli because they can besimply proxy the new rules and sectorials that are released, it would make good business sense to encourage people to spend money by cancelling it. Which is not to say the will or that I really believe they will soon, but to illustrate why I think building a solid brand on trust and fundamentals such as: supporting the models you release. Is probably a better way to server customer in the long term, rather then a boom bust cycle of releases that rely discontinuing previous products ad nauseum or jamming tons of thematically off models into as many factions as possible to increase sales. Psychoticstorm I don't want you to take the quotes personally, but you very nicely explain the viewpoint that is opposite to mine, allowing me to use it as a nice framework for crafting my points. Just as an aside though, are you an employee of Corvus Belli? I'm never really sure how to read your commentary. It's not a crime by any means to agree with Corvus Bellis changes or to at the very least be unbothered by them, there are plenty of non-moderators who do, but I do think it makes the difference if there is a relationship with the company in question.
I dunno, there's a thread in the PanO subforum that asks people what they want to see in a revised PanO, and KCF has incorporated a ton of these suggestions. One of them was more ammo types on guns. In that context, the multi red fury makes sense. That said, the JSA paratrooper in the same video is listed as having an SMG that looks suspiciously like a boarding shotgun, so who knows.
