NCA has CSU who have the potential to roll up C+, SuperJump, 8/4 C+, 6/4 SuperJump Also - Shona and Uma. Locusts to Spec Fire grenades on 9’s out to 10”. Squalo Spec Fire Grenades on 9’s out to 24”. Fusilier GL out to 24” on 9’s. Or Aida if she rolls up grenades on her booty roll
Cost-opportunity is the key here. I do agree that Infirmarer is far from 'optimized' point costed wise. But when you purely need a Doctor for a Haris, and your options are either a 33/35 points KH or a 25 points Infirmarer... those 8/10 points may as well literally be the one extra fugazi/mulebot you need to have a full 15 regular order list. I myself have used the Infirmarer regularly in SWF. Do I prefer to bring a KH doctor whenever possible to a haris? Indeed. Do I have enough points to do so always, no I don't.
Of course and I have seen, and played, on quite a few, it needs to be pointed out that it is a really bad table design. That is fair, but I wanted to point out the possibility, I have seen many times people forgetting ZoC extends only 8" from the base and top of the silhouette. We do have an extensive and cheap repeater network with our remotes and while Moran is not hackable, he can be spotlighted like the rest, and PanO has as good guided bots as the rest, plus even better light grenade launchers. It will be a really specific table setup that would have a building that tall placed in such a specific way to cover with repeater range 2/3 objectives and allow Moran to infiltrate without a roll and everybody else needing to infiltrate with a roll. Uma, Swiss, Cutters, Crocs, Zulus, Uhlans, Hexas, Trinitarians, even beast hunter, and you can also do the same with killer hackers. No, not really... you need to start playing PanO a bit to understand how the faction plays.
This is why I said hacking rework and ranting about what Nomads have is not productive, in the same way saying Nomads is the illustrative example of the games power creep when Nomads (of all flavor) tournament statistics is not that impressive and the units people rant are usually the ones least used, does not help to prove the point especially when PanO and her sectorials seem to fair far better.
Yes the thing is "if you have or not align those profiles in your list", Pano isn´t the most flexible army when doing list, so... if you are going to a tournament probably you will have sacrificed some units in order to be "more efficient". However, about the problem provided about the "Moran on a non accessible roof" controlling boxes I had faced many times. The issue here is not if your units are or not possible to hack, but to be targeted. Yes, you will take the box, but you will keep it only until "fire start to rain from the sky". Try to take off targeted state is a bunch of orders probably you will not be able to afford. Yes, the problem to use those "profiles with climbing plus" is to reach the building, avoid the crazy koala", "be targeted", then "trying to kill the moran, thing you will do or not", all of this thinking in the ideal case no body is looking to that roof top. Once you are done with the moran, probably you will have to choose to try an catch the box, or to try to reset. Both will be bad choices. Maybe a solution to this all kind of problems will be to allow "repeaters" to be isolated, at least, so they will stop working. Best regards!
In my opinion the solution would indeed be to make electronic warfare more interactive and multilayered. This would: Eliminate or curtail non-interactive plays, obviously Open up faction design space, so that different factions could be good in different aspects of EW Make for more interesting and varied choices during army building
Alternatively, as a tactic one could hand the boxes to a non targeted unit. Not the best solution but an option.
I think there's a difference between real life and the Internet. I'm sure you are a nice guy, and fun to play against. You are undeniably overwhelming negative on this forum though, in a way which is part of why it is not a very nice place to hang out I do think you and Triumph would both catch more flies with honey
I actually don't agree on this point. The best ITS statistics I have access is https://infinitythemeta.com/ and I'll talk based on that statistics (Season 15 and 300 pt). And bear in mind that people say "Nomad" they often mix "generic Nomad" and "Nomad and all of its sectorials". As a point of view of winrate, yes PanO and its sectorials are doing great. Even higher winrate than those fearsome Combined Army or Steel Phalanx. But let's look at the numbers they played. Even if we add our top 4 sectorials (Acon, Generic, VIRD, NCA), the number they played are less than those "Strong Factions". And Bakunin is one of those factions with good winrate and many number of games. What would this mean? I said this before but I assume this is because PanO and its sectorials have missions (or missions combinations) that they cannot handle on their own. PanO and its sectorials are good in certain mission combinations so they have high winrate but less number of games. On the other hand, CA, SP, and Bakunin can deal with most missions so they have good winrate with a lot of number of games. I would say either have pros and cons, but I wouldn't say the "extremely good in specific mission sets" is far better than "moderately good in most mission sets".
Ok so how do you compensate for an element (hacking) that generates an imbalance against Pano? Hacking should be a game of net gains or losses where factions that hack better should be more susceptible to being hacked and vice versa. This premise is fulfilled well in Ariadna, but there is an imbalance in "other factions" that hack extraordinarily well and do not take any type of risk. Pano is the epitome of this imbalance, it is extremely easy to hack and there is not much it can do to defend Itself. In fact, in MO, this problem is the main reason why I use them less and less. As I mentioned before, my meta has a large presence of Aleph and Nomads. This means that today this is a Pano problem, and even more so if we consider the low-risk, high-reward scheme that the hacking game poses. This needs to be fixed to improve the gaming experience with Pano. As far as tournament statistics are concerned, they are only a partial, and actually very small, indicator of what happens in reality. In tournaments you are allowed two lists with which one must be able to face all opponents and complete all missions. Without knowing your opponents or your missions in advance. In my circle of players, and this surely happens in most circles that play casually, if someone plays against me they know that I am going to use MO, so for them to make lists that counter MO, especially if they have competent hacking, is very simple and ends up being an exercise in frustration for me. On the other hand, it is extremely difficult for me to propose lists in MO dedicated to countering OSS, Steel Phalanx, or any of the Nomads sectorials. I'm not interested in tournament results, they present a game scenario that is an exception rather than a rule, but somehow you keep bringing them up. What does seem worthy of attention to me is what happens in each meta, where the players know each other and play to nullify the advantages of an opponent that they know and who they have an idea of what he is going to use. This scenario is the one that occurs in 98% of the cases and is the scenario where Pano does categorically bad, because it is an easily counterable faction. On the other hand, it is the scenario where, and sorry to mention them again, Nomads do better for the simple fact that they have many tools to deal with many scenarios which a) makes them more unpredictable for the opponent and b) the makes them more difficult to counter. Pano is good in tournaments but bad in all other gaming scenarios? I don't play tournaments and most players are more interested in having fun in their casual games than in ranking high in a tournament. That is the indicator that matters.
The problem is it was designed in N4 as an uninteractive system in which certain factions were given unearned advantages that they don't suffer for in other aspects of faction balance. There's someone on the design team who likes the idea of Nomads/strong hacking builds having plays for which there are no counter and their opponent just has to sit there and take it.
The issues are mainly that Vanilla is a thing, it shouldn't be. That Vanilla has similar useful AVA and every god damned option available to sectorials, which if Vanilla has to be a thing it shouldn't have. And that CB continues to power creep to sell models by optimizing new profiles. Because their only business model is new models, not rules, not changing the meta significantly, not updating units that aren't performing to encourage purchases, nothing. Only new models. Buy the next new thing.
The reason, IMO, that we have focused on Tournament information is because that is where there is universal data available. What you are talking about is dependent on specific metas. While you are having issues with Nomads being oppressive, other metas may have Nomads struggling. Unfortunately, as metas can differ greatly, the closest we have to a "shared reality" is the ITS data.
The other option is to not be dicks and stop list tailoring? We play locally, we do not list tailor, we create lists we might take to a tournament that has to go against multiple factions over a diverse set of missions.
In our meta we don't consider tailoring to be a dickish move. We inform our opponents beforehand what we're playing this time, and pre-select a mission. It also makes sense ingame, if you're assembling a special ops team, you very much take opforce into account.
There's nothing wrong with list tailoring. Just because I can't do it because MO is crap against these factions doesn't mean they should stop doing it. But let's imagine for a moment that I completely eradicate list tailoring from my meta. Does this fixes Pano? But the tournament data is presented here as the holy grail of what's really happening factionwise in Infinity. When in reality is as misleading as believing that what happens in my meta is the absolute truth of faction balance. I don't believe tournament metrics give any useful information, they are really niche and i bet that the current faction imbalance is due to paying too much attention to tournament info.
Hey. With genuine curiosity - What do your lists look like and what iterations adjustments are you doing to counter your opponent’s preferred method of play? Additionally it sounds like they have you dialled in and are able to predict your preferred method of play. I typically leverage Marker state/Hidden deployment or AD to shield against such infowar methods.
I don't know if this is the best place to share my lists, after all the idea is to fix Pano and not fix my way of using Pano. There is clearly a pattern here, but while using Pano I have a negative record against the player who uses OSS and Steel Phalanx, I have a very positive record when he decides to play using YJ, mainly IA. So whatever he does with Aleph to nullify my MO lists, he can't replicate it with IA. It is clearly related to the tools available in each army. Probably YJ and its sectorials are the only armies I have an even win ratio with Pano. I would say that my win rate against Ariadna is slightly below 50%. What I can comment on without making this post too long is that every time I want to make subtle or versatile lists with MO they end up obliterated. Anvil-type lists are the ones that have given me the best results, mainly eliminating opponent units, but they can barely accomplish a mission objective. I usually lose on points but I beat up their units pretty badly.
Hmm Interesting. Makes sense feel free to send me your lists and maybe we can find a gap for you to exploit.
