Discussion in 'PanOceania' started by Context, Aug 14, 2019.
Im interested in curious and interested in the results. Will be on a lookout for battreps.
Uh... what? Whether or not their links are better is debatable they both do different things better than the other but IA definitely doesn't shoot better than MO they're leveraging BS13 not BS14. As far as CC goes MO is hands down better than IA. The only thing in the entire sectorial that can actually has Martial Arts is the Hulang and nobody can figure out why that model even exists in the sectorial because it's clearly made to work in tandem with Monks.
Seriously both sentences in single post ?
Yes, you can't get Monks in IA, so a standalone CC piece that can't link with no smoke is pretty pointless. If the Hulang was a wildcard unit that could support a bunch of Zuyongs or at least be moved into position with them for order efficiency it'd be different.
An entire link with CC capacities on the other hand is useful for take and hold missions. You put one of IA's links in a room a smoke grenade and a garden variety warband is probably going to rickroll its way through the link. The Knights have a decent chance of fending it off, Monks are on the higher end of CC capable warbands with CC22 and MA3, and Magisters come in at 32-38% vs them which is barely in the Monk's favour. A Zuyong that gets stuck in CC on the other hand basically does this:
As it is you'll probably never see IA with any kind of martial artist in the list, they'll be busy ramming TacAw HMG Zuyongs down your throat. On the other hand most MO lists will feature at least 1 knight if not a link of them that all have martial arts, hence, MO are better at CC than IA.
Is... Is anyone warning him about the lieutenant?
Yeah, it was already mentioned in here:
I would also add stupidly obvious. Fluffwise I think it's OK, I'm sure that during the crusades, the crusader's enemies pointed their weapons to the guy in the shiniest armour when they wanted to get the guy in charge. Besides I don't see a knight taking orders from a fusilier. But gamewise it sucks. MO LTs are bullet magnets.
"Stupidly obvious" doesn't mean "easy to kill". For the time I've played MO this year, LoL might have occured 2 or 3 times after having launched a charge too early in the game or made a huge error during my deployment. He's still a BS14 W2 guy or better that will be able to do some work anyway. Add to this that your Lt can be a specialist too so he can do a lot of work for you in order to repay his cost.
I'm sure we don't have explored all what MO can do. Like using Magisters as heavy WB like Ariadna does with their Dogfaces. They don't have smokes but dodging on a 17 is pretty much the same in case of FtF. Tested only once at the moment against MRRF and the guy was really good against minefields and chasseurs to reach the backline.
Or just using trusty units like Sierras and Bulleteers.
2-3 Times on a year ir more than normal.
Usually on other factions you lose 75% of army before lose tour Lt, and at this moments dosn't care.
Lose of Lt when you have alive half or more of your army is a serious problem.
Well you lieutenant is usually going to be in a 5 men link be it a HI or a sergent link. It should be he last thing your opponent can reach after destroying your army. It's a hard nuts to crack. And if isolation or spec E/M is an issue, maybe a FK lieutenant is for you with BTS 9.
I loose my LT pretty often in MO, but that's usually because of stupid mistakes from me rather than super smart of efficient play from my opponent.
Unlinked Magisters, Bulleteer or Sierra are all better in vanilla PanO where they are not constrained by expensive orders and limited selection. Options like that aren't really worth exploring IMO - whatever you are doing in MO has to be better than its vanilla equivalent or its not worth doing.
Most of the List that I see have or:
- Hospitaller Lt + Haris Knigths (1 HMG or Spitfire)
- Joan's Doom Fireteam.
On this 2 situations your Lt is in the midle of the table or "hidden" support HMG Haris.
Add the factor very obvious Lt. If the enemy are smart the CAN kill your Lt, but propably normally prefer don't waste all if this Orders, but if the oportunity appears they Kill your LT because on 90% of MO List the enemy know Who is your Lt.
I pretty sure that MO is the army who more times loose his Lt of Infinity.
Isn't a decesive factor on a play, but still be important.
That's by saying this that you will go directly in the wall. They may have a better support in Vanilla, they can address a lot of problems in MO too. It's like saying that CS Smoke LGL and Kuang Shi are better in ISS so they don't worth to be fielded in Vanilla...
This kind of claim seems always silly to me. If I take OM for a tournament, it's because I think they are good for the scenario roster. If I think that I would be better running a Bulleteer as second attack piece, I will play it, no matter how it could have been better in Vanilla, ASA or any other PanO army. If you don't want to play them because of such statement, good for you but don't come to complaint about MO. If you have never tried an army in its entirety, you can't claim "it's bad, period". You can say that you don't see how to win with them but then, changing your listbuilding may help you to win.
If you want a lot of orders and effective shooters, attack REMs are the path to follow. Having AVA 6 on Magisters means you can run more than one and play with them with one in each group like a lot of other WB in other armies. Plus you have access to a cheaper Croc Man without having to pay the SWC tax you do in Vanilla.
Agreed that it is an important factor. My lieutenant is usually a santiago in a magister link, ands stays behind until turn 2 or 3 (depending on the mission) when LoL is less meaningfull. My biggest fear is for an assault hacker to come and isolate it. I usually have a KHD to deter a hacker to put a pitcher nearby. Doesn't always work.
And at least you get a badass lieutenant leading from the front. That is also important from a gaming experience point of view
And from this, you draw that MO is bad? You've seen so few of MO that I'm surprised to see such peremptory statements. How about OS links with Santiago/FK Lt in it? How about running Albedo BF? How about KotHS, Dart, TAGs...?
I never said MO is Bad.
MO have a lot of pretty good combos and powerfull Fireteams (mixted, Core, Haris,).
There potencial on almost all the Knigths thanks all the Fireteam options.
But obligation of obvious Lt is an important weakless.
Be gentle man. He has totaly the right to disagree or think the obvious Lt is a huge weakness that any new player should be aware about.
The Sepulchre chain of command maybe part of the solution if your opponent start to abuse tactics to isolate your Lt.
Yes, apologies but sometimes, I'm just frustrated to see all those "OM is sh*t" and when I see the lists, it's always the same thing: Hospitallers, Hospitallers and a bit more of Hospitallers. We have like 10 different HI entries and I see always the same ones.
It's more a double edged sword. On one side, your Lt is easier to identify in your list and the CoC is pretty costly in addition, on the other side, its a HI with high CC value, CC skills and can make a good use of this Lt order instead of just idling in a corner (and still being a good target from a Kiiutan with Symbiobomb, E/M LGL with X-Visor or just a good old HGL or IMP assassins).
MO is also here to appeal those who like to play frontline Lts. There is competitive and there is also having fun while playing. I have more thrills by playing MO than I have when I play ASA.
I think your local meta ir very different than mine.
At firts, on my zone I never see nobody care about CC of my Knights, is not her advantage, my Knigths are good Shooting, and resist atack because are HI Linked.
All this years the meta was similar, spam or 2 groups. Wb Chain+Smoke or/and Infiltrator Cammo Hackers.
And now more weapons than can Isolated my Lts.
Is funny playing Lt as atack leader? For my not, is a sure death.
Is funny playing MO, yes, funny and beautiful, i Like his play-style. But I don't like obvious Lt because my adversaries are clever and Know that is a weakness to exploid.
Because the commander is never the guy in the back with only a sidearm giving commands, but always the guy busy fighting and leading from the front...
Some people play too many games or read too many Spessh Marine stories.
A trace of realism is what I like about Infinity, the "ermagerd I can do everything best in the entire Universe" trope is mostly missing (excluding Achilles, the Avatar and another few rare specimen).
The truth is simple statistics. With Infinity's size average is the new bottom. The top is fairly crowded with very competetive contenders. Below that are some solid B Tier armies. Further down another step we find the "average" which is already struggling to keep up with A tier on value alone. Then there is the bottom, you simply have an uphill struggle from there no matter how good you are.
I'm personally not happy in the slightest about the simple fact that MO doesn't belong to A or B Tier. But straight up lying about their relative performance is not gonna fix that. MO is not a super elaborate hard to use specialist army with all the hidden synergy to unfold its true potental. It's a mix of exceptionally efficient troops (Impetuous/Frenzy rebate Knights) hamstrung by Lt options and support troops belonging to the worst and blandest choices the game has to offer.
Add awful Order economy to the mix and you should be able to see why the stats show MO as bottom 5 performer overall.
Truly hope N4 will mix things up and move everyone closer together if not straight up buff the bottom feeders directly.
So, ive been thinking,
And something id like to see around here is less arguments that are an appeal to authority and the like. No more of this "my meta thinks X"
What id prefer us to do is sit down and just list the raw facts of the matter. And honestly those arguments are the ones that should hold more weight.
Very little in this game is unusable or truely underpowered or weak. Instead units range from easy amd simple to use to shades of difficult to learn, and or niche. That does not make those units bad it just shapes your strategy and means that your tactical choices on the table should aim to enable the use of those skills.
Much like speculative fire, the CC on knights is a skill you need to be consious of and put your knights into the correct position to gain a benefit from.
Unlike speculative fire (and active component of the game) the CC abilities of knights are probably better off looked at in most cases as a defensive capability. If we compare running HI to running a TAG then the CC capability releases the knights from reliance on a screen to protect them from enemy warbands because each knight can threaten and stand a good chance of beating/surviving a warband assaukt due to the combination of CC and toughness.
None of this is to say you cant use it in active, but i dont see that as the primary reason for the CC capabilities of Knights.