It would be nice to see the crazy amounts of different mixes go down so they are no longer the norm. Like, settle for Wildcards that are preferably characters or character-like in amounts (e.g. Clipper Dronbot for Ikari), units that are part of some other regiment (e.g. Yuriko is actually a Keisotsu and links like a Keisotsu), and have a small and limited selection of units that link with other units for fluff and gameplay reasons (e.g. Pheasant handlers for the overzealous Bao). The hodgepodge of different links with various restrictions we've seen lately are confusing in a manner that at least this one finds unnecessary. MRRF or USARF has a manageable amount of special Fireteams; TAK starts getting confusing with various specific combinations; MO is a complete mess. And then there's the Krit+Guijia Duo to stand as example of unnecessary fireteams, in particular as it doesn't work with the Wildcard system (not to mention how the "counts as" isn't fully explained so while strictly speaking the special Fireteam is a Zuyong Fireteam, I still don't think you can Duo a Guijia with a Zuyong that has Duo other than Krit - needlessly complicated).
I think TAK fireteams would be fine if they solely required what they do: #1 3 Vets + 2 Frontoviks #2 1 Frontovik + 4 Line Kazaks #3 4 Frontoviks + 112 That is fine on its own. The problem is the Wildcards. The Vet Kazak shouldn't be a Wildcard. It should be allowed to take the place of a Frontovik in any fireteam instead. As it is now, you end up with the no-brainer MSV1 Sniper Front + AP HMG Vet + 3 Kazaks (probably FO, Paramed, HRL). In my version it would've been a choice. Super Elite 4 Kazak fireteam #1? Cool. More Elite Vet + 4 Line team instead of a Front lead? Cool again. I've never seen anyone use #3, but Vet + 3 Fronts + 112? I'd consider using that.
I think TAK link teams are perfectly fine, veteran kazaks are good but easily avoidable, vulnerable in reactive and not always cost efficient. Frontoviks are also fine, the sniper one is the only profile with MSV 1 in all the sectorial. Additionally I really like the lore about veterans being the ones that can save the lives of the rest of the link team. "Then, with endless aplomb, he’ll draw on the dusty ground a path that will get you out of that mess with minimum risk because he’ll have your back the whole way."
yes, look at the wider picture. That corregidor pack was a mess in so much ways, of course people will claim about it. It had nothing to do then with the new ruleset, it was directly an ilegal 300-points list. And worse of that, they decided to bring the less interesting (And unneded) lieutenant option (just make a cheaper one), some weeks after people told them (not the next day, not the day of release even if it was allready a known fact). But that has been the treatment from CB to nomads to n3. Happened with bakunin and tunguska too to some degree (halfway rules revision, left things to resculpt, underworking testing, choose the fast dessign way and so). That box -made of leftovers- even got more marketing work by CB than the launching of the new sectorial! was 200 the standard in some places? We have been playing 300 since n1 (because during the beta we were still collecting, and doing a lot of demos of starter vs starter). you mean only the securitate/grenzer thing, right? because nobody in the game wants fireteams so well designed as the kriza haris (a 150 points haris with no sinergy, and almost no buffs). TJC is not a good example of good fireteam dessign: securitates and interventors are supposed to work together in the lore, but they cannot go in the same fireteam. Interventors have to go with grenzers (if they want to be in a fireteam), where they will not use their white noise, and loose their marker option. Kriza haris has no specialist option, only the combi dude gets +1R in active, and they don't have interesting reactive weapons to justify it in ARO. The bro-haris makes each of their members to loose what make them more interesting at once (instead of giving spector an extra option, or eaving it like the hollow-kriza duo), making them worse in that fireteam than in solo. The "count as" for fireteams is a nice way of doing it, I agree, but TJC's sectorials were not well dessigned to use it, but because the extra things.
It is a balancing decision because protecting interventor with a fireteam and giving it sixth sense for cheap would have been too strong (but then they gave messer wildcard in shas so lol consistency). Tunguska fireteams are good design, except for Kriza haris which looks like "lets give an easy and bad option for people who just have beyond icestorm and tunguska starter" and bro haris is a dud but mainly because non-jumpy spector is bad. But Haris teams in general are not worth it in Infinity (except for maybe Riots and Patsy-Kamau), except for missions that really want order optimization.
I would agree if we didn't see absurd fireteams as giving BS13 mimetic MSV2 to cheap dudes. Putting a hacker in a fireteam is a double edged sword (it gives a weak point to the fireteam)...so putting interventor in grenzers instead of securitates is not so balancing (it wouldn't have been as OP as other options are now in the game), but more of a preentive nerf. Bro-haris, kriza-haris, even the hollow haris has issues (it cannot bring a stempler). There is only the "grenzers count as securitate" remaining as a "good dessign" and the hollow-stempler, which ofuscates anything else even if it is not OP, and that (a fireteam which is not op and has almost no extra options, but is better than the other more "versatile" fireteams) should be an indicator that those fireteams are now well dessigned
Haris teams used to be great back when the strongest units couldn't get cost-effective cores. They still have their place, but it's more niche
I tend to find that place is the midfield, where you can't hide four incompetent order monkeys to buff one guy as they will be flanked and murdered in a heartbeat. The 15-man limit will be extra helpful for Haris options actually, since risking 1/3rd of your entire Order supply in dangerous midfield play will at least provide something of an artificial counterbalance to the overly efficient Core design we keep seeing. I'm still struggling to see the point of Duo in N4 though, unless certain factions are actually designed in a way that makes reaching 15 orders hard and thereby providing some value to the Order efficiency that always-expensive Duo pieces bring.
there are haris...and haris. If the haris can bring the shotter, the specialist, can use extra orders and so, I think they can be worth. If the haris cannot gain the extra burst in active because full auto, has no interesting reactive weapon to justify its use, and cannot get specialist because configuration, that's an obvious bad dessign for duos, I think that they could be worked as a dude and his bodyguard. If duos got a rule, only for them, where one mate could help the other when attaqued, it could be more interesting. But usually are big shotty guys that bring no sinergy between them. The kriza duo for example can bring a hollow specialist/hacker, which is more interesting than another kriza (and than the haris). The same for those other duos that can bring a big guy and an specialist wildcard. But other than a few examples, duo is not so interesting.
There's Duos and there are Duos and I'm personally hoping that Duos will be available to vanilla without any restrictions. A good Duo allows a strong model to have a cheap unit complement what they're missing; button pushing, DTW, Repeater, you name it.
It'll serve the same role as it does currently, attaching a specialist to a strong gunfighter to efficiently move up the table to carry out mission objectives, to combine two combat pieces with complementary pieces of equipment and weapons (best example is attaching a tinbot to a hacker/TAG, or stapling smoke to anything), dragging a defensive piece that starts in the DZ up the table to drop off some where else to drop it into suppressive without overly impacting your game plan, and probably half a dozen other I'm not currently thinking of beyond just order efficiency and being able to have multiple of them active. More than any other fireteam type Duos are defined by the mixed team options within the sectorial, but can be very impactful to a game. Unfortunately because they aren't obviously powerful like the other team options they tend to get over looked in favour of Haris or Core. Also for the record, the KB Haris is fairly pointless beyond buffing what you bring along with it and a waste of the Haris slot, but the KB+HM duo and the HM duos in general are very effective army elements.
You have a point here. I was actually thinking about the Securitate fireteam and the hollow man fireteams when writing that. Honestly, I don't get the sudden hate for Haris teams in this thread. I've always enjoyed the small footprint teams as ways to bring a specialist or two plus a gunfighter to the mid of the table. But maybe that's just me. I like order efficiency.
I don't hate haris fireteams...only the kriza's and bro-haris. One is dumbly absurd, the other one makes worse two big units of the faction. Some other haris are quite interesting
Hate is a very strong emotion. Personally I'm only mildly disinterested in a few of them. The Tohaa Triads were really potent even before they had Tri-cores, so it's absolutely about what you can put in them and what your alternatives are.
My personal 'hate' for Haris is the same as that for Link Teams in general: It's weird as hell to me that we have these supposed badass operatives who cannot figure out how to work together in more than one link team...except for two factions, one of which is a bunch of pseudo-berserk nutjobs and the other just likes to count in threes? I mean what the what?! So many issues could be solved by simply lifting the 'one core link/one haris/one duo' nonsense.
Lifting the restriction on core teams would lead to complacent gaming syndrome where everyone would be playing 2-3 really cheap links with one big gun and as many cheap bloques as possible. Balancing that would have us ending up with even more seemingly arbitrary decisions than we have today. Games need limits, even if some limits aren't 'realistic'
Games need limits, but they also need some sensible rules. This right here? That's a mess. And a big part of the mess is that thanks to artificially limiting the concept, we've never really seen a real attempt at balance.
We haven't? So you don't think the limit IS an attempt at balance while maintaining the wow-factor of that one strong integral team? Waow...
