I’m only responding here because this behaviour is quite concerning and upsetting. Why is it that whenever you respond to someone, it’s always a personal attack? Why the ad hominems? Some of your statements are filled with inaccuracies about what was said and by whom and yet you attack them on a personal level. Can you not simply address the question rather than the person? Does their disagreement with your standpoint offend you so? It is possible to disagree in good faith, even to passionately defend a viewpoint without taking or giving offence. Others here have argued back and forth with one another, excellent points have been made on both sides of the argument yet I do not feel the same amount of rage from them as from you. Please examine what it is about a game of toy soldiers that is making you so angry. This behaviour is not healthy nor I think in polite circles is it acceptable.
Are you for real? You have to be joking. You derail the conversation with whining and logical fallacies. And when someone points it out, they're trolling? What?! I liretally just rephrased the 3 quotes in the same order they posted in, they're even linked in the same post. I'll even put them back here. Your responses are absurd.
Diphoration's argument was so inane as to either be the result of absolute ignorance about Infinity or feigned stupidity as a form of trolling. What's more, you and others like Mao *opened* your entrance into the discussion with mockery of people who disagreed with you, and here you are being bothered that people treat you in kind. In polite circles it's not considered acceptable to disregard your opponent's arguments and then state you're right regardless of the evidence, but Mao and psychoticstorm have been doing it repeatedly. At a certain point it becomes people trying to be insulting and then acting indignant when called out on it. It helps when you've got a forum mod who agrees with your viewpoint regardless of the evidence because he thinks that signaling allegiance to CB is more important than any of that.
Please stop the personnal attacks will you? You're literally trolling, whining, playing victim with claims of personnal attack. But whenever someone points out ridiculous logical fallacies in your posts that mostly constitue constant whining while polluting the forum thread, you revert to personnal attacks. You total Really ironic.
It 100% is personnal attack, my comment was not trolling. Just because someone points out how absurd your line of arguments are doesn't mean they're trolling.
Not interested in wasting any more time discussing this with someone who doesn't care about the facts of the issue and who is going to repeatedly make disingenuous statements.
Disingenuous statements? Are you fucking for real? Your replied this... To my comment explaining how Peacemaker are good. You literally told me I was making claims I was not. You're talking about Morans when they were not even part of the discussion. Your posts are filled with logical fallacies and disengenuous arguments for the sake of arguments. Fucking unreal.
No one here has acted as you have. No one here has mocked anyone as you have. I for my part will once again state I have not mocked anyone and that you are once again putting words in my mouth to generate your narrative. If you feel I am disrespecting you here, it is because I have no respect for you since you have treated me in a manner I can only imagine you must unfortunately be accustomed to. I can only imagine the horror it must be to play you with the attitude you have. You attack people personally with every post and to be quite frank, it’s disgusting behaviour and some of the accusations you’ve levied are vile. The arguments aren’t being discarded as far as I can see. They’re being discussed. Quite heatedly in certain cases and also in some cases going round in circles. If you’d care to talk to people in a polite manner then perhaps you’d see that. But your anger won’t let you. To be so unhappy over a game of toy soldiers, over something of such ephemeral worth is terrible. You have my pity, such as it is. Carry on as you see fit.
Just to try and reroute this back to discussion. Why do you believe that isolating a peacemaker is 2 orders is a waste @Diphoration
Nah, when someone says "Here's the probability breakdown of this action and why it's a bad move" responding with "Dice math doesn't matter, anything can happen" is ignoring their argument and telling them that it doesn't matter what they do or what arguments they put forward, you're going to ignore them. I could respond to the rest of it but that's the core of the issue; one side is basing their viewpoints on gameplay, the other is saying "Well, this *should be*, and if it isn't what is then we'd have to criticize CB, and that's wrong, so obviously what should be is the same as *what is*."
Because one of the main role of a Peacemaker is to act as a area denial tool for your half the table. It does so via providing repeater coverage when you have Hackers. But it more often does it by just acting as a cornerguard role (because PanO lack warbands, the remote kinda has to do that role). Isolating it removes the repeater coverage, doesn't remove the corner guard REM that's just protecting the corner you put it on. Dealing with it will still require the player to take a template to the face with one of their trooper. Usually trading. So the opponent is wasting orders trying to isolate a trooper, but doesn't really take it out of the equation. And it's only 2 orders if they succeed their Oblivion (which is only 49% to work). And ideally, if you placed your Peacemaker close to the center, it should be able to make use of its irregular order once isolated to trade with something in the midfield with their template (if you parked it behind a wall where an objective is for example). Isolating troopers is particularly good when the opponent intended to actively use the troopers and sink orders into it, otherwise it's just a very soft answer and I don't think it's a good use of your active turn order pool.
*sigh*. You may believe whatever you wish, whatever helps you sleep at night, whatever gives you peace. Thanks for the clarification, I too at @Judge Dredd stated was wondering why it might be considered a waste because from the viewpoint of the attacker, doing something like isolating a target in two orders seemed relatively decent to me. Thank you again.
I agree that it exists as a passive corner and pocket guard, but if it moves without the pitcher or offending hacker being dealt with first, it will likely get hit with Carbonite or spot lit and put in greater danger. I also find that warbands are the biggest direct threat to it, so I do agree hacking is a sub par route to it. I do like using peacemakers, but personally I find I use them as a shooty warband, thing if that makes sense, and the repeater can be as much a boon as a hinderance. My local meta has some gnarly hackers via Nomads and CA or ariadna and JSA which just don't care as long as they avoid the spot light.
And here you are again not addressing the central disagreement, which is whether or not the probability of success of actions meaningfully impacts their utility in the game.
Yeah, I'd probably try to use the as aggressively as possible to trade them early in matchups where the repeater could hinder you. It's also why I think playing disposable hackers is more adequate in PanO than investing in "good" hackers, because you're more likely to risk them as your repeater network is predictable. (Unlike pitchers, which only are on the table when you want to make use of them). Ideally you spend the least amount of ressources possible on the Hackers, so that if they become a liability, it's not that big of a downside. But if the opponent doesn't have the tools to effectively deal with it, then you can lean into it and benefit from it.
This one of the reasons I am looking forward to the new Armbot box: I am hoping it will promote more Peacemaker usage. PanO does have some interesting profiles. I hope that the Gencon Endsong updates give them more Auxbots profiles.
Let me put another question out here. Do you believe that the limited counts as nature of fireteams through PanO may have hurt PanO's ability to make use of linked hackers? That is, do you feel the loss of link bonuses limits the way that you look at incorporating hackers and defensive AROs or core compositions and may be diverting you away from stronger hacking lists?
