The answer is no, 4 Hungries + Raktorak is not a valid Hungries fireteam. The rules specifically tell us the control device is needed to make that Fireteam. Unfortunately the RAW make a complete hash of it. The chart doesn't mention that it's the Control device that's required. It says the Oznat is required but she only carries the Control device. This was an acceptable mistake before the introduction of Wildcard and this ruling. Now it's a mistake that allows 4 Hungries + Raktorak to form a valid Hungries fireteam.
The device is not needed thanks to poor planning by CB. The control device has all the rules governing Hungries as a Fireteam. With the Oznat required this wasn't a problem. Now that we can replace Oznats all those conditions go away. So we're left with a normal Fireteam.
So you're arguing that a Raktorak + Hungries core is legal, but the Hungries still would be Irregular?
I'm glad they are giving this step forward. That will help to start working in the RAW issues of the rulebook, it's not healthy for the game the amount of these "the RAW say this but this is played like that", it feels more like an initiation rite: "Welcome to Infinity forum! Remember that looong rulebook you just read, forget about it and let us learn you the right way to play this! Whut??". If I read the rulebook I should get all I need to play. Some examples just from the last 2 pages that would get fixed very easily just changing or adding a line to the wiki: Super Jump allowing jumping using the first MOV value in the second order Impetuous orders that no one play as the chart say Stratuscloud, disposable but one use for the whole army. Special CC skills only apply to CC attacks except I-Khol thanks to an example. Here, another time that got clarified. I don't think that's intended (and this case wouldn't be very good, a linked member spending an irregular order would break the link) but with the change of the fireteam rules to a more flexible ones the existence of these control devices should be at least mentioned and stated how we should deal with them.
So you're basically saying Wildcards can't be part of fireteams because there's nothing to join... I'm sure that's not what you mean, but let's agree that a wildcard can, in fact, join a Fireteam? How is it alien that the process of forming a Fireteam is, for the sake of validation, broken down into its constituting parts? Do note that your reasoning isn't based on rules but on common sense. While not entirely unreasonable to draw those connections, some amount of common sense needs to be left at the door when reading game rules by sheer necessity.
This is just a mess. There is no motivation at all. There is no reason to change the rule in the first place. I've never seen anyone complain about the wildcard rule, sure there have been discussions about too many mixed and flexible links. But those discussions are about the links in a more general sense than the wildcard rule. The wildcard rule is(was?) nice and simple. You can explain what it does in a sentence. The rule is also not overpowered, it could be overpowered on some specific unit. But that has more to do with that specific unit's design than the wildcard rule itself. Is there any reason at all to change it? If mixed links and/or wildcards are too common then maybe the more straight forward approach would be to examine those units? Or as suggested multiple times here, examine, rethink and clarify the whole set of rules relating to link teams. Also this change is bad for a number of reasons The new rule is unclear how it works. The rules for fireteams are written in a way that mostly assumes the link to consist of the same type of unit and also that the fireteam type is what matters. What the fireteam unit type is not something there is much focus on. Even with clarification it's not going to be a simple as the old rule. It is also really really bad for new players or players that don't read the forum. It does not change directly what lists are legal, but it does change what lists are "legal" in terms of fireteams. Since the lists are still legal when making a list with the now incorrect fireteams in the army builder there is no immediate error for the player. This means that some people are going to go to tournaments with the wrong list. Why does it only affect core fireteams? It's strange and just adds to the confusion.
No, I'm saying there's no order to troops joining a fireteam. They all become part of it simultaneously when it's created (setting aside re-joining a fireteam at the start of the active turn). So the Wildcard mini isn't joining an extant fireteam and pretending to be something else. I'm pretty sure that the use of the term "Wildcard trooper" was taken from a particular forum poster's posts about how a trooper like William Wallace could pretend to be any trooper for the purposes of joining a fireteam.
Okay, but since there aren't any Fireteam they can join since it doesn't exist... how does it join a Fireteam then? That's where your logic stumbles. And if there aren't any valid Fireteam options within the Fireteam they are going to join together in, we have been told that a bunch of Wildcards can't form a Fireteam (by logical derivation: because none of the troopers in the Fireteam validates the basic rules for forming a Fireteam; that they validate on the list of Fireteams) Which is fairly irrelevant because you're still arguing from the perspective of common sense which uses a whole bunch of logic taken from outside the game with little to no concern for the altered reality of the game.
Not simply, but that's part of it. It should have said "this trooper can count as any other trooper for the purposes of creating fireteams."
Note the rules on the Hungries Control Device: EFFECTS This Control Device allows players to pick Hungries (Gakis and Pretas) for their Sectorial Army Lists and deploy them. In the Deployment Phase, this Control Device allows its bearer to compose a Fireteam: Core with Hungries (Gakis and Pretas) in a Sectorial Army List. Thanks to this piece of Equipment the Fireteam: Core members become Regular and Not Impetuous during the whole of any Player Turn they have been part of such a Fireteam. The bearer of this Control Device cannot compose more Fireteams: Core during the game. This Control Device has no effect in Generic Army Lists, where players can pick and deploy Hungries in a normal way. Of essential import is the second bullet point, indicating that the Hungries fireteam cannot be composed at all without the Device bearer present in the fireteam. Now, a Raktorak could replace one of the Hungries or the second Oznat, but it's essential that a HCD be present for the fireteam to even be formed in the first place.
This an incorrect reading. Wildcard troopers do not Count As, they Replace troopers in a fireteam. This is a key difference, as counting as a trooper means that you can form a core as though that trooper counted as that one of the founding members. Tsyklon Sputniks Count As Mobile Brigada, so you can form an Alguacile 3-man Core consisting Lupe, a Daktari, and a Tsyklon. Bounty Hunters Replace Zuyongs, so you cannot form a Zuyong Core consisting of 4 Bounty Hunters in order to allow a Rui Shi to join it, as none of the Bounty Hunters count as Zuyongs.
I disagree. If you follow the exact same rules we use when creating other fireteams, we can make this one with 4 Hungries and a Raktorak. There are no rules attached to the Hungries, Raktorak, or Fireteam rules themselves to prevent its creation. CB originally designed this Fireteam to require an Oznat to form. They put the control device on the Oznat to fulfill that purpose, which seemed thematically reasonable at the time. Wildcard plus this ruling now bypasses that requirement. Oopsie!
Agreed, but whether he nailed the wording on his first attempt is immaterial. The point is, this could have been done better. But CB persists on doing it their way, with mixed results.
It’s not particularly common usage, but I do think it’s valid to say that all the troopers are joined together into a fireteam. From that sense of the word, I think that the wildcard phrasing is essentially correct.
That's a very uncommon usage. "Joined together" is usually used in marriage ceremonies, and maybe corporate mergers, unless someone is saying another person joined an organization the same time they did ("SGT Snuffy joined together with me" = "SGT Snuffy and I joined the unit at the same time"). I'd prefer 'can be a part of a fireteam' as the phrasing, personally.
