Teslarod

Analysis - 10 Order list vs classic format

133 posts in this topic

Thought I'd share my thoughts on 10 Order lists after the buff for Limited Insertion style list in ITS9.

Classic format leaves you with flexibility to do everything as normal, while 10 Order format allows you to take multiple expensive pieces and competes with quality against quantity. 

 

Pros of a 10 Order list:

- Immune against getting 2 Orders stripped by Command Token.

- Excellent quality troops to spend Orders on.

- Devastating potential for a turn 1 Alpha Strike.

- Above average value from Links/Command Tokens/Coordinated Orders.

 

Cons of a 10 Order list:

- Button pushing is taxing on your Order pool

- Cheap disposable troops like Warbands and throwaway ARO can't be utilized as usual

- Non elite AD and Hidden Deployment are only of limited use as you can't really allow yourself to lose the Order.

- Nothing is really expendable, Netrods/Imetrons turn into a risky option instead of an asset.

- Orders are at a Premium, reviving troops with Doctor/Engineer is hard to justify. You're down a troop already and have to use your main ressource pool.

 

First off the limitations straight up outweigh the benefits and require severe adjustments in listbuilding to be beneficial.

1) Your biggest advantage is going first, so you have to build a list that excels at this. You will pick Turn Order over deployment under almost all circumstances.

2) You're going to get a serious problem when going 2nd, unless you manage to bring very capable and durable ARO. Linked HI ML/HRL and/or TO Snipers/MLs comes to mind, A TAG in cover with TO backup might also throw a solid spanner in the works of your opponent's plans.

3) You need reliable troops, even asymetric trades aren't really in your favour.

4) Execution needs to be near perfect, smaller lists allow significantly fewer mistakes.

 

Overall I love the Option, but it's pretty hard to build a list that works with it. The best candidates seem to be HI Links for ARO and durability as well as something hard outside the link to bring it home. MO>JSA>ISS are my top 3 contenders for this kind of list.

The vast majority of 10 Order list I've seen get a serious problem when going 2nd against a similar or very aggressive list. Same as in Limited Insertion when the game was often decided in turn one.

 

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Teslarod said:

First off the limitations straight up outweigh the benefits and require severe adjustments in listbuilding to be beneficial.

Once again, Tesla, I think the problem is your meta.  10 order lists I expect will be even more popular now that they are immune to Order loss, and that so many new revised missions no longer need many (or any) WIP objectives.

logo_701.png ALEPH
──────────────────────────────────────────────────

orden_regular.png10  
logo_5.pngMARUT Lieutenant (Strategos L3) MULTI HMG, Heavy Flamethrower, Nanopulser / AP CCW. (3 | 120)
 sep.giflogo_5.pngKARKATA Flash Pulse / Knife. (0 | 0)
logo_11.pngZAYIN Rebot HMG / Electric Pulse. (1 | 26)
logo_11.pngZAYIN Rebot HMG / Electric Pulse. (1 | 26)
logo_8.pngMYRMIDON Chain Rifle, Nanopulser, Smoke Grenades / Pistol, AP CCW. (0 | 16)
logo_8.pngMYRMIDON Chain Rifle, Nanopulser, Smoke Grenades / Pistol, AP CCW. (0 | 16)
logo_20.pngTHORAKITES Paramedic (Medikit, 360º Visor) Submachine gun, Chain Rifle / Pistol, Knife. (0 | 14)
logo_20.pngTHORAKITES (Forward Observer, 360º Visor) Submachine gun, Chain Rifle / Pistol, Knife. (0 | 13)
logo_17.pngPROXY Mk.1 Hacker (Hacking Device) Combi Rifle, Nanopulser / Pistol, Knife. (0.5 | 14)
logo_18.pngPROXY Mk.2 Hacker (Assault Hacking Device) Boarding Shotgun, Nanopulser / Pistol, Knife. (0.5 | 21)
logo_36.pngDACTYL Engineer Combi Rifle, Adhesive-Launcher, D-Charges / 2 Breaker Pistols, Knife. (0 | 23)
logo_14.pngYUDBOT Electric Pulse. (0 | 3)
logo_16.pngPROBOT (Minesweeper, Repeater) Electric Pulse. (0 | 8)

6 SWC | 300 Points

Open in Infinity Army

A list like that was already competitive and frightening.  It could fight first or second just fine.  And now that DataTracker and -2 Order Immunity exists, it's way more competitive than it already was.

5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dasaan said:

Once again, Tesla, I think the problem is your meta.  10 order lists I expect will be even more popular now that they are immune to Order loss, and that so many new revised missions no longer need many (or any) WIP objectives.

Oh they're far better than in ITS8 that's for sure. But they aren't universally good and not all Factions/Sectorials can pull them off. Vanilla YJ as well as all Ariadna, Haqq and Nomad Sectorials don't gain enough to warrant forfeiting a 2nd group.

It's just that most factions can buy a second group with 3-5 Orders for 20-30 points, want to run AD, Netrods, expendable ARO, loads of Warbands or don't have a proper top tier choice who truly benefits from pumping 10 Orders into them.

Aelph, Tohaa, Steel Phalanx, CA, Vanilla PanO and NCA can pull off 10 Order lists just fine. 10 Order fueled HI Links are simply next to unstoppable in Active turn and bring the staying power to be able to go 2nd as well. Simply more versatile and dangerous than most TAGs imho. All eggs in one Basket strats like an Avatar or Cutter List work fairly well most of the time, but they tend to get screwed by a single die ever so often and you won't have anything remotely close to as strong to fuel with your remaining Orders in those cases.

Tohaa and Aleph can basically fit an "expendable 2nd group" in 1 Combat group by using Posthumans/Devabots or Symbioarmour/Mates.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

QK can pull off devastating 10 order lists, and so can Bakunin. Riot Grrl link with duo SWAST is mean. Some factions do benefit greatly from the 10 order single pool, others really have to work to make it work, and some simply dont have that combat advantage inherent in their faction. Hassassins will never do well in LI type lists simply because their primary tactic is asymmetric trading.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For Nomads I dont think they have many strengths playing at 10 models, but I think they get good strengths going against 10 model lists as alot of their tricks work better against elite troops.

Warbands- will likely be way weaker, normally I play 14 models, with 3 being morlocks in a 2nd group. Going to 10 orders means less access to smoke, and a shift from morlocks to jaguars to keep regular orders, and LIkely a max of 2 of them. This limit of smoke also has a knock on effect of a minor nerf to intruders due to less readily available smoke.

Rems- with reliable fixing with a clockmaker combat remotes become quite valuable, ZOE and Pi well usage will likely go up  (as well as mass zond bots everywhere as you can afford them)

hacking game- due to lack of taking cheap repeaters the net wont be as strong or wide as you can have it in 2 groups, and the 2 interventors needed to be fully secure from KHD I can see hacking being a little trickier. Though with a meta going to 10 orders the amount of HI around and the lack of cheap hackers for fairy dust mean what hacking you can get done will likely get a return for the interventor costs. Also access to white noise will become more useful with factions bringing more expensive troops who likely have MSV.

skirmishers- I can see the usual 2 zeros 2 morans being very hard to justify in some ways, but them being midfield already will free up orders that would be used getting specialists upfield can now be moved to the very expensive troops.

Bakunin I think gets the biggest advantage on 10 order lists for nomads, by maxing link team usage to be very efficient. 1 moderator core 1 kusinagi haris 1 taskmaster duo fits in perfectly

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PanO is a natural candidate for this format.  In Vanilla, our cheap troops are pretty much nonexistent.  We're either relying on 8 point REMS or 10 point unlinked Fusiliers, both of which are units that players are happy to drop.  So as a result, you can take some very powerful units, especially if you're already planning to bring Joan that good Order efficiency and the very cheap Orders she brings.  Kind of an interesting choice.

I think things get far more interesting for the Sectorials.  MO can run their link of choice very comfortably, padding out with solo knight or (more likely) some great Order Sergeant support.  NCA and Acon get really interesting, because you can link your Fusiliers/Regulars for a good cheap firebase and then choose from some great TAG/HI combat options.  

As far as deliberately running these lists outside of a Limited Insertion event... No, I don't think I would.  Any serious button pushing mission becomes a massive liability.  Failed button pushing is nasty Order drain, over which you have no control other than throwing 1 dice and hoping it lands how you want it.  No matter how high the quality of your gunfighters, button pushing tends to be the great equalizer, and I'm wary of having success dictated by my ability to make a WIP13 roll quickly.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a few variables that impact this - missions, terrain, things like that. Terrain is probably the biggest factor here - in open tables like the type you tend to see in tournaments, a small order pool list isn't at nearly the same disadvantage since it won't be missing those Warbands that people tend to take in high MC lists. 

For tournaments, I'm trying out vanilla Haqqislam with one list of each type -

One high MC list with 4x Ghazis, a bunch of Daylami, and other units to get the model count up to around 20. Lots of different specialists. 

One low MC list with Tarik, Maggy, an Al Fasid for the smoke...this would be useful for missions where button pushing isn't a big deal, and you're more focused on killing enemy models or standing in boxes. I'd also be tempted to take this one for missions that strongly benefit going 2nd, so if my opponent chooses Initiative and take T2, I can push 11 orders down his throat. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@theGricks I actually took a look at Bakunin and the Grrrl link before making the last post. Don't think it's worth to forfeit the Morlocks/Group 2.

The reason for that is not so obvious - as it doesn't actually come up every game.

As far as I remember in most games when I went first with a Magister Link half the list didn't really matter. 8 Orders on them was more than enough to win the game on the back of round 1 without much support. No matter if I had a Black Friar, MSR TO OS or whatever in Direct Action games they did 90% of the work on their own. However that changes when I end up going 2nd or have to play a button Mission - Does their AD make it into my lines unscathed or was something in TO lying in wait for him? Who activates the relay when the Doc goes down? Can't remember how many times I won a game because of a measly Warcor or Techbee's humble Irregular Orders or simply because they're the ones holding a zone or an objective on their own.

What matters a lot is to consider is how the rest of your list performs against a similar list like yours. Would you be able to defend turn 1 against the exact same list? If turn 1 in a Direct Action mission is decided by who gets 1st turn, your list has a problem. A Grrrl list with turn 1 will very likely work great with 10 Orders. They're not even much different than the Sectorials I rate 1-3 tbh.

Really, it's just a bunch of small details that made the difference for me. For starters Grrrls are so damn inexpensive, you almost force yourself to cram more than half of your list into 6 more models. So you'll be forfeiting a lot of Nomad's strengths. A Bakunin Group 2 provides so much more utility than a Military Orders Group 2. Some more ARO, some Hacking, Überfallkommando, Morlocks, Warcor and an Engineer/Doc for group 2. Bakunin doesn't seem bad with 10, for them it's more of a "even better than that" situation with a 2nd group. They're lacking something like a Shinobu, Joan or a Su Jian to gain something on top of "10 Orders for the Grrrls when going first" out of the limitation. Lizard and Taskmaster seem kinda meh compared to picking up several of Nomad's best choices in the medium point bracket.

The hard counter to small lists remains to throw small threats at them until they run out of Orders or are unable to accomplish the mission. After almost every game you'd make a slight tweak to the list you ran... think I've only played one game that ended in a perfect victory

Spoiler

Annihilation at 150 with 2 Baggage bots and a Squalo - ended up with 10-0, 190 points surviving and 150 killed. A perfect result although the dice weren't.

Please igonre the humblebrag for the example's sake. :_aww__rvmp_by_bad_blood:

With only a Spitfire, Grrrls have a initial problem to get across the board into 24" range. They're more likely to get locked down by a strong long range ARO of some sorts than a HMG HI Link (Sin Eater, Swiss ML, Noctifier ML, Linked Sniper/ML etc). Smoke, AD or a Assisted Fire TR Bot solve those problems nicely but are usually "404-trooper not found" with a 10 trooper limit in Bakunin. 

I could go on about minor stuff like this, but lets leave it there. Grrrls are great, but Bakunin in particular has loads of great stuff.

@Dasaan I think that Aleph list caneven do better tbh, really glad Limited Insertion is basically dead now.

Spoiler

logo_701.png ALEPH
──────────────────────────────────────────────────

orden_regular.png10  
logo_5.pngMARUT Lieutenant (Strategos L3) MULTI HMG, Heavy Flamethrower, Nanopulser / AP CCW. (3 | 120)
 sep.giflogo_5.pngKARKATA Flash Pulse / Knife. (0 | 0)
logo_11.pngZAYIN Rebot HMG / Electric Pulse. (1 | 26)
logo_11.pngZAYIN Rebot HMG / Electric Pulse. (1 | 26)
logo_8.pngMYRMIDON Chain Rifle, Nanopulser, Smoke Grenades / Pistol, AP CCW. (0 | 16)
logo_8.pngMYRMIDON Chain Rifle, Nanopulser, Smoke Grenades / Pistol, AP CCW. (0 | 16)
logo_20.pngTHORAKITES (Forward Observer, 360º Visor) Submachine gun, Chain Rifle / Pistol, Knife. (0 | 13)
logo_20.pngTHORAKITES (Forward Observer, 360º Visor) Submachine gun, Chain Rifle / Pistol, Knife. (0 | 13)
logo_18.pngPROXY Mk.2 Hacker (Assault Hacking Device) Boarding Shotgun, Nanopulser / Pistol, Knife. (0.5 | 21)
logo_14.pngYUDBOT Electric Pulse. (0 | 3)
logo_14.pngYUDBOT Electric Pulse. (0 | 3)
logo_16.pngPROBOT (Minesweeper, Repeater) Electric Pulse. (0 | 8)
logo_17.pngPROXY Mk.1 Engineer Combi Rifle, Nanopulser, D-Charges / Pistol, Knife. (0 | 10)
logo_57.pngDANAVAS Hacker (Hacking Device Plus. UPGRADE: Maestro) Combi Rifle + Pitcher / Breaker Pistol, Knife. (0.5 | 25)

6 SWC | 300 Points

Open in Infinity Army

.... seriously friggin Aleph, hope that Marut dies to a Mono crit.

 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just generally disagree with most of @Teslarod's blanket assertions. 

I run a mix of low order count lists, and mid order counts lists and generally do quite well.

I agree that vanilla nomads gives up a lot in not taking morlocks, but we now have a great selection of point defense units other than warbands. (Looks at Swast.) I think Bakunin especially gains a lot going 10 orders due to their excellent link options.

Many scenarios can be won with few orders spent pushing buttons. I got ramboed two nights ago by a krakrot who didn't feel like failing armor saves. I started turn 1 with 5 regular orders, and played turn 2 with 6, and turn 3, with 3, and i won 5-3 in acquisition because my task master data tracker managed to walk up the board to the center consol. I agree mistakes were made by my opponent, but i made mistakes as well, perfect play is an ideal, not a reality.

Playing small order lists require you to really focus on the mission, because you dont have orders to waste, but i don't feel its a disadvantage. 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, IJW Wartrader said:

Alternatively, his lists built around Sun Tze and two Yan Huo are horrifying to face whether going first or second.

Oh man I want to have this person's baby

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@IJW Wartrader well everything is somewhat expendable. What I meant is that you can't really feed 5 bodies to an Avatar to slow it down and still retain 10 Orders to kill that Avatar/win the Mission the next turn. While a Swiss ML is totally worth bringing in a 10 Order List a Bandit KHD might not make it.

I always expect caualities, and expect to replace them to keep an intact group 1 as long as possible. More often than not I can make a rough guess what is going to happen in my opponent's next turn, most of what I want to do is already in my head by the time my next turn starts. Mostly as a result of playing the whole game with as many Orders as possible for the most capable/important pieces available. What exactly you actually end up losing often doesn't matter as much as how well you can perform with what is left.

If you're going 2nd in Quadrant Control it doesn't matter if the other guy has more points in Total holding Zones as long as you can manage to score more Zones... etc.

10 Orders is limiting, troops are less likely to already be in position to do X, you need a Specialist at Y and Z but A is too far away and B can score only one. There are parts of the game where quality is straight up inferior to quantity (Highly Classified comes to mind).

Managed to pull a game back to a tie from a likely 9-0 because an Avatar can only score one Zone and Ikadrons can't do much more than pray against an Auxilia with his little buddy. My Swiss AHD failed to Oblivion in 6 Orders and got Sepsitored on the 2nd try despite PH14 and BTS6. Nothing worked, but I still almost won just by spreading out, outmanoeuvering the 10 Order CA list, playing the positioning game and fighting on the other half of the table where I could get favourable odds, or simply by walking a Hexa in TO through 5 AROs with a MOV-MOV. A 100% safe Move for me scoring a 2:1 in the second round despite being half my army down vs a almost intact CA force.

Seriously screwed up that game, should and would have lost if his Imetron didn't scatter off the table in turn 1. a lot of the CA forces didn't end up mattering at all, E-Drone, Q-Drone, did nothing at all, would have been a lot better for him if he had another Imetron and 2 additional Orders instead of the E-Drone. 

10 Orders are completely capable to win a game just fine, but so can almost any other list. On the other hand when shit goes South with 10 Orders, it goes South fastit goes South fast. With 14 Orders you get a couple layers of 5 point Smoke chugger/Jammer/Chainrifle/CC or just a Linetrooper with the devil's luck to hopefully prevent disaster.

The clumsy overall comparison would be: is maybe having 2 extra Orders on turn worth more than redistributing 5%+ of your list points to a second group for damage control and opportunistic use.

Every Faction has that option. SP have access to Warcors and Flashpulse Bots as simple stop gaps or backup Orders. I can see why SP would pick a Myrmidion Chainrifle+X over a Hacker and goes for the 10 Orders there. Additionally SP massively benefits from getting your Links to 3/4 Members and beef them up as much as possible - retaining a single Combat Group sometimes has multiple benefits like that, mostly in Sectorials.

The problem with understanding the problem is that it might not even be obvious at all when you're playing as successful as for example Phylk does. One minor thing on top is that it does cost a Command Token to strip Orders to begin with. I usually run out and could use more, that one Command Token is not guaranteed to be a good trade for those 2 Orders to begin with.

Cheap garbage in Group 2 however has proven time and time again to be crucial and immensely valueable. Bringing a Warcor and a Techbee for 8 just for their Flash Pulses has benefited me a lot more than 2 Orders vs 1 Command Token in turn 1. That's before they even spend their Orders, moved, scored zones or functioned asr Specialists. I'm sure Monks, Morlocks and Mutts ran by good players trade on average above 1:1 on top of their Order efficiency and support capabilities in my experience.

I'm saying 2 free Orders for a Hsien are great, but so is free Smoke for several turns. It is possible to win a game with those extra Orders, but you're not automatically gaining more than you lose and also suffer an unneccessaty handycap when going 2nd. Setting up with 10 Orders is a limit that has not a single benefit beside the chance to retain 10 Orders in turn 1, the only way to onyl benefit and not lose out at all iks when you naturally arrive at exactly 10 Orders anyway.

Imho if you're not playing for a clean sweep in turn 1, might as well take that Warcor 99% of the time.

It's a curve with 2 extremes:

One side has all quality no quantity.

The other all quantity no quality.

Since we should be all aware you can overdo it with quality (only run 3 TAGs) and you can overdo it with quantity (run only the cheapest Linetroops without Specialists and SWC weapons). We can all agree that the extremes are both bad. As a rule of thumb quality focused lists should aim for at least 10 Orders at 300 points. But that is not guaranteed tp ne the optimum for a given list or even most lists. Especially if you're not leveraging the one advantage you get from it. Adding an 11th Order and extra body for as little as a meager 1% of your points is pretty much always a theroretically good investment when you're sitting at he quality extreme.

Because of how spending Orders work there is a massive breaking point in value at exactly those 10 Orders. Going below reduces your Order Pool by 10% which could be fixed by spending about 1-4% in most Factions. The 11th Trooper and his Order lack the inital advantage that they're a increase from 90->100% for less than 10% investment. His Order can only be used by himslef for now, alternative ways to generate value with the 11th Trooper are to replace a casuality in the main pool or waste the opponent's Orders. However as the game goes on the main pool dwindles down to 50%, moving the 11th Trooper to the main pool is now worth a lot more, even though he contributes it for less turns.

That is way too unspecific and lacks millions of variables, but the core remains, cheap Orders directly above 10, no matter if they're Regular or Irregular (thanks to Command Tokens) have a lot of inherit value. At some point in between 10 and 20 there is a drop off where quality and quantity hit equilibrium, where exactly is impossible to know in a strategy game with dice. All you can ever go for is an educated guess. Mine is that quality/quantity for PanO peaks differently depending on the core elements of a given list and the related Faction/Sectorial.

I am certain 10 is not a natural peak but can be one for a very specific list playing around the sole benefit gained from that limit.

However it is detrimental to assume there is anything to be gained from sitting at exactly 10 without the intent to utilise the benefit in the majority of games. There are list compositions that initially benefit from including so many quality troops they naturally arrive at 10. These compositions are few in between and double dip from internal synergy and basically a freebie bonus in ITS9, because the freebie bonus exists, the amount of those compositions has been somewhat increased. What before was good has become better now - compositions that used to be bad with 10 Orders are now only less bad, but still far from good.

 

Oh boy... that escalated a bit. :unsure:Not gonna blame anyone for not reading the whole wall of text:

Tl:DR some theroetic mumbo jumbo - there are 2 main reasons to aim for a single Combat Group. 1.) Running a list that was good at it to begin with and  2.) Free bonus for such a list when going first, which should be considered when running the list more often than not.

@NateTehAggresar Doing well is not the same as no room for improvement. It's a gradual thing. I win way, way, waaay more than ties and losses combined (8:2:1 ratio or so?) but always see room for impovement even in a 8-2, 7-0 or whatever. The difference in between a 10 Order list and the same thing with a few points carved out somewhere to make that 12 is marginal at best. My blanket statements try to address things down to that margin - both ways work, no doubts there, but one has the slight edge and I prefer to think it's the one working without an additional restricton in mind, which seems only natural.

I don't intend to completely devalue the new option and think it is useful, simply quite a bit less amazing than it appears to be.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, my experiences and the experiences of multiple other players directly contradict yours. I'm not sure you even read all of my post. :( 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I like to run two groups and I like those two groups to generally get up to 13-14 orders. The game isn't just about the first turn, so the loss of those two orders isn't too bad (especially as your opponent is then down a command token) and you're still running more orders across the groups than a ten order single group list. I like that running single groups is now more viable and consider that a good thing as I doubt I'd really have ever done it much before, but I still personally prefer to run low teens because I like the order advantage. That said, limited insertion is a format I like a lot and playing equal order lists can actually be very fun. So yeah, cool either way for me.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The change to LI lists has definitely levelled the playing field. Lists that almost had to run ten orders got a buff and those on the borderline now open up an extra layer of decision making whilst list building, which I think is great. 

Am I going to drop my 15 order lists down to 10? Probably not because that's a very different list, but 12 order lists with perhaps just an aro piece might now be better getting condensed into one group. 

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, IJW Wartrader said:

Again, my experiences and the experiences of multiple other players directly contradict yours. I'm not sure you even read all of my post. :( 

You misenterpreted... a lot. You're also wrong in at least one instance - the Limited Insertion one. Turn one is a massive advantage if you knew what you're doing for painfully obvious reasons. We predicted 8/10 wins between similarily skilled Players using only who went first in a LI tournament. Of the remaining ones, one was a tie where the game ended prematurely due to Retreat (went as predicted - one sided stomp - aside from that) and the last one we got wrong (2-4?). That is a very small sample size, with expectation matching ovservation so probably a bit biased.... however not 8/10 biased. I don't expect a 8:1:1 (win:tie:loss) ratio for first turn overall, but wouldn't be surprised to see a 2:1:1 for LI.

If you want to start a poll on if LI is a pretty unbalanced way to play the game or not feel free to do so, if you actually played in one (preferably a Direct Action) it's very easy to draw that conclusion.

Also this:

36 minutes ago, Teslarod said:

The difference in between a 10 Order list and the same thing with a few points carved out somewhere to make that 12 is marginal at best.

Not sure how a rather small difference that is innately hard to spot or prove could possibly be directly contradicted.

If we don't have enough common ground to agree a 3 TAG list with nothing else and a 30 Alguacil Combi list are both bad and there is more optimal middle ground in between I don't know why you even bothered to respond tbh. That's a very fundamental and easy concept.

The same goes for when you're not going first or plan to there is no need at all to actively limit yourself to a single Combat group - you gain nothing, unless arriving at exactly 10 Orders was a happy accident and you didn't have to get out of your way for it.

And then there is this:

3 hours ago, IJW Wartrader said:

Bakunin, for example, can take a Core of Moderators with Snipers + a Haris of Custodier/Healer/Kusanagi + a Duo of Taskmasters and get incredible Order efficiency.

I don't even know where to begin why this is bad and how badly you're screwing yourself by running that in a competetive game.... and in case that's a just for fun list, what is it doing here in this discussion? Seriously that list is a wide open vault trying to protect it's contents with a "please do not steal" sign. What's the point of splintering everything into equal mediocrity instead of straight up going for a Moira/Grrrl Core with proper backup?

This honestly isn't meant to be rude, but I have a hard time believing you're aware what you're arguing for.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't liked Alguacillies for Corregidor LI lists, prefering Wildcats. Without the CG slots to pepper Jaguars around having the DTW and ability to take a Lt. are so valuable. But so far I've been really liking 10 order lists this season, I've played 4 matches with them so far.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, IJW Wartrader said:

Please explain where. All I've got to go on is what you post.

4 hours ago, IJW Wartrader said:
Quote

- Non elite AD and Hidden Deployment are only of limited use as you can't really allow yourself to lose the Order.

- Nothing is really expendable, Netrods/Imetrons turn into a risky option instead of an asset.

- Orders are at a Premium, reviving troops with Doctor/Engineer is hard to justify. You're down a troop already and have to use your main ressource pool.

I can't agree with these three.

- AD and HD can form a solid part of a single Combat Group list, if just by making your opponent wonder what's going to be turning up. Plus HD only loses you Orders if you leave the trooper hidden until later turns.

- Fundamental difference of opinion - everything in my lists is expendable, up to and including TAGs.

- Again, fundamentally different approaches to the game. In a single Combat Group list every trooper that goes down hurts and each trooper tends to be more elite, making it that more important to get them back in the game. This is especially the case in Sectorials where you're usually leveraging Fireteam bonuses as much as possible - you're not just getting a trooper back up you're also giving four other troopers +3 BS etc.

Limited use as in additional restrictions, neither TO nor AD can simply wait till turn 2 and expect to find a full Combat group waiting for them. Something like a TO Specialist hiding till turn 3 near an objective hurts Order economy a lot.

The difference is that a Netrod/Immetron makes it easy to get rid off and if it happesn to scatter off the table that is that. With 10 Orders you should really invest 4 more points to get a Flashpulse/Baggage bot instead, which can be easily hidden, is an asset and provides i.e. like Repeater coverage. Everything is expendable, but I prefer making the other guy work for it, always wondering if something drops out of TO to back up whatever he is trying to shoot.

Hard to justify, not impossible to do. If you're loosing 2 troops in turn 1, and your Doc/Servant takes 1 Order to get there and one to put him back up you're already down to 6 Orders that turn. If that's your turn 1... well. Could have just taken a 6th guy and/or have the Doc in group 2, that means you only have one Taskmaster instead of 2, but you're still at 8 Orders to spend in the main group, and you can reform the Moderator Link with the 6th dude even if the guy who dropped took 2W/was taken out by Shock. The 10 Order list would be able to bring the Taskmaster back sacrifices 25% of it's turn to do so. Imho you can be extremely happy if a Moderator and a Taskmaster is all I drop from you in turn 1, I'd consider below 6 casualities a massive failure on my part. Be that a TAG, HI Link or AD troop. 8 Orders with Group1 and 4-6 with a group 2 will easily do that much damage to you. Heck something as simple as deploying a Squalo as Reserve Piece and then proceed to drop 8 Grenades on the Haris will probably kill Kusanagi and the Healer. Depending on the Taskmaster/Moderator loadout Kusanagi Lt will be pretty obvious. If you seem to be at 6 or below or if they're <5" apart the Grenades might just be used to kill 3-4 Moderators and then bring in the AD to take care of the rest.

26 minutes ago, IJW Wartrader said:

I didn't say anything about Limited Insertion events. You claimed that '1) Your biggest advantage is going first, so you have to build a list that excels at this. You will pick Turn Order over deployment under almost all circumstances.'. If you meant that strictly in relation to LI events then you should say so.

Nah in general, you'll go first more often than not. If you're running linked Phoenix and are up against something that can't deal with it and prefers to go 2nd you might be able to do more harm to them by taking their advantage form them than when using yours. LI is horribly imbalanced for entire Factions - Ariadna and Haqq can't really take several of their most comfortable troops, simply because there aren't enough slots.

30 minutes ago, IJW Wartrader said:

Phlyk went second in 8-9 of his ten Interplanetary games and won almost all of his games. My win rate with the Bad Touch list (around 70%) doesn't noticeably change depending on whether I go first or second and I usually choose Deployment - and that's across roughly fifty games with the list or close variants.

70% is above average I guess - but it's nowhere near what it is possible. If we're talking just lists, I have 2 or 3 MO builds that are 10-0. With placing well in almost all tournaments and multiple Interplanetarios I expect Phylk to have an overall winrate of 80-90% possibly more. It is possible to outperform most opponents even with the dice slightly against you, tabletops are like that - the skill ceiling is quite high and you're usually able to perform fairly consistent in the top 10 top 5 or top 3 when you're much more skilled than the average player. Part of the reason why I stopped playing WHFB and 40k was because it wasn't fun for anyone, wish I was joking when I'm saying I always won and never lost. Certainly helps if you're playing a pretty OP faction, but still gotta know your target priorities. Infinity is a lot better than that, I'll know more after I've finished an ITS league and the upcoming tournament. From what I've seen Infinity is extremely reliant on Skill, which is great, dice can decide the odd came, but it usually boils down to who built a better list and knew how to use it. Read "better" as "capable to deal with everything as necessary".

47 minutes ago, IJW Wartrader said:

Strawman argument. I haven't claimed this, I said that a single Group and two full Groups are extremes and that both force restrictions on how you write your list.

But that's exactly it. If only one and two full groups are already extremes, that should place the optimum somewhere in between and only in exceptions right on the extreme or even below/above. This means that it's technically impossible for most builds to perform optimal with just 10 Orders or as much as 20 Orders. As a result 10 is a bad place to aim for - nothing wrong with it if you happen to cram everything you need in a 10 Order list and don't see room for improvement. Which brings us to the last part.

51 minutes ago, IJW Wartrader said:

You really need to broaden your approach to list-building. :( 

Dunno I like to have things like AROs better than a LI Sniper, Sensor or MSVs. Also helps when I don't die in turn 1 to that JSA list I built last week when going 2nd. I'm always looking for something to improve, change or do better. That Nomad list is as garbage as it gets in my book. JSA would do the same just much better. 3 shooting Links one Hacker and a Repeater net you need to spend Orders on is horrible for a Nomads list. Can't deal with Warbands, can't deal with Smoke, can't deal with really hard targets or Camo, I get that there should be a 2nd list to compliment it, but dropping a Taskmaster and getting a couple Zeros Morlocks seems like a massive improvement overall. Duos are pretty shite to begin with. Heck dropping one Taskmaster and the Haris should already be enough to buy a full Grrrl Link which also takes the pressure from the Moderators. I'm the guy who'd claim Bolts aren't even bad if you take only BSG and Spitfire Profiles.

However - that Nomad list is trying to be something it isn't. Honestly if your Xeodron Haris is pulling off 70% in your local meta then "triple Link Bakunin" should be able to match that. Not sure if I'd actually be satisfied below 90%. Not to devalue your Skills, but that's just how games work. Top 3rd is easy, top 10% requires some effort, after that you're actually starting to get good. The majority doesn't care enough to put in effort to win, they're just shoving metal dudes across a table recreationally hoping for a awesome game by accident. That's fine, but isn't satisfactory for everyone.

Infinity is without a doubt a great game, but it's neither perfectly balanced nor is everything compatible. Putting two big things onto the same list is bound to be a suboptimal more often than not. There are 300 points and you can theoretically cram whatever the hell you want in there. In reality you'll end up with several basic areas to cover, first of all the Mission, then dealing with whatever your oppoent can throw at you. There are bound to be bad matchups, for a bad list more often than not. This will neither matter nor be noticeable as long as your opponent brings the same "eh whatever" lists. It gets noticeable when you couldn't get top 3 at your fifth tournament. Most people end up blaming dice, tryhard opponents, OP factions, whatever - ultimately they don't figure out their core problem and try again in another tournament. With lets say 16-32 players for the average tournament you'll see some people improve over time, some people come and leave, some people consistent in the top half, and some people consistently competing for top 3. That isn't a magic gift or how the world works, that's just understanding how the game works down to the basic principles and knowing what to do with that knowledge.

Tl:DR you can do better than 70%, a lot better. "It's not your list it's you" is plain wrong - it's actually both at once. You can't just magically win tournaments with nothing but MSRs and Combis like @Barakiel does, with any list (kudos for that mate, still really impressed with your SAA performance). You have to run a list capable of doing everything else than that and be able to use it at the same time. There isn't one true approach or list, but many, many wrong or incomplete ones.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've all said a lot of things, he's my opinion. Everything is basically the same, and I don't care about the new change. I honestly don't think 2 orders at the start will change much compared to who has second turn in objective based games, so who cares?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Teslarod said:

Limited use as in additional restrictions, neither TO nor AD can simply wait till turn 2 and expect to find a full Combat group waiting for them. Something like a TO Specialist hiding till turn 3 near an objective hurts Order economy a lot.

Why must you wait till turn 3 though? In some circumstances you may not want to use TO/AD in a 10 order list, but I think IJW is spot on. There are still plenty of great ways to make use of them without wasting any orders. If you put something in the worst case scenario then yes, it will perform sub optimally.

14 minutes ago, Teslarod said:

70% is above average I guess - but it's nowhere near what it is possible. 

Win Rates aren't dependent on the individual skill of a player. They're a composite expression of the skill of the player compared to the skill of their opponents. You're interpreting the value of the percentage incorrectly here. If I go 10-0 against 10 completely new players it means a very different thing from if I go 3-8 against the top 10 players in the world. 

17 minutes ago, Teslarod said:

But that's exactly it. If only one and two full groups are already extremes, that should place the optimum somewhere in between and only in exceptions right on the extreme or even below/above. This means that it's technically impossible for most builds to perform optimal with just 10 Orders or as much as 20 Orders. As a result 10 is a bad place to aim for - nothing wrong with it if you happen to cram everything you need in a 10 Order list and don't see room for improvement. Which brings us to the last part.

There is no reason that the Optimal needs to be at any point in the middle of two extremes. For example, with arbitrary numbers for simplicity sake, a computer CPU can function between lets say 0C and 100C. The optimal performance for that CPU is not in the middle of this range. Its much somewhere just off 0C. Despite the fact it can function at those two extremes. But this argument also doesn't hold as much weight in Infinity for a reason that you actually bring up yourself. 

Player performance is a composite of their list and their skills. A part of that involves the application of their play style and the techniques that they've learned. Someone who has practiced and played often with 10 order lists has a very different pool of experience and learned skills than someone who has predominantly used 12, 15 or 20 order lists. Whats Optimal for one player is not optimal for another, I don't think you're able to measure and apply an optimal value like that. 

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Teslarod said:

Tl:DR you can do better than 70%, a lot better. "It's not your list it's you" is plain wrong - it's actually both at once. You can't just magically win tournaments with nothing but MSRs and Combis like @Barakiel does, with any list (kudos for that mate, still really impressed with your SAA performance). You have to run a list capable of doing everything else than that and be able to use it at the same time. There isn't one true approach or list, but many, many wrong or incomplete ones.

Much obliged.  Yeah I've been pleasantly surprised with Order heavy Acon.  I don't always run to such extremes with that 18+ Order setup, but I do build what I think is best for the missions at hand.  If I need high mobility, high order pools, lots of Specialists, lots of mines, with the ability to disrupt an enemy backfield... Yeah, I'll go lots of Orders.  I also play a ton of Limited Insertion, but that tends to be because the event specifically calls for 10 Order lists.  That experience with LI has really helped me gain perspective on 10 Order lists though...

And honestly I can't think of any situations where I'd rather have 10 Orders rather than 13-14, at least.  I think that with the elite scale of 10 Orders, you suffer severe diminishing returns on the power level of your troops, while also missing out on the fundamentally useful performance of Impetuous/Irregular/multiple AD or TO that are much harder to incorporate in a 10 order list.  Even if you're primarily focusing on 10-order play, the ability to replenish a mostly elite Order pool with 2-3 additional orders as the game goes on is a really big deal, necessitating a second Combat Group so you can transfer units at need.  Even simple fundamental elements of the game, like fulfilling a Classified Objective, Doctoring a trooper, tossing smoke in support of another unit, adjusting the positioning of a link team, all become critically taxing with you're limited to 10 Orders.

Now, I've seen players do amazing things with 10 Order lists.  I don't presume to tell someone else what's "better" or "worse".  But as someone who plays a lot of ITS, and has experienced a pretty good cross section of the North American meta, I'll always field some kind of second Combat Group whenever possible. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I believe anyone can maintain a 90% against strong competition. If anything just looking at win percentage favours those that seem to just smash newer players rather than attending more competitive events.

 

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites