You aware that actually best HI is the one which is actually most low-tech ? Not to mention most durable HI being Dog-Warriors ^^
The identity part is pretty solid: lots of heavy-armoured units, most of them better than usual at close combat, Religious Troop all over the place, lightly armoured order sergeants with long-range support (even if they exchanged their crossbows for sniper rifles). Sounds pretty "space knight" to me. Not to mention no other PanO sectorial is as HI or assault-based: VIRD is defensive and sneaky, NCA is bombastic with one HI or TAG carrying a list and ACA is lightly-armoured and mobile.
Well. After an hiatus from the game, I have now played my first three games with new MO. I have played similar lists, each comprising 1 group with: - OS Core (including some combination of FK ML, Santiago and Blackfriar) - Hospitaller Haris with HMG (usually including a Santiago) - Montesa Shotgun - Machinist/Pathhfinder Without dwelling on the cons, one of the things I have really enjoyed so far is the flexbility around fireteams, both at deployment and mid-game. For example, with 1-2 Santiago knights and an order sergeant, you can form a 5-man fireteam around the Hospitallers. Or, you can pinch the santiago from the hospitaller Haris to fill a gap in the Order Sergeant team. I think in my next game, I will replace the Fr Knight and Order Sergeant core with a 'Teuton' core - two santiagos (LT and KHD), and three magisters including ML. The Hospitaller Haris will take an Order Sergeant. I will still have flexibility therefore to bring the Santiagos into a 5-man hospitaller link, and let the Magisters just do their thing. Or, if a magister goes down, the order sergeant can fill the gap.
The "identity" fluffwise is pretty clear, deus vulting futuristic space knights. But I think there's other identity which MO hasn't developed and other sectorials have developed pretty solidly. The combat identity. Most sectorials have units with clear roles, and MO is no exception. But these roles, these identities in MO overlap each other in a way that hampers the army playability. For example, what makes a player choose a teuton over a hospitaller (besides weapon loadout)? We can agree that both have above average shooting skills, both are decent at assault and both are BS14 CC21 HI. In conclusion, they do the exact same thing, with minor differences. The only choice you make is if you want to deus vult your enemy using berserk or using martial arts. If you use the teuton because you like the spitfire, or because you like using NCO, fine, but that just doesn't justify the fact that having a hospitaller with a spitfire or a NCO profile is a thousand times more practical. In fact, I don't think loadout justifies the existence of an entire order of knights. If this is the case, kill the teutons, give the hospitallers a spitfire and NCO and problem solved. Nobody will miss them. Units need a role, they need to be good at something so we choose them for a particular task. Internal competition between units for the same role is bad army design. It creates an identity crisis inside the army. Same thing applies to OS and fuliliers.
The problem with Teutons isnt Hospitaliers, its FK and Santiagos for spitfires, santikhd for specialist and magisters and OS for filler.
OK, the point of my post was about the identity crisis some orders have, that was just an example. I'll say that the problem with the teutons are the hospitallers, and the FK, and the santiagos (KHD and SO) and the magisters and the OS.
Yeah, the VERY minor changes the Teutons got didn't resolve their identity crisis. Ironically, although the ability to form a Core again and exchangeability for Magisters made them more interesting again, the removal of "Kights of Order" and "Confrere Knights" restrictions only exposes them more fiercely to competition.
OK, I see, it's a different point, but one I agree with. I already said this, but if it was up to me I'd make the following changes: Make Teutons the bikers, not Montesa (to reinforce riding alone into the fray, like they did between HSN3 and 3O, but not on foot) and keep Montesa as the Duo Mech Deploy knights. Transplant that biker Teuton to Varuna (since it was supposed to have Paradiso units, but for some reason only Croc Men are there). Current Montesa stats would Fit Teuton like a glove. Make Father-Knight the Wildcard unit, not Santiago. He would be a harder fit into links due to his priciness, but after being given an KHD he would be an interesting addition to any fireteam. Would also make sense that any Order would have Chaplains, but why are the fleet-based Santiagos everywhere? Have the option to make a Crusade Fireteam with Santiagos. Let 3 (but no more than 3) Magister Knights link with Santiago or Hospitallers, aside from them having their own Core. That way you'd have more Order identity intact.
Well too late. CB in their wisdom decided for Montesa to go bike, so this ship have had already sailed ;/ (obviously they could make Teutons bikers too, but then we would probably end up in 2 carbon copies of same unit, one being semi usable and second worse one being Teutons. Oh and 2 HI bikes would make JSA make another Uprising)
Well this change makes sense on so many levels it's real shame CB haven't done this. Both profile-wise and rule-wise. Even miniature wise as Teuton sculpts are pretty old and Montesa one is pretty fresh, so rework on them to have imaginary motorcycles is quite a waste.
Your arguments make sense. Expect protesting, rioting and widespread chaos if you swap the Santiago for the FK as wildcard. But it makes total sense. What I'll really like when I ramble about identity, and I know this is completely impossible, is this: Pick an Order, any one you like. Make them the assault/CC specialists Then pick another one. Make them the heavy weapons/support specialists Pick another one. Make them the cover ops/asymmetric warfare specialists Pick a fourth one. Make them the rapid deployment/ambush specialists You want a jack of all trades? OK, pick an Order to do exactly that. But just pick one. See where I'm going? The thing is, as it stands now, MO looks like their generals were taken from the third crusade and put to run an army in the 24th century (or whatever century Infinity is set into) with the exact same tactics and philosophies, but with modern weaponry. Leaving aside all the medieval references, MO is a MODERN combat force which should be using MODERN combat tactics, organization and chain of command. Not only modern weaponry. Trying to wage war with an army organized with concepts that are more than 1000 years old and expect success is idiotic. I'm sure Guti and the guys in charge of the fluff in CB have their reasons for MO to be built like this. But we know that, in CB, fluff is enforced as much as it is ignored.
Some quick news from one of the recent Bostria vids. Shasvastii were supposed to be part of 3rd Offensive at some point but got pushed back. Does anyone want to make a guess why the MO rework feels a bit wonky with that in mind?
@Quehacesfede I disagree that removing the wildcard from Santiago and making them their own thing again would result in riots given how many people are still bitter the boarding shotgun is gone (ahem <-). Making the FK the wildcard would have made a lot more sense as it isnt as strong a competitor as the Santiago and offers durability in the two teams that lack it (teutons and OS).
The FK would need something to be a usable wildcard. As much as I love the model the dude is just stats on a stick.
Ok, give a shotgun profile to the Santiago. Problem solved. I really like the FK, but a wildcard as pricey as that is enough to cause general rioting. In fact, i think the Santiago wildcard Is the best of the few good design decisions CB made when modifying MO. Yeah, the shotgun thing is a shame, but nevertheless, the Santiago is one of the best units MO has right now.
The uber wildcard meta that is developing worries me a bit. The problem is the WC Sant isnt just good, it's pretty much phenomenal especially compared to what else is on offer in MO.
