So here is the situation you're describing, and I'll pick the worst possible outcome for the PanO player just to illustrate my point. Heckler Move -> Move Heckler Move -> Move Heckler Move -> Deploy Jazz Trinity the Hacker Jazz Target the LT Guided bot kills the LT Assuming the PanO player is sleeping and didn't contest the Heckler, and failed every single roll, and the nomad won every single roll, it's 6 orders to put you in LoL and kill your fusilier. No let's assume you didn't take a hacker. Heckler Move -> Move Heckler Move -> Move Heckler Move -> Deploy Jazz Target the LT Guided bot kills the LT Assuming again that the PanO player is sleeping and didn't contest the Heckler, and failed every single roll, and the Nomad won every single roll, it's 5 orders to put you in LoL. If they then want to kill the other fusilier that isn't a hacker, it's 2 orders. bumping it up to 7. So you're, in the worst possible case scenario, saving your opponent 1 order if they want to kill 2 troopers. You're costing them at least 1 extra order to put you in LoL. So of course the literal best faction at hacking is going to line up decently. But this worst-case scenario, your opponent is saving 1 order. However, if you're going first, or facing literally any of the other 40 (though obviously this is an exaggeration cause some nobody actually plays all 40), you're benefiting greatly from being able to setup a defensive hacking network in your half of the table. I don't think the scenario is "common", unless your meta is literally only vNomads. And if that's the case, obviously that might not be the best inclusion, just build for your meta. As for contesting the Heckler, if you deploy your LT within your first 6", they need to spend three orders to be able to reach it. So if you discover it on the first order, they suicide run is completely wasted. It's also not doable if the Nomad players go second. And you can use Minelayers to force the opponent to clear it first or have a different pathing and make them waste even more order (potentially giving you more chance to discover it). Though I agree that the Heckler is problematic because it's very hard to interact with, my point is more that even though it's a super problematic trooper, the worst case scenario described above doesn't really set you back more than if you didn't take the Hacker. But that scenario didn't happen (and it's going to happen less often than it does), its giving you a very good tool. Thinking that whoever has the best Hacker trivially kills all the other Hacker and that it's a waste is overly simplistic and completely ignores so many aspect of the game that it's flat out wrong.
I'm a bit confused, @Diphoration. You were saying earlier that the advantage of Pano hacking was cheap hackers and wide dispersal from their many combat repeaters. Now you're saying it'd be order inefficient to knock those cheap hackers off? A single KH skirmisher in midfield is odds on to nuke your two fusies in one order, no pitcher or moran needed. I ran triple kappa hackers a lot this season, it can work, it's fun, and in O12's case I think it's pretty great. But equally, that kind of list comes with some risk. Just a Zero KH on the other side of a wall from your peacemaker/sirius can screw your day.
Ok, yeah. Idk how many logical fallacies in those line of arguments, but yeah. I guess the Moran zone just trivializes the entire game and makes you unable to interact with the opponent entirely.
No, I think it's accurate in this case. Think of it in terms of the difference between the two order timelines you describe - do I put the hacker in there or not? If I do, then my opponent has a first turn play that kills one of my models for 1 order. If I don't, they don't. I try to avoid making moves where my opponent can remove one of my pieces top of 1 for 1 order. Them putting in LoL top of 1 is a good play anyway, so they were going to do that.
Can you point out where I said it was inefficient to kill them? Killing through your own Peacemaker's repeater is going to be pretty inefficient though. My entire point is that even if it's efficient to kill them (assuming worst case scenario), they're such low opportunity cost that it doesn't really matter. Because the benefit you get from the time where they're not getting killed efficiently much outweigh it.
It definitely can, since CB didn't really think about the implications of what that Moran zone does to the game, and in fact wanted to put Camo Morans in there in the runup to N4. Some factions have basically no good way to deal with that.
That's wrong, because it's still an order and listbuilding investment, and losing models top of 1 is worse than losing them bottom of 3 since it impacts the entire game. Their opportunity cost is not that low, basically.
Of course it's a listbuilding investment. But it's a low one (5 points and 0.5 SWC per hacker). Of course losing them on top of 1 is worse than losing them bottom of 3, but like I explain in length in the example that you even gave me. It would literally only take 1 more order from the opponent to kill the same amount of model, so it's a very small difference. The worst case scenario, is that you lost 5 extra point, 0.5 SWC and saved your opponent an order. If you think this is a big opportunity cost compared to what having Hacking in your list gives you, I honestly don't know what to tell you.
In your original reply to me you said "Who cares if your fusilier die. That's a lot of wasted orders to kill your 15 points model." - my point was that it's not a lot of orders, it's just 30pts of brain-busted fusi corpses at the top of turn one. It can work but I personally think (from expiermenting this season with it) that you need 3 linetroop hackers, plus at least another KH, in order to make your opponent think twice about diving your repeaters to nuke your squishy hacking network. At that point you're 25% of your SWC down, and any talk of low opportunity cost is very much moot. It's not off he table, but it has a significant opportunity cost is all.
Potentially a lot more if you weren't going to take combi-armed Fusiliers. Well, that doubles the order efficiency to kill it, and means your opponent will likely focus on something else instead. What it gives your opponent is greater than what you gain. Compared to what hacking gives you vs. a faction with superior hacking (like Nomads), then yes, it is a big cost, relatively. Because the benefit is *infinitesimal.* What are you going to do, spotlight a Chimera? lmao
A fusilier hacker usually just validates the existence your opponents KHD. You're often better off not taking a normal hacker at all, thereby punishing an opponent who over invests in hacking defense.
Yup, you generally want to take KHDs that enable the other part of your army - like in OCF Kerr-Nau since he fills out a fireteam and has White Noise.
I can see a lot of places where even without Super Jump or Climbing plus one can shoot at the "protected rooftops" with ease on the later table from the deployment zone too, so were does this discussion puts us beyond terrain shapes the game and one needs to find the places from where to launce their attacks?
That was the same with 40k 2nd edition and rogue trader, but I do not see how the "psychic/ magic phase" of that system has any relation to hacking in Infinity.
The point is that sometimes in games if you can't beat your opponent in a specific part of the game mechanics, it's better to not invest in it at all. The discussion is if this is how hacking works in Infinity. Which table are you talking about specifically when you say "later table"?
Apologies the middle table not the later table, the later is the one from the TTS. By the way @RobertShepherd tutorial is excellent.
“Oh, I see you’ve deployed a Moran. Well, I’ve been reliably told that’s a broken tactic impossible for me to dislodge, so, good game!” *extends hand*
So a Zero KHD is going to split his burst 2-1 against the fusilier. Through the Peacemaker is. 40.8% chance to wound the one with 2 burst. 23.8% chance to wound the one with 1 burst. And has around 52% chance to Isolated or Immobilized. So the Zero has 46% chance to not accomplish anything with their order and the PanO player has 48% chance to not accomplish anything with their order. It's certainly not trivial, and the Nomad player is the one spending the orders. And again, we're still talking about the Nomad matchup. Which is the worst case scenario. I also am not sure at this point if you know what opportunity cost means. Even if all my Hackers die, and even if they die efficiently, they're still a small opportunity cost. It didn't cost a low to upgrade them to Hacker. Doing that upgrade leaves your main gameplan essentially unaffected, but it adds something that your opponent needs to deal with before they actually need to deal with the things you don't want them to deal with. So, of course when the opponent picked the right tools and used the right tools for the job, they're going to net advantage. But as a whole, you're still getting more out of taking Hackers than you are by not taking Hackers. Because they force the opponent to go for the part of your list you least case about, they could fail, they could waste orders, and if your opponent doesn't have the tools to deal with it, you're getting a passive hacking network. - - - - - Also funny thing, hearing you guys talk, LITERALLY NOBODY SHOULD EVER TAKE HACKERS EXCEPT NOMADS BECAUSE WHEN THEY'RE NOT THE BEST THEY'RE TRASH AMIRITE? /s So if literally nobody is taking Hackers, then nobody can threaten your Hackers? Just don't take Hackers versus Nomads if you just don't think they're worth in that matchup.
