Bolts: Yeah lets do that again

I've long said Deva Sensor Lt and Aquila Multi Lt are your best options with a Bolt Fireteam.

Bolts are, indeed, too much of an investment to really relegate them to "order pool" as their role.

 

Another thing that the combination of veteran and bio immunity add to a forward acting link. Is that they really don't give two F's about deployable weapons ala mines of any kind. They either ignore it or tank it on BTS 6. Their only real issue is DTWs. But between the awesone ARO pressence from the rest of the list to the bolts aggressively defending themselves with drop bears. DTWs can be handled or even shut down entirely.

I mean one of the best ways to trap a mid field link is to deploy mines and force a choice. Bolts be like. *Shrug* I'll play.

 

Yeah it reduces the urgency of hiding your Lt. but it doesn't take away the LoL. From a would be enemies point of view, you're basically assassinating their Lt. to reduce their command tokens and letting them pick a new useful Lt. for free.

It's especially useful because a link can't use their irregular orders on themselves.

It's one of those things that maybe one wouldn't buy carte blanche but a smart player will learn to appreciate and use anyways. It doesn't really change list building a ton, just gives a bit of obvious Lt. forgiveness.

 

I never understood either choice, what's the point in them?

 

Just always roll under 4 that's what they do against me.

Seriously thou dealing with getting people out of token will always be an issue if you never face it.

 

I get that sensor is good, but NCA already has 3 Fugazi and Pathfinder and Deva's are pretty expensive. What kind of mission/list can you reveal your LT without problem? And just to use sensor for free?

On the Aqulla, it's expensive, MSV3 is only good against specific targets, not exactly the solution against camo spam, sniffer net seems better in that. Usually I'd rather take a Swiss.

 

More like Aquila +1 SWC.

 

Aquila Multirifle (Lt) is one of the prime examples what is wrong with PanO.
The majority of PanO players already deems the more expensive Swiss better than his Aquila equivalents despite a higher pricetag. The HMG Aquila still has a place as the ability to drop a Reserve Piece capable to clean up pretty much everything, including Camo Markers, from across the Board can get a lot of work done.
Then there is the Multirifle who doesn't have the main advantage of automatic Discover&reliable disposal at long range, while also lacking an unique feature to make up for it, where the Swiss MR can be a Marker State Hacker.

+1 SWC for an Aquila Lt without access to CoC is still a cruel joke and frankly a failure to understand the core mechanics of the game. Honestly no offense, but an expensive but fragile Lt that can't leave the DZ in fear of causing LoL is just terrible no matter what you do.
Add NCO instead, give him a Multi Marksmanrifle for a SWC piece that can hang back, I don't care what it takes.
All I want is CB to stop abandoning uninspired troops with effectively useless Profiles.

Don't buff the good ones, just make the ones that might as well not exist good enough to compete once in a while. NCA is already released, there is no Aquila Haris or mixed Link - what's the excuse for him and the majority of Orc and Bolt Profiles to exist?
Why is the Black Friar MSR a thing?
Who the fuck thought abandoning the Locust halfway through designing Profiles was a good idea?
How is the Uhlan 99 points thanks to paying full price for a secondary weapon it gets to use once in a blue moon?
Bipandra - just what the flying fuck CB?

It's not even like we run those Profiles to begin with. Giving them a second look would improve our existing limited set of lists. On the contrary, a tiny bit of attention could instantly redeem NCA and PanO from the stale taste that comes along with it. I'd be thrilled not to see or run a Swiss in close to every friggin list.

 

Then stop running a Swiss in every friggin list. The costing is strange on a lot of things in nca, but frankly, if you've got a method down and are successful... Try the other stuff?

MRifoe Aquila hits any Target in the game on 9s at hmg ranges... Sure it's not 15s, but it is amazingly good for 0swc.

Uhlans is absurdly powerful. Maybe it could stand to go down a few points, but it can solve almost any problem by itself and is more durable and versatile than Swiss guard HMG.

Bioandras pricing is still dumb, but bringing her solo or in a fusilier link that pairs with a bolt link is a great way to revive some of those boltsthat rarely go to dead state.

Mentioning Aquila as only a reserve piece is just a showcase of limited thinking. I frequently put big stuff on table first to manipulate opponent deployment... They know the Swiss or Aquila is coming anyway so place em first and they tend to start making the choices you asked em to.

The NCA problem children aren't as bad people let on.

 

Free country, you're free to have an oppinion and to kid yourself.

But the simple truth is there often is a better choice here that is easy and effective.
You can obviously choose to pick stuff like the Orc Haris if you opponents aren't much of a challenge or you don't care about losing.

Point costs is a result of that, skill and weapon budget for your Profile, so you always get exactly what you're paying for after all. Even a pretty damn bad package of a Profile should still perform at like 80% efficiency compared to a much better Profile in the same cost bracket.
That said there are Profiles that perform at 120% efficiency for their point value. Not your entire army will be composed of troops which performance not matching their cost. But in extreme cases with equally strong players you can end up playing lists that are effictively only worth 250 points vs a list that is effectively 350 points.
This is a dice game, there are missions and you can absolutely still win that matchup, even with your opponent being better than you. Doesn't change that you've voluntarily put yourself at a disadvantage, something you don't have to do.

 

>complains about doing the same thing over and over again

>Rationalizes doing the same thing over and over again as if they have no choice.

Reiterating that there's opinions being expressed is not necessary; so, right back atcha, kiddo. Saying something opens you to having something's ng said back.

That said: It isn't an opinion to tell you that you're refusing to (or claiming to refuse) to new or different things. I'm not kidding myself when I tell you I do well consistently taking unfavored troops. There's a field of players here who say these troops work. What are we doing differently that we can take the same stuff and come to an opposite conclusion?

We don't disagree on costing problems for a few troops. We almost definitly disagree on severity of this difference. The costing part IS an opinion however. I don't think you're at a huge disadvantage taking these unfavored troops if you account for the circumstances that you change your thinking about how to approach the game. There's a lot of observations made here that are performed through a straw.

 

I am sure you can dial down a bit and have a calm discussion, right?

 

I apologise. I didn't intend to appear hostile.

 

@derbrizon if we can't find common ground there is nothing to discuss here.
There is a very simple approach to check for that if you would like to.
In my opinion there are no circumstances that make the Orc AHD worth it's points (Link, Mission, etc) in the same game where a Hexa KHD and Swiss AHD exist. Hexa and Swiss are better than the sum of their stat and equipment budget, while the Orc ends up a significantly weaker package than what you're paying for.
If you honestly think there are redeeming circumstances here we're probably better off to agree to disagree.

I have no intetest in making excuses to validate design failures. Instead I would rather see them fixed.

 

I've never said to simply change your mind. I suggested you should try these other troops anyhow. There's a lot of value in forcing your way through a percieved disadvantage instead of simply moving over to a percieved advantage and calling it good. I've used Bolts as often as not: my win rate is about the same with the bolts being a little less successful; that is in NCA which is my most successful sectorial. A great calibrating statement here is: I fair better with Bolts than I do MAF, and I'm no slouch in MAF. With this information, I'm comfortable asserting bolts are alright, but not the best. Ditto for ORCs.

NCAs good stuff is easy to use. Easy to be good with. The other stuff is not easy mode - but it's also not nightmare autolose mode. There's a lot of value (and fun!) In showing up to tournament or game day with a bunch of unfamiliar or apparently "crappy" stuff. If winning is important such that the slump of solving new problems isn't acceptable, then so be it.

But to reiterate: when we lose a game we often say "this unit sucks" rather than say "how could I use this differently?"

It's the same urging we do to new players. I saw a new player take Aquila, post him going second on a building and declared infinity was stupid and Aquila was garbage because a missile launcher wrecked the Aquila from 36" on the first order. He then quit the game after his next match after discovering he knew how to win every time and the games balance sucked because he used a dragao to table his opponent - a new player who made the same bad deployment mistakes he made before!

I tried to explain what was happening, but he was comfortable with the information he had generated and stopped looking. We veteran players know of course, that the new player should instead be asking himself "what did I do right/wrong?"

 

The meta a new players that ragequits after two games develops for himself is of no concern to me. That's on him, not on the game.

Against a proper opponent nothing about this game is easy. That's the great thing about it - you don't just pick Tau, find a netlist, apply basic understanding and win the game. You get a mission and an opponent to handle instead of a shooting gallery simulator.

I'm well aware of the differences in between a hard to use Profile and a plain bad one. That has already been taken into account before I start calling things bad. I'm also aware that actual performance on the table can vary a lot. Ghazi can die to Sniper AROs 5 games in a row, that doesn't make them bad.
Pretty much everything in this game can punch above it's weight class in your Active Turn with favourable Rangebands, Linetroops can kill TAGs, but that is not the point, proof of concept or what I'm talking about.

So believe me, if I say something sucks then it's not because of how it performs on a table for me. There are a bunch of Profiles I've thought are bad or wasn't sure about but came around on. There are factors like deployment or mobility skills that can redeem a lot of downsides, these are hard to evaluate while sitting in a chair.
I've played most things once or twice and at least for PanO most of them fail at one simple but crucial checkpoint. Solving problems with minimal Order expenditure through BS Attacks.
This isn't a problem for utility Profiles or solo troops in the 10-30 point bracket, but it is a problem for a Bolt or Orc Core that pay a lot of points to end up worse than their competition for that one crucial aspect of the game. For Bolts it's simpler than that, Bagh Mari simply outperform them in every way possible for similar points, with better support available for them as well. The Orc Haris has a similar problem, it's about as expensive as a full Core Link of Magisters. With the Hospitalers significantly outperforming Orcs thanks to full Core boni and the Magisters providing better defensive capability for half the points. We're not talking about problems that can be offset by other parts of the list. We're talking about voluntarily playing with a undeniable and irredeemable handicap.

Without being in denial about the existence of suboptimal lists, you'll sometimes build a list, put it on the table and realize in deployment that your list has issues. Then you built another one, but the issues remain. No matter if you win or lose the game, you reevaluate the list and figure out it has a problem. Too few attack pieces, not enough button pushing, a crippling weakness against Hacking.... you get 2 list slots for a tournament, so having one list cover for the other is fine, still some things should never be neglegted - a PanO list will always need a way to clear AROs with Firepower after that it depends on the matchup. DZ defense against AD, (CC) Infiltrators and Impersonation is the one people seem to neglect most.
You'll eventually have a whole lot of experience identifying the cause of the problem. And at some point you notice a common pattern that causes it. A big one for me were lists that would absolutely crush when going first, but had completely insufficient defensive capability when going 2nd.

I've put a lot of time and thought into concepts, stats, effective performance and execution. And I've tried my hardest to stay fair (i.e. a minimum budget Bolt Spitfire + BSGs Link is a serious contender for Hunting Party). I'm not bashing Fatherknight Spitfires, the Black Friar Sniper or the Locust MMR because I have problems making them work on a table, I've had Swiss Guards fail me horribly and Magisters run to their deaths. But none of that changes that I am absolutely certain their advantages more than make up for their disadvantages.
Raw stats on the other hand without Skills or Equipment tho double dip on their value, seem to be a death sentence. You can bee a toolbox and be good, you can be a very basic troop with minimal upgrades and be good, you can be exceptionall great at killing things or you can be a good value option as a Specialist. Troops can be simply great by getting a huge discount from Frenzy or weapon options like SMGs that offset their cost without crippling damage output.

What fails in comparison is a load of stats at full price without the Skills or Equipment or mixed Links to give it extended purpose.
Imagine Bolts being Dogged to make use of their defensive stats for a second. Their entire kit would receive a massive boost. Bioimmunity, ARM2, BTS6 gains enough value to be straight up good instead of being situational bloat.
Or Mimetism for one of the SWC Profiles to compliment their BS13. I'd even start running solo Bolt Spitfires as cheap Assault Pieces or Bolt MSRs in Bolt Links because they'd be significantly better at winning FTF rolls than Fusiliers.
Things like this and mixed link options is what CB has already been doing since a while to fix troops that are not exactly amazing. Brawlers and Druze are less than stellar if they just would be guns slapped on a basic profile. Instead they have MSV2s, Mimetism or X-Visors on profiles that benefit from it. Brawlers have one of the best AHDs in the game - simply because it has an SMG that drops the AHD's effective pricetag to a single point.

A basic profile that isn't exiting does not have to be a problem, especially with Links in the equation. As of now it still is one for a lot of PanO troops and I'm really looking forward for that to change.
Bolts as they are now need to die for the sake of the game getting better as a whole.

 

Ah... Now we have a discussion! :D

I again want to reiterate that I agree changes to the undesirable troops would be welcome. That is not the drive of my argument at all, however. My analogy is that the apparent language of the forum is reminiscent of new players who don't know any better. Again: it isn't my opinion that bolts are nearly as good as other NCA options - It is two years of experience of table time telling me this.

I'd like to respond to what you said about NCA being either killer go-first army or good defensive go-second army. My experience is that there are two ways to achieve balance between those things in NCA: either many orders of auxilia and hexa with a single big hitter and a backup hitter, or forego the big-bad dudes like Swiss and buy high-middling troops and a second link in the bolts AND fusiliers combined. I am a broken record on this: using the bolts generally removes the sensibility of taking Aquila or Swiss. Rather? They achieve the same kind of face-punch of an aquila and theres other options for TO and MSV in NCA.

With AVA Total I don't think the bolts will ever be a solo or steered that way. I think more options and the widely agreed upon price drop will take them very far. I wouldn't not give them dogged or similar due to cost, and it simply not being a pano thing. The ability to revive them really needs to go up. A lot. This could be accomplished either bipandra (who would be stellar in the bolt link) or bioimmunity updats or something else. For example I think bioimmunity is too lomited. I believe it should use bts for more ammo types like fire, plasma, and/or template weapons in general - that is, if what I think bioimmunity is supposed to be is correct, that being they're all wearing a bomb suit tyoe protective gear.

I also agree that mixed links would do well. POSSIBLY mixed orc and bolt. But really, thematically, I think auxilia need more options that can enter Bolt Links. Bolts and auxilia hold theme of legionnaire and (literally) auxiliary troops. Why not have em work together?