It is not limited to game development. It applies to any creative design process: https://semiengineering.com/shoot-the-engineer/
There are also missed translations in the lore book; I don't think I've seen that before. A review pass or two extra would have caught those. I'm a big fan of 80/20 solutions, ship-early-ship-often and fail-faster methodology (I don't work in mission critical design, obviously), so I don't really mind. It is noticable, though. I really like what I've seen of N5 rules so far, so having it now instead of 2025 and getting fixes to typos and things dripfeeding over the next year is very much acceptable.
I'm deeply confused by the business decision to cancel Varuna. Pan-o has 3 secotrials, one of which was clearly absurdly popular. MO's 300point box in N3 seemed to get poeple in anywhere and it was re-released, followed up by an MO expansion. Then Pan-o got winter for. and it was clear Pan-o had its 3 secotrials. Winter For, Varuna, and MO. Why in N5 would you launch a the new edition with a brand new Pan-o sectorial then? I'd actually understand it more if Kestrel was released as a fourth sectorial for Pan-o saying '3 sectorials is the goal, but sorry, Pan-o just sells so well in this they are getting a 4th'. Cancelling Varuna along with it while still selling the Varuna starter up until the end is just nasty. If I wanted to get into say, Morats how long are they supported for? CA has 3 sectorials already and is clearly a very popular faction, which sectorial will be removed 6 months from now when they announce the next brand new flashy CA box?*** I understand both sides here. When Corvus Belli promised that MRRF, Caledonia, QK, NCA, ASA, etc. would remain in the game as rules only and that the catalog of miniatures would become rotating. They made that promise in good faith, because they believed the could maintain that. The harsh reality is the couldn't, and I have no reason to believe there was anything other than good faith here. However, I hope everyone can also understand why many many players who had these factions and trusted Corvus Belli would be upset that the promise was not kept. I also understand that Spiral Corps was released in good faith, with the hope maybe one day it would provide a good bed of hype for an eventual relaunch of Tohaa, and maybe at worst a cool Tohaa to spin-off to play. But it was not popular and it didn't sell well. That's sad for me, but also sad for Corvus Belli.. To me though, the cancellation of Varuna was not in good faith. What the removal of Varuna in exchange for Kestrel says to me is that Corvus Belli is moving into an era of "Infinity as a Service". Where new factions and sectorials are released to replace perfectly service-able and supportable sectorials solely to force you to buy models. Where as a new release or resculpt might have stood on it's own merits in the past, and you would buy them because you wanted them. Now if you want to play infinity at all, you need to keep up with a rolling and constantly changing line up of factions and sectorials. ***This is just theoretical for the purposes of illustrating the point. I want to be clear that I DO NOT have any insider knowledge of Corvus Belli's plans or release schedule.
However, given yesterday's vid, can we say definitely that those sectorials were cancelled? From what I heard in it, the only sectorial that was absolutely, positively cancelled is the spiral. All the others - I think we can expect them to come back in time. Though, true, they won't be available on the N5 release day. Hardly a new thing, I recall at the start of N3 we had no sectorials for a month or two.
It's definitely something I would like to know ASAP from Corvus, but for now I'm going off the information they have made available: an official marketing video with a chart of factions with Varuna not listed as a sectorial of Pan-o. No commentary was provided in the video about Varuna or any of the other factions from N4 not shown in the chart. It's good to communicate clearly and effectively when people's time, money and passion are involved.
The PanO community has been asking for a redesign of the faction for a long time... and it seems that CB have probably opted for a complete reboot with Kestrel as a base. It is clearly a long-term decision... We'll see if the pros of the reboot outweigh the cons or not in the long. But in the short term it is an unfair blow for Varuna obviously... It's not nice. Not discontinuing Varuna's miniatures or have announced sooner was a mistake... a slightly dirty move for the consumer. I guess that is the reason why in PanO Vanilla there is only 5% of MO... to leave room for the bulk of NCA and VIRD, so their miniatures can continue to be played at the moment... both sectorials are inside Vanilla almost completely.
A good faith argument, sadly countered by the sheer amount of Kestrel and Sval in it too, and the lack of key pieces from NCA and VIRD (Kamau for instance) to use it as a valid point.
I think 99% of Kestrel is in Vanilla PanO because is the new motor of PanO. Sval doesn't have that much presence in Vanilla PanO... 3 of 7 units properly uniques. They could have left the Kamaus as an act of goodwill... I admit it.
I fully would have loved the Kamaus to be there, but I think they are somewhat similar to the Bolts and Nisse (at least in terms of roles they are having in their respective sectorial). The Bolts being under redesign, makes sense to keep them. But they could indeed have ditched the Nisse, kept them for SWF, and kept the Kamaus for Vanilla
Kestrel is full on PanO Vanilla for the same reason Reinforcement boxes are: they want to sell the boxes. It's painfully obvious.
“Legends” status for these armies seems like the best option in my opinion. A cheap and effective way to keep everybody happy. Army cancellation is a very, very bad idea. I understand that CB wants to bring new players to a more polished and straightforward version of the game, but alienating your core audience is a bad idea. Hope at least somebody from the team reads these forums. Wish N5 and CB all the best.
then explains why we have Scarecrow, Nokken, Locust and Croc-Men all in vpano... despite all of them competing for the same niche (they even have the same skills for a lot of them)
Huh? Nokken and Locust are not comparable to Crocmen and scarecrows. As of when we can compare infiltration+hidden deployment+camo troopers with non camo+non hidden deployment troopers? Please... Nokken and Locust are comparable (2 units) Crocmen and Scarecrows are comparable (2 units) Isn't it exactly what I said? 2 similar units? Bolts and Kamaus?
They do the same job as Skirmishers. It's just that Locusts are rubbish at it, and Nokk are better for aggression than scoring since they're cheap and can take a Spitfire. That said, Locusts may have some actual play if they either see a redesign (please, for the love of Joan, give the HUMINT operatives a forward observer...) or DTWs see a significant reduction in numbers.
Yes Locust and Nokken are comparable. Not with hidden deployment camo troopers. A Swiss guard is more comparable to a Cutter than a Nokken to a Croc man
vPanO also has Zulu-Cobras as well. Like @Lady Numiria stated elsewhere,vPanO will have all the skirmshers.
But Zulu Cobra is a Camo trooper with KHD or a Jammer. They are there to get rid of hackers or to Isolate a fireteam leader and break the FT... That has nothing to do with a super agressive Nokken aimed at taking down isolated Mimetism medium infantry... And again it's nowhere comparable to a Crocman that is set as an ARO piece / to surprise in active turn your opponent if they overextended. Please tell me when have you used a Croc man the same way you use a Nokken or a Locust. Guys wtf... Are we now putting all advance deployments units in the same bucket now?
The last Nokk I actually saw in gameplay was a KHD in WhiteCo, Cybermasking immediately and trying to counter-punch my own advancing Hackers. I always used a Hexa for that. Slightly cheaper. Main use I used to have for TO Camo Skirmishers was leaving them Hidden until Turn 3 for last-minute objective scoring, which wasn't a luxury I had as PanO- we were too vulnerable to getting tabled if we couldn't counter-punch any enemies that dared stage for a Rambo run. Funnily enough, most factions are so damned fast these days I usually do the surprise HD counterpunch with a Swiss Guard. Between all the Impersonators, Superior Infiltration and Van Zants, I actually went several games without my opponents even bothering to bring a HMG.
And for me, Zulu-Cobra spitfire is a stronger piece than a Nokken Spitfire. Camo really helps move into a better position to gunfight. The point I was trying to make is while there is nuance, as @Bignoob mentions, Forward deploying camo markers generally work the same. In N5, there will be at least three separate variants of that (Crocman, Zulu-Cobras, and Scarecrows) in Vanilla PanO all in a relatively similar price range. The other issue is that it is very hard to make forward deploying models without camo attractive. Camo is one of the games most powerful rules. Looking at the current Locust and Nokken profiles, what can they do better than the three camo units I listed above? Hopefully N5 does make Nokken and Locust have viable niches.
Certainly. Then again, CB was never particularly good at that aspect of marketing. Or maybe they found it is not their style. Bottom line - never in my memory did they tick the way you're asking them to. And I certainly don't expect them to start now, inconvenient for us as it is.
