I'm only not a fan of the non-lethal in missions that need dead guys. Otherwise I love it! They need a "captured" rule. Something that gives points for the immobilized and Isolated. In a universe with Cubes and coming back from the dead, being captured can be a fate worse than death. I'll try it someday but i've been doing fine without. But to me that's the definition of a speed bump. Some are better than others though. It's not necessarily bad. I've yet to find infiltrating MSV units to be good, and i've been playing Guiliang for years. I think the MSV was useful once. But I'd still take a Gangbuster over a Crusher. Now that's an Expensive speed bump! Maybe it's my luck but the NWI has done nothing for them. They always to take 2+ wounds. Could be because only ARM2. Another one that needs either Decoy, Hidden Deploy, or Mim -6. I wish we had more details though. The missions and such. 34% is pretty bad. For me, my go to unit that has been fantastic is a Gamma Feuerbach Lt. in a haris with two Jackboots. Always an Engineer and the other switches from Medic to HRL, depending on mission. I know some like the Vidoq but I found they are too squishy and not very helpful beyond giving a bonus to the Gamma. The Jackboots are MI, Veteran, Specialists with better weapons. I of course always take a Ment. My only mid-field has been Moonrakers and sometimes Nightshade for assassinations. Oko+Roadbot duo is very common.
The Gangbuster KHD profile has increasingly become a "free kill" for opponents in the current meta, where hacker networks are ubiquitous. The Combi Rifle profile seems to be a much better alternative now, especially after the changes last October that granted many DTW units Intuitive Attack, making it significantly more effective against Camo markers. Regarding the Zeta: it remains the only long-range weapon in O-12 with both high Burst and AP. Whether you're facing factions like Morat or tackling killing-oriented missions, the Zeta is a solid pick. I’m not trying to overhype it—factually, it did lose Tactical Awareness in N5. However, when you find yourself spending a massive amount of orders trying to crack high-ARM targets with other units, it’s worth considering if a Zeta would have done the job more efficiently. This highlights one of O-12's weaknesses in N5. The struggle to eliminate targets isn't just because of the abundance of "non-lethal" weapons; it's because other factions have seen a significant increase in lethality. For example: PanO: Joan’s Spitfire was upgraded to AP. Yu Jing: Daofei’s Spitfire was upgraded to AP. Haqqislam: The Shakush’s HMG gained Continuous Damage. Meanwhile, for O-12 to access an AP Spitfire, we are forced to rely on a BS13 TAG. One final point I’d like to raise is the removal of mission bonuses in N5, which makes the Delta feel like a subpar investment. Previously, the Delta could adapt its specialist role to suit the specific mission, but now its primary advantage is gone. Looking at the high win rates of the Next Wave (NW) faction and how effective their Cliff (Cliff-jumpers) profiles are, I believe Corvus Belli needs to seriously re-evaluate the Delta as a unit.
I think of any Non-camo mid-fielder as easy pickings. I would love it if they added Sarko or Strider to vO-12. Anything cheaper than the Nightshade or Razor. Unlikely to happen though. I feel like they want keep O-12 with good expensive troops rather cheap and good enough. The AP is why I go with Gamma Feuerbach over the HMG. Sure, it can get 5+1 dice to hit but sometimes they just ping off the target. If the Feuerbach hits, it usually kills. Since I have two Jackboots, it’s burst 3+1. Deltas seems basic in comparison to other combat jump troops. Their big claim to fame is having a doctor. It would be nice if they had combat jump (+3) and/or Parachutist (DZ). Maybe 6-2 move? I think they were the only ones with ARM3 but then came the Yellowjackets with ARM3, BTS6 and NWI! But Deltas are a little cheaper and more variety. They are a go-to for secret objectives because they are MI, Vets, Doc, Hacker, or FO. That’s more than others get and are not nerfed down to an SMG like the YJacket. I’d ask for more D-Charges on profiles. It’s only on KHD and FO.
The Gamma Feuerbach profile can technically perform similarly to, or even better than, the Zeta when cracking high-ARM targets. However, in terms of general versatility—especially when facing Mimetism (-6) or units with Immunity (ARM)—it consistently underperforms compared to the Zeta’s higher Burst. The addition of +1 Special Dice (SD) is a clear attempt to make the Gamma more viable, but I remain skeptical. The point cost is simply too high, and the actual impact doesn't feel like it justifies the investment. Let’s look at Feuerbach options in other factions for comparison: Karhu (SWF): In SWF, it easily gains +1 Burst and a Special Die through Fireteam bonuses while moving with a specialist. Despite having $BS$ 12, it compensates with Mimetism (-3) and MSV1. Drummers: They have Mimetism (-3) and can access Marksmanship via an EVO Hacker. They are the only example here that cannot gain +1 SD through a Fireteam, but their efficiency is much better for the cost. Azra'il: Its combination of Continuous Damage and Shock Resistance makes it significantly more lethal than the Gamma, all while being much cheaper. I acknowledge that the Gamma is quite resilient with NWI and Warhorse, but as a heavy weapon platform, its performance is underwhelming. It pays a premium for survivability but lacks the offensive tools to truly excel in its role.
I don't like to compare anymore. We got what we got and comparing to other factions does nothing. Within his faction maybe. I can only tell you from my experience with him, and he's kicked ass. I'm seeing it as the team vs. the Zeta. Having an ENG and/or Medic right next to him have been helpful beyond the +1SD. The Gamma can't be Isolated but he can be Immobilized. The ENG also has their own E/Mitter. Sometimes a turret as well. I'm sure the Zeta is good but right now I don't see the need for it. Wish I did because I have two of them! Obviously something is not going well if they are only 36% win rate. Unfortunately we just don't have enough information.
I don’t understand the logic behind refusing to compare with other factions. Refusing horizontal comparison is what’s truly meaningless here. If O-12 only played against O-12, the win rate would always be exactly 50%. The moment we discuss why a win rate is low, we are already comparing. Win rates don’t exist in a vacuum; they are the direct product of how one faction measures up against another. To use an extreme example: If the Gamma and Zeta had a BS of 10 while everyone else kept their BS 13 or 14, would you still say that horizontal comparison is meaningless? Of course not. The current gap in performance might not be as glaringly obvious as a 3-point BS difference, but that doesn't mean it isn't there. 36% is a statistical red flag that the gap is very real.
Sorry misunderstanding. Faction vs Faction yes but comparing troop for troop doesn't seem to work. CB seems to take other things in the faction into account. (This is just an example. I don’t know if they actually do this, I'm probably talking out of my ass) Like O-12 has 4 different Engineers available to fix the Zeta. Including one that that can Engineer on an 18 and even gets a re-roll with a command token. While others might have 2-3 but either not great or very expensive. For example, YJ has AVA1 Mech Engineer, AVA1 Haidao, AVA1 Krit Kokram. The ME is a meh cheap engineer, Haidao is good but you might want him as hacker, and Kokram is expensive. The nice thing with YJ is the Haidao and Kokram can be in a duo with a TAG but I don’t see many that take advantage of that. But that’s only three they can take. O-12 can take a total of 6. One of which is very good. But YJ has a lot of cheap smoke throwers with MSV troops. Etc etc. But I don't know crud lol. I’m not taking a Zeta and doing fairly well. Better than 50% at least. I might take it in my next game just to see. But I found the expense of it means I can't take other things I'd rather have.
I understand your point about the overall internal synergy of a faction, and I agree that CB (Corvus Belli) takes the "toolbox" of a faction into account. However, looking at the big picture shouldn't invalidate the necessity of analyzing individual units or specific performance metrics. To move this discussion from feelings to a more objective framework, I’ve broken down Infinity list analysis into 11 functional blocks. This allows us to see where a faction truly excels and where the "statistical red flags" (like a 36% win rate) might be coming from. The 11 Pillars of List Analysis Long-Range Engagement (8"-48"): Quality of weapons, attributes (BS), and access to modifiers (MODs). Short-Range Engagement (0"-8"): Distribution of Direct Template Weapons (DTW) and CC capabilities. Hacking Dominance: Individual hacker strength, firewall accessibility, and repeater network expansion. Mission Efficiency: Diversity of specialist units and their success rate in scoring objectives. Logistic Support: Efficiency of Engineers and Doctors. Risk Mitigation: The ability to distribute the workload across multiple units rather than relying on a single "critical unit." Board Control: Access to Infiltration, Forward Deployment, and the strength of ARO pieces (Total Reaction/Snipers). Visibility Obstruction: Access to Smoke, Albedo, and White Noise. Command & Control: Lieutenant options, and Chain of Command availability. Specialized Tech: Access to rare gear like MSV3 or heavy artillery. Information Concealment: Effectiveness of Camo, Impersonation, and Airborne Deployment (AD). Addressing the Framework When we apply this framework to our discussion, a few critical points emerge: 1. The Weight Gap (Example: Engineering vs. Shooting) The primary issue with using O-12's Engineers (Block 5) as a counter-argument is that the weight of Logistics is significantly lower than Long-Range Engagement (Block 1). You don't need an Engineer in every game, and you certainly don't need one in every turn. However, you do need to win shootouts (Block 1) constantly to survive. If a faction is elite in a low-weight block but subpar in a high-weight block, the net result is a structural disadvantage. Excellent repair skills cannot "buy back" the momentum lost from losing a primary gunfight. 2. Intangible advantages vs. Quantifiable stats. Things like Smoke, White Noise, or Lt. diversity (Blocks 8 & 9) are harder to quantify. If we constantly bring up tools that one side simply doesn't have (like complaining PanO has no smoke), the conversation stalls. We must focus on how a faction solves a problem with the tools it does have, and whether those solutions are statistically as effective as the "standard" meta tools. 3. The danger of isolated comparisons. I agree that comparing O-12 only to PanO is dangerous. We shouldn't just compare against the "best in class." However, we must compare against the global average. If the Zeta's performance-to-cost ratio is lower than the average of all other TAGs in its weight class across all factions, then the "expense" you felt in your games is a systemic balance issue, not just a personal preference. Summary: Horizontal comparison isn't about ignoring faction flavor; it's about identifying structural deficits. If O-12 is underperforming, we need to ask: which of these 11 blocks is failing to carry its weight? If the "flavor" (like good Engineers) isn't translating into a competitive win rate, then the weight of that flavor is likely overvalued in the current points cost.
