You said little to none. You're platforms also generally come with better BS weapons, which your apparent 'calculations' fail to reflect. You also grouped your statement, indicating PanO has little to none of all these things. Wrong. If you cared to notice, I have not disagreed that PanO needs to lean on direct shooting. What I can't stand, is when PanO players pretend they need these other tools, when you have wide access to the ones that actively ignore them. (MSV2 for instance). I feel that many factions have more access to these tools as a way to balance the power of PaO, which is a pretty logical way of designing a game.
Barakiel is not saying what you suggest he's saying. He's saying because they have a relative disadvantage in these other tools and a relative advantage in shooting they need to lean more on direct shooting. He's said that the power of PanO means that he's ok with having less access to those other tools as a balance and that he's happy with that design. You're basically agreeing with each other. But because you're approaching it from opposite POV it appears that you disagree.
If this is the case, why argue what I said and attack my apparent lack of reading comprehension? As a labeled warcor, I would expect a little better from you. I pointed out that the gaps you indicated weren't as large as was being implied. (And yes, they were being implied). I understand you have a lot of great insights, @barakiel - many of which have helped a couple of my primary opponents improve at playing the game. (And have helped me, tbh). I commented to voice the opinion, as I've said repeatedly, that the implied deficiency isn't as large or detrimental as some people think. You'll also see that I agreed with some of what you were saying while voicing this opinion.
Eeeyup. Varuna is the best-off sectorial in PanO for having those extra tools, but I think they're also a little light compared to, say, Vanilla YJ. That's getting tweaked around with Red Furies, Marksman Rifles (and the occasional Mk12), and the various rocket launchers.
@barakiel , very interesting analysis. Other calculations that might be useful are, 1) Points / SWC per DTW profile, mines/bears profile, camo/TO profile, and smoke/eclipse profile. 2) Similarly, the above broken down by AVA of each of the profiles. Just as an example - while Ariadna has over 7x the number of Smoke-equipped profiles as Tohaa, I rarely see Tohaa players running fewer than 4 Makauls, whereas my Ariadna lists have roughly the same number.
You've counted Shaolin Monks twice and one of them is a profile that's used a lot less than Guarda (seriously, I was almost shocked today when I sorted by SWC and found that profile). It's sufficient to have one good profile with the required tool, and completely irrelevant counting counting the bad ones. I mean, with the second lowest AVA in Smoke category, Yu Jing is the faction that is by far most known for using and abusing it thanks to decent deployment of it in Shaolin or Fireteamed Celestial Guard together with good MSV2 troops. While it's debatable whether Lunah is Yu Jing or not (since she's listed as a Merc and is also at home in Starco), it seems you purged Helots from Pan-O's tally? And while counting mines, they are great tools and all, but the value is greatly multiplied when you look at Infiltration and Minelayer availability, which again means the numbers literally lie and is probably the reason why playing Yu Jing or Pan-O often feels like you're missing in that department even if it's possible to fill a list featuring units only from that category. Just look at Tohaa and tell me they are actually short on these options - speaking of, you should probably count Armand as Tohaa as no other faction can put SymbioMates on him and you seem to have missed Taquel and SymbioBugs. P.s. Maybe not irrelevant counting the bad ones, but it's a heck of a lot more useful counting the quality of what you can bring than the number of profiles you rejected selecting the unit you brought for the tools. Likewise, is it a DTW that's used on a suicide trooper? Pan-O drops to Auxilia. Is it a DTW that's used on a big mighty trooper to fend off or punish Al-Djabel/Shinobu-type trooper? Up goes Pan-O again. Or is it just a DTW that's there to, you know, inflate the costs a bit. Just a tiny bit. It's useful, so can't complain, but... how often will you use the Black Friar's or Bipandra's Nanopulser... really?
@TriggerPuller9000 and @Mahtamori Those are all good points about the subjectiveness of how useful the data is. This was a quick pull to try and reinforce an idea, rather than any kind of comprehensive exploration. I do think that you could get a much better picture if you tried to attach some kind of weight to all of it. Something like the Shaolin Smoke LGL... Not very helpful, doubly so because it's a Vanilla-only offering. Something like an Irmandinho is probably a perfect example, since it's present in both Vanilla and a Sectorial, and can functionally pull triple-duty as a cheap Specialist, cheap Chain Rifle, and even a CC warband (far from ideal I know, but I've seen it done.) I'd probably emphasize the notion that the data balances out to a degree, because everyone faction has their bad offerings that don't necessarily count. There are also some tricky ones... TO Specialist Sergeants are a staple of MO, but rare in Vanilla. So how does one attach weight to that? The Helot's another example (if I omitted btw, that's an error... It should definitely be counted.) But a stray Camo Token and low AVA in Vanilla PanO makes it very different than it's impact in VIRD, just like a Celestial Guard's smoke LGL helps define the entire identity of ISS, but isn't needed as much in Vanilla Yu JIng. If we were to expand on this, I'd probably attach a weighted system to the total count for every faction. A pretty strong smoke offering, like a Galwegian or Jaguar, is a full 1 point. Something like a Shaolin would be be close to 1 point, but perhaps reduced because of the lack of viability in the LGL (the LGL on its own would be low... .25 of a point.) GdA would fall somewhere between those two. It's a tricky exercise though, because it's a subjective system. Total headcount remains the purest way to display the data. @oldGregg Thanks too for the kind words about articles and feedback. We've got an interesting discussion going on... I think there was some misunderstanding at work initially, but I also wanted to take a minute to appreciate that as well.
The way you categorize is also misleading, as Haqq has zero drop bears, and only one unit with TO. Of that unit, most of the profiles are rarely taken due to cost/value. Doubling up on categories while also presenting unweighted, directionless data is merely a ploy to give muscle to a weak argument. Whether or not this was your intent, the impression is misleading.
There we disagree. The reason the categories are grouped like that is because they're similar in capability,. Example: I would actually weigh Camo and TO Camo as basically being equal. Obviously TO Camo is "better", but also comes with higher cost, is available on fewer units, results in losing an order during Hidden Deployment, etc.. So in terms of evaluating whether or not a tool is useful, I'd simply claim Camo and TO Camo are comparable abilities, because they have both defined advantages and drawbacks. As Ariadna shows us, having little access to TO Camo doesn't mean your Camo game is bad. If anything's, it's quite the opposite... A list that's too heavy on TO Camo actually runs into problems, while there's no such thing as a list that's too heavy on standard Camo. Evaluated in that light, the the two abilities are equal. Similarly, I think something like mines, or emaulers, are easily on par with Drop Bears. They have advantages and disadvantages, with neither being superior. Mines can't be thrown like with a Drop Bear, but there's no chance of failing to lay a mine, they also come with Camo state, can be paired with rules like Minelayer which Drop Bear throwers don't get, etc. Hence I'm happy to lump mines and Drop Bears together when assessing a faction's access to them. This also leads into the idea that everyone has their good and bad offerings. As an example, the Wild Parrot gets counted with same weight as a Chasseur's mines, despite the fact that the Parrot only exists on one profile and is disposable 1, compared to players taking Max AVA Chasseurs in every list that has access to them.
Data should not be subjectively catogorized when presenting an argument in the way that you do. Furthermore, you equate differences here, which only adds weight to my point. These things are different and should be analyzed accordingly. EDIT: To speak of ‘weighting’ the parrot; you can not pretend to have put this much thought into your supposed weighting system, when you have already clearly stated you did not do this.
Agreed here. Marker state is the more important piece, though I might call TO 1.25x a plain camo for weighting. Hidden Deployment is rather powerful at times. Maybe, I'm not sold on that comparison. But I don't have a strong opinion it's wrong either, just a feeling it may not be quite as equal as we think. And that's where you'd need to include AVA as part of the weight. Especially if there are competing profiles that don't have the disposable. So strictly comparing Chasseurs to Parrots, I'd have to say that Chasseurs carry 4x the weight.
Theres also issues with Synergy. Morans are a classic: in Vanilla they're likely to be paired with solid hackers. Something that is *generally* less true in CJC (albeit Wildcat AHD + Moran is still one of the best AHD combos going).
@barakiel I think to do the sort of analysis you really want to do you'd need to see how popular various profiles were in list building, and how often profiles with a certain skill was taken. I'm sure CB can do it against the ITS data, but it's harder for the rest of us.
Hmm? I think there's misunderstanding here. This is the data equivalent of a doodle on a napkin. I picked 4 rules... Camo, Smoke (the two most powerful rules in the game, due to their ability to selectively bypass confrontation,) mines (for their ability to combat the two most powerful rules in the game) and direct templates (also pretty good) and simply quantified each faction's access to them. I was just making a point that PanO, demonstrably, has a lot less of this stuff than other factions. This is doubly true given the the size and age of the faction. As a result, they better stick to the strengths (trigger pulling) and bring the appropriate tools (enough SWC weapons to get the job done.) If anyone else cares, have at it. This isn't a project, just an example.
As I said before; I agree that PanO has a little less in terms of tools, but I believe this sentiment, as you present it, is misleading. The margin by which PanO has less is outweighed by their ability to bring weapons that counteract those tools, and synergize with what they do have available, all while doing one of the most important game mechanics better than anyone else. They shoot really well, while also being able to bring direct templates, jammers, Camo, and some fantastic indirect weapons. Yes, smoke is almost nonexistent, (regular smoke is completely), but they also bring the best tools to cut through smoke.
This might be one of the best "dialogue de sourds" I've had the pleasure to read in a while. Keep it up guys! As for the OP, it's an interesting question. With my Invincible Army i'd gladly give up 1SWC to get 50 more points. Hell, i think I could even settle for 20pts only, since the lists I'd like to play in IA are often just a few points short, but SWC is almost never an issue. But overall the trade-off is definitely worth it considering the amount of tactical flexibily I win with an additionnal liu-xing/zhencha: Invincible Army ────────────────────────────────────────────────── GROUP 1 10 DĀOYĪNG Lieutenant L2 Hacker (Hacking Device) Boarding Shotgun / Breaker Pistol, Knife. (0.5 | 29) TAI SHENG (Chain of Command) Breaker Combi Rifle, Chain-colt + 1 TinBot B (Deflector L2) / Heavy Pistol, Knife. (0 | 49) ZÚYŎNG (Fireteam: Duo, Tactical Awareness) HMG / 2 Breaker Pistols, Knife. (1.5 | 38) ZÚYǑNG (Forward Observer) Combi Rifle / 2 Breaker Pistols, Knife. (0 | 28) HǍIDÀO Hacker (Killer Hacking Device) Boarding Shotgun / Breaker Pistol, Knife. (0 | 26) SHÀNG JÍ Heavy Rocket Launcher, Light Shotgun / Pistol, Shock CCW. (2 | 39) RUI SHI Spitfire / Electric Pulse. (1 | 20) ZHĒNCHÁ (Forward Observer) Submachine Gun, D.E.P., Antipersonnel Mines / Pistol, Knife. (0 | 34) Zhanshi YĪSHĒNG Combi Rifle / Pistol, Knife. (0 | 15) YÁOZĂO Electric Pulse. (0 | 3) MECH-ENGINEER Combi Rifle, D-Charges / Pistol, Knife. (0 | 15) YÁOZĂO Electric Pulse. (0 | 3) GROUP 2 3 1 CHAĪYÌ Yaókòng Flash Pulse, Sniffer / Electric Pulse. (0 | 8) CHAĪYÌ Yaókòng Flash Pulse, Sniffer / Electric Pulse. (0 | 8) WARCOR (Aerocam) Flash Pulse / Stun Pistol, Knife. (0 | 3) LIÚ XĪNG Boarding Shotgun / Pistol, CC Weapon. (0 | 32) 5 SWC | 350 Points Open in Infinity Army With my Imperial Service however, it's not so easy. I'd love some more SWC to fit more heavy gunners or support tools (tinbots for wu-mings, etc...), but i just can't find a good balance between orders and stuff to spend them on if I get rid of too much point.
Yeah, I get that, not criticizing, just suggesting that instead of a weighted system, hard numbers from real tournament lists would work better. I agree with what you're trying to do, it's certainly not easy.
Weighting numbers is necessary if you're grouping stuff into broad categories, but it'll still hide critical data. Like I wrote earlier, it's sufficient to have a single good tool to counter-act a lack of options within that category. Let's take a look at Mines and ask a few questions. Most examples will be Yu Jing in nature because I play that army and know most of its ins and outs Does this unit's mine option directly compete with another extremely popular profile? Example: Daoying HD LT2 does not have mines. Does this unit's army typically have plenty of orders to spend on defensive measures like mines? If the list does not have a lot of extra orders, the mine has to be carried to its target instead of waiting for a potential target. Can you do other roles with the unit? Does the unit have a minelayer option? Can the minelayer also deploy in a forward position? Just like above, it's the difference between the mine waiting versus the mine being carried to the target, forward deployed mines have a much higher impact on gameplay. Example: NA2 JSA's Yuriko often places a mine that doesn't get to do anything Is the minelayer profile in direct competition with other rare roles? Example: The addition of the Zhencha hasn't brought more mines to Yu Jing, it has unlocked the Guilang from being pigeon into infiltrating specialist role, making it easier to select the Guilang minelayer. Is the model an obvious LT or otherwise in need of stationary protection? Example: Daoying. Having an obvious role that has huge advantages in killing means it's more likely to need this protection, drastically increasing the value of the minelayer sniper. Can the mine be thrown or shot? Example: Raicho. This drastically decreases the order cost of carrying mines to their target and increases the likelihood of catching several enemies in the blast. Each mine shot by a Raicho potentially saves up to 3 orders compared to a Tikbalang. How lasting is the damage of the mine? Example: MadTrap, it is fairly unlikely to save its effect, but on the other hand a glued enemy still generates orders. In general, I think we can divide this up in three mayor categories; "Forward Minelayer", "Rear Minelayer", and "plain mines", even though that's still blunt. @barakiel I think you're missing repeater net category. It comes with its own distinct difficulties in how to value a Repeater; a Repeater on a stationary order generator like most Baggage REMs is not as high as a Repeater on your main attack TAG (unless facing IA), not to mention that a Repeater's value is directly proportional to what kinds of Hackers you brought and what types of targets your enemy brought. A Repeater on a main attack REM can be a liability if you didn't bring enough KHD. Pitchers are of course not a liability if your enemy has 3-4 KHD and you none, since you decide to turn them on or not. @RogueJello There's a risk with only looking at what people bring since that risks looking at what the current meta is, not what the meta could shift to. It's an extreme case where CB releases a new type of Hacking Device which drastically changes the Hacking climate, but on a smaller scale if we were to completely discount Guarda because, frankly, it's horrendously expensive, then we might miss a meta shift where making it to objectives becomes order intensive enough that the value of the 6-point Auxbot vastly increases.
Hrm. I can certainly see spending 1SWC to get ~25 army points, as I could then field a list like this: Invincible Army ────────────────────────────────────────────────── 10 DĀOYĪNG Lieutenant L2 Hacker (Hacking Device) Boarding Shotgun / Breaker Pistol, Knife. (0.5 | 29) TAI SHENG Mk12, Chain-colt, Stun Grenades / Heavy Pistol, Knife. (0 | 45) ZÚYŎNG (Fireteam: Duo, Tactical Awareness) HMG / 2 Breaker Pistols, Knife. (1.5 | 38) ZÚYŎNG (Fireteam: Haris, Tactical Awareness) Combi Rifle + 1 TinBot B (Deflector L2) / 2 Breaker Pistols, Knife. (0.5 | 34) HǍIDÀO Hacker (Killer Hacking Device) Boarding Shotgun / Breaker Pistol, Knife. (0 | 26) SHÀNG JÍ Heavy Rocket Launcher, Light Shotgun / Pistol, Shock CCW. (2 | 39) HǍIDÀO Engineer Combi Rifle, D-Charges / Breaker Pistol, Knife. (0 | 28) ZHĒNCHÁ (Forward Observer) Submachine Gun, D.E.P., Antipersonnel Mines / Pistol, Knife. (0 | 34) ZHĒNCHÁ (Forward Observer) Submachine Gun, D.E.P., Antipersonnel Mines / Pistol, Knife. (0 | 34) WÈIBĪNG Yaókòng Combi Rifle, Sniffer / Electric Pulse. (0 | 16) 4.5 SWC | 323 Points Open in Infinity Army
