Tamrielo

Members
  • Content count

    1,845
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Time Online

    930d 5h 7m 9s

Community Reputation

2585 Excellent

About Tamrielo

  • Rank
    Information Broker

ITS

  • ITS PIN G8344

Recent Profile Visitors

1,875 profile views
  1. Re: Grenzers vs Wildcats: Wildcats have a point spread of 17-25, for a full link that's 85-125 points. Grenzers have a point spread of 23-32, for a full link that's 115-160 points. The lowest-possible-end link cost for a Grenzer team is 30 points more than Wildcats, which is a whole extra unit, and not a simple cheerleader or warband, either. Wildcats then have slightly better loadouts, whereas Grenzers have MSV1 instead of Multiterrain. If you're playing on boards that use the full complement of terrain rules, Multiterrain on your 4-2 MI is very, very good. MSV1 is not to be sneezed at, certainly, but are you really getting 6 points of extra value out of every single model in that link? 30 points overall? Is having MSV1 on a handful of link filler guys really worth more than a BSG Spektr? The FO/Sensor Grenzer is pretty good, but you're probably not going to spend 27 points per filler guy; the Riot Grrl comparison is apt because when you start talking about mid-20s point units, you're now talking about HI links in the current meta. Wu Ming, arguably the best HI link in the game right now, start at 25 points for their 'filler' guys. In Infinity, I would much rather have an ARM 0 W 2 unit than an ARM 3 W 1 unit. Hell, I'd rather have an ARM 0 W 2 unit than an ARM 5 W 1 unit. Ask any Tohaa or ALEPH player, that extra bit of raw survivability makes a huge difference in the kinds of choices you can make and risks you can take. It literally means you can walk out into most single AROs without worrying about losing the unit, which is a huge tactical boon. Anyway, part of why I mentioned the "shadowrunner" style of links for Tunguska is because both the Securitate's special 'thing' (mobile Repeater) and the Grenzer would be really great in a versatile link with each other. I don't necessarily want or need more than one of either, but I do think they'd make a good addition. Plus, it'd be unique while still staying in the existing constraints of the game and make Tunguska feel unique without having to flood a ton of new units in just to make the sectorial feel 'filled out'. It's seemed to be a direction they've been looking; trying to find interesting ways to make sectorials feel unique and cool without simply giving them more units and bloating Vanilla.
  2. I'm underwhelmed by Grenzers, even in a link. Most of the really good 1W linkable troops that aren't basic line infantry are in the 17-25 point range, and Grenzers start at the high end of that range. By the time I have a full team of Grenzers, versus comparable 1W links, I could afford a Spektr. I pretty much expect to see a revamped Securitate, though I think they would be fine with some minor tweaks. They'd be a very good Haris option. I'm secretly hoping to see a Tunguska rule like "Fireteam: Crew" wherein linkable troops in Tunguska may form a Core link but may not have more than one of any included unit. I think that would make for a thematic, shadowrunner style aesthetic for the sectorial. In general, though, I think we're going to see a LOT more Tunguskan units for a sectorial to make much sense.
  3. If you're going to take Bolts, take them with a plan to use their entire toolkit as best you can. Bring them with a Lt that is likely to die before they do (Squalo is a good example), use them to hold positions in midfield, and commit to that plan. Bolts are an extremely specialized use case that looks like a generic, overpriced unit. It is largely also that second thing, but in the right list with the right strategy and right tactic, they can be the right choice for the job. And, like anything, play what you like. If you really love how Bolts look or their fluff or just love having shotguns on your line infantry, you can make them work. If you're looking for a reason to justify their existence, you'll find a thousand arguments against ever including them. I don't use them; every time I've made a list with them I've retooled that list to do something I like more without them. I think Auxilia are better CQB troops point for point, even after all the nerfs, and I like them aesthetically and conceptually a lot more anyway. I have seen lists where I think Bolts are simply the right choice, and while I personally tend to make those same lists in a different faction and accomplish the same thing only (in my opinion) better, there's something to be said for letting Neoterra play in that particular sandbox.
  4. Don't apply your Avatar to their Marut. Apply it elsewhere, and tie up the Marut with cheaper units. There's almost certainly going to be smoke available to the Marut, and so you want to ensure your Avatar isn't in a position to be attacked by the Marut directly. In that straight fight, the Marut plus one support unit (coming in at less than the cost of your Avatar) outclasses you. You need to break the support network for the Marut first, and starve it of orders. Draw it out, ideally away from its support-- if you can get it to end its turn out of range of Myrmidons, you can capitalize on that and get into a firefight on your terms. Otherwise, you're going to wind up with a Marut covered by smoke taking ARO potshots at you. If ALEPH goes first, you want your Avatar as far away from the Marut as possible, forcing it to either do nothing or move out of position. If you can draw it out enough, send in a Daturazi or something, engage it in melee before it can flame you, and then do whatever you need to with the Avatar, particularly killing Myrmidons who can free up the Marut.
  5. Phlyk really hit the nail on the head. To add to it, I like how the Lt special rule, despite being consistently applied across all factions, behaves very differently depending on the faction. It creates a lot of strategic variance between factions and allows people to come up with ways to use their lieutenants in interesting, varied ways. I get a real sense of a solid, well-established command structure when I'm playing Yu Jing, and when I play PanO I get a sense of a more laissez-faire army with less ingrained hierarchy. Nomads give me a similar vibe, and ALEPH forces me to really consider my Lt choices for optimal deployment, simply because I need to be sure about where I'm spending my limited points. I especially like units that get Lt options or Chain of Command within a sectorial but not in Vanilla, because oftentimes those minor changes alter the entire way a sectorial can approach listbuilding. The Lt rule creates a really interesting dynamic and a surprisingly effective catch-up mechanism for a savvy player who's behind.
  6. Because minis games do not have large enough playerbases to develop a representative sample size. Even the biggest, most heavily attended tournaments are not large enough (by an order of magnitude or more) for that kind of statistical analysis to hold water, because the sample sizes simply aren't large enough compared to the possible permutations of the game. There are also myriad other factors that determine what the "top" players play, and in general "top players" win because they are top players, not because they're playing the "best options". This is true even in other competitive formats where the sample sizes ARE large enough to determine a suite of "best" options (see: League of Legends)-- the top players there often play "lower-tier" picks simply because it provides them an unpredictable edge or because they're uniquely comfortable with that pick. At any rate. The last time I played Tohaa was with a Kamael-heavy list. I can't provide a battle report (it was more than a year ago), but I can provide the list and the general strategy: Tohaa ────────────────────────────────────────────────── GROUP 110 KAMAEL (Forward Observer) Combi Rifle / Pistol, Knife. (0 | 13) KAMAEL Sniper Rifle / Pistol, Knife. (0.5 | 16) KAMAEL Sniper Rifle / Pistol, Knife. (0.5 | 16) KAMAEL (Forward Observer) Combi Rifle / Pistol, Knife. (0 | 13) KAMAEL Sniper Rifle / Pistol, Knife. (0.5 | 16) KAMAEL Sniper Rifle / Pistol, Knife. (0.5 | 16) KAMAEL (Forward Observer) Combi Rifle / Pistol, Knife. (0 | 13) KAMAEL Sniper Rifle / Pistol, Knife. (0.5 | 16) KAMAEL Sniper Rifle / Pistol, Knife. (0.5 | 16) CLIPSOS (Forward Observer) Combi Rifle, Antipersonnel Mines / Pistol, Knife. (0 | 25) GROUP 26 1 GAO-RAEL Sniper Rifle / Pistol, CCW. (1 | 31) GAO-RAEL Sniper Rifle / Pistol, CCW. (1 | 31) KAELTAR (Chain of Command) Light Shotgun, Flash Pulse + 2 SymbioMates / Pistol, Electric Pulse. (0.5 | 21) MAKAUL Heavy Flamethrower, Eclipse Grenades / Pistol, Viral CCW. (0 | 13) SAKIEL Lieutenant Viral Combi Rifle, Nimbus Plus Grenades / Pistol, Knife. (0 | 24) SAKIEL (Forward Observer) Combi Rifle, Nimbus Plus Grenades / Pistol, Knife. (0 | 19) 5.5 SWC | 299 Points Open in Infinity Army Simple goal: Make my opponent's own active turn miserable. Removing the swarm of linked snipers is a giant pain, and even removing one is just 16 points you took off me. In the meantime, I have a ludicrous number of AROs against you and most of them are dangerous, and even if you try to smoke me out I've got the pair of Gao-Rael as icing on the cake. The double-Sakiel+Makaul team runs interference and does some work if the Clipsos goes down, but with this much ranged firepower the Clipsos gets to chill out until it's perfectly safe to go, and has PLENTY of orders to get around. After running it, I swapped one of the Kamael sniper teams to group 2 and the double-Sakiel team to group 1, just for better order division. The list was gross. I lost about four sniper Kamaels on my opponent's first turn, and they lost a TAG and most of a linkteam. I had free run of the board to hit objectives on my turn, and relinked some sniper teams, and then my opponent had to do the whole song and dance again. It's not a list I'm likely to run again; it was described as "the least fun list I've ever played against". Lesson learned. Right now my Tohaa are hanging out with my Ariadna camospam list on the "mmmmmaybe let's not play these" shelf.
  7. It's a comparison between all three, as well as the Asura. MSV3 can be priced out straight from looking at the Charontid's selection of profiles. A comparison between the Hsien and the Aquila requires a lot of figuring out other skills (the toughest of which is Martial Arts L1), but lets you doublecheck. The Hexa is definitely a strange case to me, especially when compared to both other PanO TO Camo Infiltrators (Order Sergeant) and the Clipsos and Noctifer. There are other considerations like AVA. Bolts have competitors in their own faction but still provide unique tools, and in one notable case unlock a compelling playstyle that otherwise isn't available in-sectorial (Bolts + Squalo Lt). Chasseurs are excellent, but are limited AVA, making other (slightly less good, but slightly cheaper) camo infiltrators compelling choices in conjunction with them. Part of the identity of Ariadna is that it has a lot more camo infiltrators than other factions, and that's represented both in having more profiles (even if they aren't all perfectly optimized) and having excellently optimized profiles. Both things feed into that identity.
  8. @Section 9 has the right of it. Even if I had taken the time to put everything all at once into a spreadsheet (I haven't, it's mostly just stuff I've memorized), there are still enough uncertain stat calculations (like the cost of BS, and certain skills that are on every profile of a very small number of units) that I wouldn't want to spread it around as some kind of holy grail of findings because no matter how many times I add the "this is uncertain and speculative" disclaimer, it'll get skipped over. Everything I've figured out can be figured out with no more math than it takes to build a list and a bit of time with ARMY. I've spent enough time on there putting together enough lists for enough factions that I have a majority of unit profiles memorized, and can call to mind units that make for good comparisons. But I've also tried to reverse-engineer the formulas (not just the basic value calculations) and my big takeaway is that there are too many potential variables to get more than about a 15-20% confidence interval for any given derived formula. That's nowhere remotely close enough for me to say "hey, I think I've got something here". Here's the thing, though: some of those hard-to-derive formulae are for some pretty basic things, like stat values, which means that trying to make a particular claim about a unit's overall cost is very hard. I do think (and have mentioned before) that I think the Hexa is overcosted by 4-5 points, or should have Infiltration without any change in cost. I do also think the MSV3 was perfectly costed in N2 and ate enough nerfs in N3 that it's only marginally better than MSV2, not more than twice as valuable (it was more than twice as valuable in N2). The Chasseur is fine, the Bolts are costed appropriately but maybe don't have a particularly ideal combination of skills/equipment/profiles.
  9. Interestingly, there don't seem to be many/any of these. A lot of times they're reflected in the native stat boosts various factions get, or their availability of certain troops or types of equipment. When it isn't, it seems to sometimes appear on equipment itself, and put on either heavily optimized platforms (Interventor with HD+) or spread very widely (Doctor+). A note on formulae: There are certain cases in which flat, universally applicable cost estimations don't reflect the real costs of a unit; this is especially true when trying to calculate the cost of stat boosts. I suspect these are the formulae that CB doesn't want people reverse-engineering and spreading around, and deriving them takes a whole lot more than simple arithmetic (and is almost certainly going to be inaccurate anyway). I absolutely understand not wanting to have this sort of thing spread around because they're the kind of edge cases that are game-defining, where the design team basically has to draw a line in the sand and say "here is where we're starting from". They're honestly not worth even trying to derive accurately, because you can basically be assured you're going to get it wrong and draw misleading conclusions. There are a huge number of possible variables that would affect that and the sample size of units in Infinity isn't large enough to come close with any kind of acceptable confidence interval. It's like reading a well-written book series and then trying to guess at all of the things that inspired the author-- you might get some right, but you'll almost certainly get some wrong, and you'll never know which is which. On the topic of MSV3, I'm in the same boat as Toadchild, in that I bring an MSV3 because I want an Asura, not for any other reason. The Charontid is the prime example of a super amazing HI that also has an MSV3, but the Asura isn't too far behind. I agree that the Aquila feels less exciting just due to a lack of bells and whistles. I do feel like there are meaningful differences between the Aquila/Hsien and in a similar vein, the Swiss/Hac Tao. They weren't really there in N2 and in N3 I feel like they're much more compellingly different, even as nearly-identical units in different factions. Would love to see an Aquila in an ORC Haris in Neoterra, though! I find this fascinating and it confirms a sneaking suspicion I'd been having. I'd originally commented that I thought N3 had some "fudged" point values, because some units didn't *quite* add up from simple math. With enough similar "fudges", it hints at a formula for when things don't quite add up the way I expect, and as above, that's something that saves me a lot of time in not even bothering to try to derive; there's no way to get it right. Short version: sometimes the numbers don't add up exactly the way you think they might, don't worry about it, it's complicated. An HMG is an HMG is an HMG, though, except when it isn't
  10. So, I don't really know that performing some basic arithmetic can really be called a "closely-held secret", nor do I think performing some basic math is some kind of betrayal of CB. It's also a thing I've been doing for literally years at this point, and I've seen it materially improve the game. The Pheasant was a noticeable math error, that was corrected in HSN3. Most of the really big changes in N3 were recostings based on either previously-faulty math or simply rebalancing of points. What I like the most about Infinity is that unlike other games, the formulas that determine balance are generally clean, reasonable, transparent, and work under the hood. There isn't some formula I'm going to be able to suss out and start saying "welp, this unit is just flatly the best and the other units of this role are effectively worthless", causing the whole thing to collapse like a deck of cards. That's what's great about Infinity. I can speak to a variety of other, less-well-designed minis games where it's trivially easy to do even simpler math than I've done here and watch as any semblance of balance gets disproven in minutes. Infinity is much, much better than that. As a game designer, this kind of thing is my bread and butter. I encourage people to test my math when I design games, and catch me when I make mistakes. I also think it's worth calling out when this is done well, too. 100% this. Bolts are just about perfectly costed for what they provide. If you don't like the combination of things they provide, that's a different story, but mathematically they're quite reasonable. I actually think this is an important note in general-- just because a unit isn't well-loved doesn't mean it's mathematically broken in some way. It's kind of the beauty of Infinity, the math checks out so well under the hood in the vast majority of cases that you can talk about whether or not you value particular skills for your playstyle, not whether or not those skills are appropriately costed. As above, I think being able to look at cross-faction point comparisons and see that people across the board pay the same for pretty much everything helps eliminate the argument that "X faction pays too much for Y" or "X is expensive in Y faction"-- it's more a question of whether or not the combination of skills and equipment on a unit is valuable to you, less whether or not the skills and equipment are themselves priced appropriately, because EVERYONE pays the same for them. I agree that a large part of what makes factions unique is the combinations they get more frequently versus what they get less frequently or not at all. This is an interesting dynamic, and reflective of the setting as well. I also agree that it's hard to quantify a lot of the abilities in Infinity-- it's why I like mathing them out, to see what you are actually paying in raw points, and to see broad equivalencies in comparison with other things you could be taking. It makes it easier and more possible to evaluate opportunity costs and balance those against your preferred playstyle. As an example, I strongly value guaranteed placement over possible placement, so the uncertainty of rolling for AD removes the majority of its value for me. I feel confident in my choice to prefer Camo/Infiltration over AD because it means that the playstyle I prefer isn't costing me more than a playstyle I don't prefer but might mostly perform just as well. I also think Discover is almost always a bad choice of action to take. I cannot tell you a single game out of hundreds I've played where I would call something an "important discover roll", I never Discover in the Active Turn. MSV3 will literally never pay for itself for me. It's a big part of why I included the "your takeaways may differ" clause in my commentary, because they absolutely might. At least one person has looked at the T2 math and said "oh, huh, I actually think T2 is really reasonable based on this" and someone else has felt really vindicated by their love for Mech Deploy in ASA and their sense that Symbiont Armor is incredibly strong for what you pay. I think these are interesting takeaways, even if they differ from mine. I'm certainly likely to try an interesting ASA Mech Deploy list after this, which is going to involve me buying about $200 worth of minis, just because it exposed some interesting tidbits that I didn't know before.
  11. I like to play around with listbuilding in my free time, and frequently crunch numbers with other players. In addition to being able to reverse-engineer most of the costs of most stats/skills/equipment throughout Infinity, you find the occasional interesting tidbit. Figured I'd post some of the ones here. --T2 ammo costs the same as upgrading from Combi to MULTI (4 points, or weirdly in the case of the Cateran, 3|0.5). --Hacking Device Pluses cost the same as regular Hacking Devices, they're just restricted to certain units. This appears to be a gentle push to make certain units more obviously superhackers. --MSV3 costs 13 points. MSV2 costs 5. You are paying 8 points for automatic Discovers and to ignore Surprise. --Mechanized Deployment costs 3 points, Infiltration costs 5. --Martial Arts L1 is one of the most economical boosts you can give to basically any unit, but especially HI. --AD: Combat Jump costs roughly the same as Camouflage+Infiltration (about 7 points). --Marksmanship LX costs either zero or one point. --Camouflage+Infiltration cost less together than each would cost if purchased separately (admittedly, very difficult to math out just Camo, but it's 5ish points). --Shockingly few units math out incorrectly in terms of price, now. The Pheasant was the last really major one, and it's been brought in line. Whether things are always worth the price is debatable, but there aren't many blatant math errors, and most of those are actually in favor of the unit (making it cheaper than it would normally math out to be). --Symbiont Armor costs noticably less than 6 points (more like 3-4). Gaining 2W and becoming an HI costs roughly twice as much, at around 8-9 points. V:NWI appears to cost about 3. Attempting to pin down these numbers is madness. --Combi rifles are madness to try to pin down, but basically every single SWC weapon is priced the exact same relative to a combi, regardless of unit, faction, or anything else. Point costs are incredibly consistent between factions, even when you wouldn't expect them to be. Some of my thoughts/takeaways, yours may differ: AD is overpriced. MSV3 is insanely overpriced. Symbiont Armor is begging to get hit with "vulnerable to Shock" or suchlike, to end up in line with V:NWI. Cross-faction unit comparisons are a LOT more applicable than most realize, because point costs are so consistent. Even when a skill/weapon/equipment is rare in a faction, it's still priced consistently with everything else.
  12. Let's go nuts with this. BS13, SS2, Marks L2+, Neurocinetics, Ambush Camouflage, Forward Deployment L1. Irregular, 4-2 MOV. Costs ~35|1. Manages to be different from both Le Muet and (expected) Knauf, fills an interesting role in ISS without overlapping with existing snipers in sectorial. Blatantly obvious in ISS but still makes your opponent worry a bit, fits the new form of "tricky" that ISS does (shell games). Good enough to make lists, not so good as to make every list. Still leaves room for Knauf and Le Muet. The abilities tell an interesting story all by themselves, and one that makes sense for an Aristeia combatant. SWC is lower than expected to sweeten the pot, because otherwise she's a really expensive ARO piece. Here's what I actually think: BS12, V:Dogged, Biometric Visor, 360 Visor, Free Agent. Regular, 4-4 MOV. Costs ~25|1.5 Just interesting enough to see some table time occasionally but not really be a serious contender most of the time. Just barely not redundant with other snipers in ISS or elsewhere, but unique enough to be somewhat compelling. Kind of a pain to remove thanks to Dogged, but nothing earthshattering. Like a noticably less good Le Muet for 20 points less.
  13. 1.) It might be the highest chance in the game, but it's not a thing I will ever plan to do. Those odds simply aren't good enough, in my opinion, for anything short of a desperation strategy. If I'm resorting to a desperation strategy, then something has gone very wrong with my plan and any troop will do. Because of this, I don't really put a lot of stock in "Bolts are good at doing this thing that isn't a good idea" in much the same way I put zero stock in Marksmanship LX. 2.) I generally don't spearhead with linkteams, it's a good way to lose your link early. Pushing a link out without support from the rest of the army is a tactic I see opponents use a lot, and basically unless they're Tohaa (and have multiple backup links), it's a tactic that gets punished a lot. I sweep with Auxilia (they're amazing at this), clearing traps and flaming targets of opportunity, which generally also gets me an upfield specialist. My links are wave 2. Exception: highly survivable HI links, and even then I want to support them with forward troops. 3.) Honestly, I kind of feel like Bolts are bloated enough as-is. Adding more bloat just exacerbates the problem they already have. I'd rather just see a basic Bolt get an Eclipse launcher, rather than a weird Auxbot_2 addition, but if any of them got one, I do think it would be the Combi+Drop Bears profile. It's not so much tacking it onto that profile that's a problem so much that now that single profile becomes the go-to Bolt but it doesn't change the value of the Bolt link, which is clearly supposed to be a core link for Neoterra. 4.) Eh, I remember when "the reality was clear" that Plasma was never going to be seen outside of CA, Haris was never going to be seen outside of Haqq, Ariadna was never going to get "proper' HI, Corregidor couldn't have smoke access, Nomads weren't going to get strong HI, Hassassins weren't ever going to get visors, ALEPH couldn't be allowed to have Pitchers (then called Markers), Remotes couldn't ever be linkable troops... the list goes on and on. Trying to predict the future of the game by claiming solid, unchanging edicts isn't a good way to figure out what might or might not happen. 5.) I... guess? PanO has four units with MSV2 and one with MSV3 (which is minimally better than MSV2). Konstantinos, one Order Sergeant profile, the Black Friar, the Nisse, and the Aquila Guard. The only linkable one of these is Konstantinos, who has a combi rifle. I just don't see that there's anything scary about those profiles that isn't just as possible in factions with smoke access, and a +3 linking bonus or +1 Burst (or both) is much better mathematically than +1 native BS. ALEPH runs a much scarier MSV-heavy force than PanO can, and they have trivially easy smoke access. As for playing against a PanO list with smoke, I've done it. It wasn't that much different than playing against any other faction with smoke, but my experience isn't worth a whole lot because it's a small sample size of anecdotal evidence. I'm not going to make claims about what works and what doesn't gamewide with just a handful of anecdata.
  14. 65% chance to survive is not high enough for me to be risking a linkteam primary troop in the Active turn. Especially not in a faction that lets me use G:Sync bots to clear out mines at close to twice the speed and at absolutely zero risk to my order pool. If that Camo marker isn't a mine, well, now I've got an Intuitive Attack set up. Bolts don't get that chance. I don't think an Eclipse-equipped Auxbot Bolt really makes Bolts more attractive, it just takes the profile that was already the best use-case for a Bolt and gives it even more reason to be the one Bolt you take. If you're looking at Bolts holistically, rather than making a single profile attractive, any changes really need to provide value to a Bolt link. Also, whatever, flooding the board with smoke from a link at a PH of "I basically don't fail"? It's not like every single other faction in the game can't do that, and several of them can do it with Eclipse Smoke. I absolutely don't buy the argument that PanO couldn't get Eclipse Smoke on troops other than the Guarda. I even think the argument for "no regular Smoke" is pretty thin.
  15. Points reduction to match Wildcats would be a good start-- the cheapest Bolt is 2 points more than the cheapest Wildcat, and Wildcats have more universally useful special skills as well as a Deployable Repeater on its 17 point BSG profile. Some more optimized profiles would help a lot as well, especially if there's no points break and every Bolt is made slightly less optimal via Bioimmunity and Vet L1. A BSG+Drop Bears Bolt would be a very nice add, coming in at 20-22 points (depending on how much they pay for E/M grenades), having a Heavy Rocket Launcher option (cheaper and mostly better than a Missile Launcher), and a couple more hacking options. A Haris profile would get Bolts to see a lot more play, I think the Combi+Drop Bears profile is the perfect choice for this, but a Specialist Bolt in some form would be equally good. Mixed links with ORCs would have a very Yu Jing or Hassassin Bahram sort of feel but would still be interesting, I think they'd avoid the problem Muyibs have of basically being the required unit inclusion in virtually every list. Eclipse Smoke would instantly make them interesting and highly functional, and I don't think they'd alter the play of Neoterra or the balance of PanO that much in that position. They're still slow, but you'd be getting a good return on them. The biggest problem I (still) have with Bolts is that they look awesome but are functionally only slightly better Fusiliers, coming in at twice the price. The only way they're making up for that is if you use them as an aggressive close-range unit, which isn't always easy given their slow speed and lack of any mitigating skills-- Wildcats are both a more notable upgrade from Alguaciles than Bolts are from Fusiliers and have Multiterrain and V:Courage, which come up a lot more often than Bioimmunity/Vet L!. I definitely don't think that the repeated nerfs to Auxilia have left Neoterra in as varied a space as they once were. I don't really think any PanO sectorials have a super broad array of available playstyles compared to many other sectorials, but Neoterra is no better or worse off than ASA, and probably only slightly better off than MO.