I just intended to show some quick back-of-the-napkin calculations, I'm not going to write a full thesis on the statistics of all possible hacking matchups. Even though I wish I could. I might take a look at BTS and availability of certain equipment later, though. I think Nomads get most of the attention in this debate due to their abundant pitchers and fastpandas, and CA due to the sheer threat of Anathematics. But personally, I live in fear of the 15pt Barid KHD.
Yes, I agree the attack REMs do indeed provide an expanded network passively by doing their job, but it is not an attack network more like a spiders net were you hope the enemy falls in.
Calling those "strengths" is disingenuous. But that's what I get from you - lying and dissembling like we're all a bunch of dumbasses instead of people who play the game more than you. It's insulting and the fact that PStorm hasn't done anything to you over that kind of BS is a very bad look for him.
Essentially you're saying that any points you spend on hacking are wasted if you go up against a faction that's good at hacking. So why invest any? You don't have a good answer to that question. It is most efficient to run the absolute minimum amount of hacking in PanO, as the design team doesn't understand N4 hacking and has made PanO's hacking absolutely anemic but still cost premium points. Designer laziness (and overattention to their golden child factions) has caused this, and PanO players are making do with what they can.
And hoping for that just means you're dumb; an enemy won't walk into it. Hell, unlike a Moran, you can shoot a pitcher to a repeater remote and isolate it to disable it. Part of why the removal of Blackout is bad.
I'm talking about the terrain that CB themselves make. This is not "fictional and highly optimized." I've played all over the US, and it's pretty consistent that hitting a Moran who's against a rooftop parapet is usually impossible without exposing yourself to hacking.
f So all of that supports the argument that PanO is terrible at hacking, because it's close to worst-in-show (excluding Ariadna, for obvious reasons) at all of those things. He looses the TinBot to get Combat Jump (but not parachutist). If anything, this is a sound example of the problem, though; the (non-CJ) Santiago pays the same cost as the MB hacker/TinBot profile for a Strictly Worse hacker; sure, he gets that extra point of BS (which might, once in a long Forever, be a meaningful benefit) and a bunch of other random junk that will occasionally come in handy, but when it comes to his raison d'être he's just a downgrade. The sole exception is that, when it comes to the direct head-to-head, when the benefits of his KHD maybe give him a slight edge and his drawbacks are ignored. And also the Dartoks. They're a devilishly designed profile; Veteran makes them immune to Oblivion, and Dogged means they need to fail two Trinity saves (on BTS 6) to actually be knocked out of a network that turn. Combined with the bullshit that is a cheap hacker bringing his own Pitcher, and they're an instant package to make a faction a hacking threat. Also Bit & Kiss. But I don't need to explain that issue. Alright, so on the fictional and highly optimized game table, built using fictional and highly optimized CB paper-card terrain, which I played on yesterday, the parapets were more like 3/4" tall, so the critical angle is 37 degrees rather than 43 degrees. However, the greatest difference in height between two rooftops was only about five inches, so shooting behind parapets without the ultra-specific skill combos various posters have outlined was indeed very restricted. The way the math on that works out, the terrain would need to be placed with care to create a place where any shooting behind a parapet without taking a 74 point TAG was possible at all.
PanO has some of the best repeater-troopers in the game. The Peacemaker is excellent and their repeater is basically 0 opportunity cost. They have some very cost effective hackers, some with really good packages (Acon Regular Hackers are just incredible). They're one of the very few faction where LI fireteams are actually good, which makes fusilier hacker extremely low opportunity cost. As a comparison, Nomads don't want to field Alguacil hackers because it's a real investment as they don't want alguacil in their links (or simply don't have links). When most factions field a hacker, they're paying the entire cost of the hacker to field it, whereas if you field a fusilier hacker, you're primarily paying for the body and then only paying a few points to make it a hacker. As for high package, the Croc Man FO is very pricey, but it's one of the best deployable repeater available in the game. So while you might overpay for the role, at least you get a combination that's not otherwise available. Hidden Deployment + Deployable repeater is extremely potent for Guided Missile delivery. It's more expensive than the Hunzakut or Heckler, but it's A LOT harder to counter. Saying they're "terrible at hacking" is also not really setting up what you're actually comparing them for. What do you mean by "at hacking"? What's the goal of hacking within your faction. PanO doesn't do hacking for the same reason Nomads, CA, Haqq or O-12 do. They all do hacking for different goals. The hacking that PanO brings is good for the purposes they bring hacking, they have a solid T0 DZ defense from their hacker, and they can easily project hacking to mid-table. Their mid-table projection is also a super order efficient, moving a Peacemaker midtable is a lot more impactful than throwing a pitcher midtable. PanO also threatens direct ARO better than most factions, which tend to force people to turtle and give let you push your repeater-troopers more easily. Hacking is not PanO's main plan, but I certainly don't think they're "terrible at hacking", nor should they skip hacking, because it's a very valuable tool for them and they definately can make good use of it.
He did not say that. As to why consider hacking, even if you are not the best: Your hacking can still threaten the enemy‘s models if they move into your network. If they are „stupid“ for doing so - do you mean I can block them from mission objectives with a repeater? Great. They will shoot a pitcher and disable my repeater? Also great - this sounds like my opponent spend some orders. Pitchers gives you access to the board in turn 1+. But there are more application to hacking than turn 1 alpha strike. „It‘s not the best so I won‘t do it“ - this black/white mentality robs you of opportunities. The question is „can I open up a new threat with reasonable costs?“ See Diphoration‘s post.
It's not black/white thinking, its risk assessment. Running two fusilier hackers in a core link is a good way to get that link busted down to a haris, going into a matchup against a superior hacking army. If you take basic line troop hackers with no tinbot and a wide repeater network, you're offering up free and tasty piñatas. So this is a high-risk play; decide if you want to do it anyway for some reason (and there are definitely legitimate reasons in some lists and matchups), but go in with your eyes open that you are building a high risk vector into your army list: you are opening up a new threat, but that threat is, on balance, more to your army than your opponents, should you run into someone who is hacking with a good hacking army. That's how I interpret this issue anyway.
Thats a good point, imho. To open the hacking game as you mentioned also depends for me on the knowledge of the army you play against. On a torunament with 50 participants you will not run into 40 CJC and 9 Nomads with you as the only PanO player. Some armies play the Hacker game as avarage as PanO, and also some who could play the hacking game don´t do it (or just field a hacker or two for good measure). Maybe than having (even below avarage) Hackers in the list opens alternative strategies and tactics how to deal with an opponent. I know, thats not the big point of the discussion, cause obviously a PanO hacking heavy list will not be able to compete with a "real" hacking faction, but is it worth to drop the whole hacking game cause there is a chance of meeting someone who´s doing better? Maybe, if the advantage you get from it does not outweigh the possible disadvantage. Risk assassement, as you said.
Yes. Yes it is 90% of the time. If your tournament features any of the numerous scenarios that require alternative list building (therefore taking up one of your lists and leaving you without a redundant choice in other scenarios), neither of your lists get to fight in Hacking because you're giving away easy kills to "hacking factions" that are very likely to impair your shooting game too, since if you're playing a Sectorial practically every Hacker not hiding under a Marker will be part of a link and even if not you will miss that Order more than most other factions. The big exception here is NCA, for whom nearly all unlinked Specialists and quality linkable shooters are Hackable and extremely vulnerable to it. If you aren't pushing a Bolt link into the midfield (bad plan if it's a Core) you are essentially forced to either take up the Hacking fight to clear objectives or trade pieces for attempts on objectives. NCA absolutely hates both active piece-trading and current Hacking, but since your Marker Specialists are either Uma Sorensen or Hackers you kind of have to take them no matter which approach you try. As such, if you're playing into Jazz+Morans or similar, quantity is your friend. An unlinked Fusilier Hacker is just about affordable enough to leave standing up in quantronic ARO at the start of the game, requiring some minor effort from one-Hacker lists to clear the way (works far less effectively against balanced forces with a midfield KHD). Hexa Hackers or Killer Hackers can choose when to reveal themselves and use their Marker States to move around unpunished, though their DZ deployment makes this costly in terms of Orders. If you're opting to just kill a Hacker, the Locust KHD is actually worth a shot- not for his Trinity, but because Cybermask lets you walk through enemy lines and shoot them and it starts far enough up the board that this becomes feasible if you go first (best into factions that put their uberhacker in links; they'll actually deploy them on the floor so the link can move instead of an inaccessible roof). Your best option, without question, is the Swiss Guard Hacker for its MULTI Rifle making it worth its cost in shooting alone, but it's a premium piece at a high price and shapes the list around it. Bolts can also be worth bringing in many matchups, but introduce a vulnerability to your Sniper's link that you may not want given its reactive killing power is one of NCA's few truly efficient options that can enable costly active plays without ceding control of the midfield. Playing into this quantity-over-quality approach hurts though; even if you have sufficient points to spare, NCA needs its SWC badly to supply its trademark hard ARO and superior ranged shooting. Since I usually play with two sniper links watching the objectives into "hacking factions", having the SWC tied up into my Hackers means I can't bring a HMG. As a result, my tournament lists have become purely reactive and matchup-dependant; the reactive, hard-ARO list with the Marker Hackers into anything that can field both good Repeater networks and Hackers CB won't let me fight, and the active list with more heavy weaponry and the Black Friar for factions that I'm playing on an even field with. This robs me of the opportunity to effectively tailor my lists for scenarios, putting me at a clear disadvantage against factions that don't have this problem.
@Valiant Storm that is just a nebulous statement, how many terrains sets you used? how they were set up?, It is entirely possible to have a terrain setup with CB's current paper terrain were the mid table has unassailable mid table positions ideal for Morans and other hacker or repeater equipped troops, one can set up the table to not be so of course. @Hecaton you really need to calm down, I would suggest again to reread what you read and pause before you post...
Is there a consensus about which factions/sectorials are considered „hacker factions/sectorials“? I do not get the big picture: Is PanO alone with it‘s hacking problems, or do Kosmoflot, Haqq, O12, etc. also have these problems? Is haqq a problematic faction for PanO (with regards to hacking)? Or O12? Or are we only talking about PanO versus Nomads (vanilla + all sectorials?) and CA (vanilla + all sectorials)?
Best I can tell, Yu Jing and Ariadna are also heavily impacted by this design- both have their viable options severely curtailed by the possibility of a Hacker that they can't efficiently remove projecting its presence into their lines. Haqq (and some, but not all, Sectorials) and ALEPH are both offensively biased with their Hacking; they have Pitcher and Upgrade access that can let them trade blows with top Hackers, but lack the start-of-game Repeater presence to really be oppressive in their board control. O12 is an interesting one in that they have full options to deploy both start-of-game Repeaters and offensively project Hacking Area, but don't quite have the Hacker quality or affordability to be the problem Nomads are- they're strong and can use their Hackables to the fullest, but even PanO can hit back if O12 pushes their luck too far and gets in KHD range and active Hacking isn't a forgone conclusion either. Nomads and CA are considered the strongest Hacking factions in general, simply because they have access to such heavily-optimised profiles on sufficiently affordable platforms that many lists simply can't use Hacking against them with any realistic expectation of success. Regardless of access to advanced Hacking Area deployment options (though both factions are leaders in that area), this single trait means that they can use Hacking Area fearlessly because their opponent cannot retaliate without either uncommon luck or inordinate Order expenditure.
If your opponent is using their orders to setup a repeater all the way to your DZ to then kill your dirt cheap Fusilier, you're happy about it. It's not high risk, it's low risk. Who cares if your fusilier die. That's a lot of wasted orders to kill your 15 points model. It's a low opportunity cost, low risk addition that gives you a whole other dimension to your list. The risk assessment is super positiive. Adding 2 cheap low-opportunity hackers opens up waaay more vulnerability to your opponent than it opens to you. If you just bump 2 fusilier to hacker, you paid 10 extra points, exposed only 10% of your list, but suddenly made all your repeater relevant and exposed a lot more than 10% of your opponent's list to your hacking.
That fusilier is not only 15 pt model but also the 1-2 bs in your ARO fireteam depending on its composition. 1-2 is a small bs difference, but many profiles breaking fireteam compositions are not preferred because of that 2 bs. 4-5 orders to reduce 2 bs of Fusilier or Regular sniper? I'd do that. A small leak can sink a great ship.
They're still the most expendable pieces in your list, and the protection they give to your list is still bigger than the "weakness" they add to your link. That weakness is also only relevant if the opponent can extend their repeater all the way to your DZ, has KHD, and kills the fusilier. And even then, even if that best-case scenario for your opponent, you're still happy with the exchange of orders they had to do to accomplish that. Now if you go to the average-case scenario, or the best-case scenario for you, it's insanely beneficial. To get back to your analogy, small leaks might sink great ship, but they block off way more leaks than they create. You can't have your list be invincible, it's about what you lose and what you get and I think you get way more than you lose.
At this point, you need to justify your claim. The geometry has been explained by multiple people; we have evidence to support our position. You can't just respond to this criticism with "no you're wrong." Show us some math of your own, if you're so confident in your supposition. Show us a diagram. Show us a table you've played on. Anything to support your claim. Here are some resources from several highly regarded community members, which cover terrain setup. This is the layout you can expect to see at tournaments, and this is how most new players are learning to build tables. How many protected corners can you find in the thumbnails alone? I see at least a half dozen in each.
Nah dude, you could be more polite and stop ignoring other people's arguments when they take the time to explain why you're off base.
