At least for the sectorials I'm currently playing, it seems like the choices for cheap(er) orders tend to be some REMs, a single type of warband (from among the variety that would be in vanilla), and a single type of line infantry. Unlike the Vanilla where one might get access to multiple kinds of cheap troops, my main way of getting to 15 troopers/orders is to just take multiples of the LI line infantry, and at that point it feels like I might as well create a Core out of them. It's very hard not to default to doing this since the collective wisdom seems to be trying to maximize order count. It would be really cool, though, if there was some way to increase the desirability taking other high AVA models in a particular sectorial to encourage those flavor builds (or more expensive Cores) for something aside from meme lists. My most interesting lists always tend to be Limited Insertion style lists because I feel less locked in to bringing X amount of cheap bodies every time.
Building on this, I think it would make a ton of sense to eliminate all tactical awareness (except for TAGs) and NCO profiles from vanilla. Conceptually, you are benefiting from the coordinated efficiency that comes from having units train together within the same command structure. I'd also support limiting and/or taxing some LT options in Vanilla, particularly LT options on units that are not Veteran/Elite/HQ troops (why take orders from some random mook that isn't in your home command structure?).
If you're getting rid of vanilla's primary order efficiency mechanic, then you would definitely want to tone down fireteams a lot. If sectorials have fireteams and exclusive access to models that generate bonus orders, I think it would tip the scales much too far in their favor.
Of course, one possible solution to the problem of vanilla/sectorial balance is that at some point (N5?) CB just gets rid of the concept of vanillas, and every list has to be a sectorial list. The various sectorials would still be thematically linked to one another and might share some troops, but there wouldn't necessarily be a way to have a Zero and an Intruder in the same army list.
Definitely stuff like manipulating AVA of faction defining (cheap) things you want to take multiples of (like Morans and Daylami) more in Vanilla vs sectorial would be a good way to keep them balanced outside fireteams. I was also very surprised to see Morans have the same AVA in Vanilla as Corregidor when I started. AVA 2 posthumans in OSS would be interesting. ;) I'd hate to lose vanilla though
Just wanted to point this one out in particular, since PanO actually also features one of the best uses of AVA across all factions- their forward operators. Acon and MO have good SK entries unique to them within faction, while Varuna has far better access to the excellent Zulu Cobra. Neoterra and Sval, though still lying deep below sea level in competence thanks to CB's consistent refusal to give the Locust so much as an FO profile, also pack some of the best Fireteams in the game, bar none- and the tradeoff can be worth it, especially given NCA's access to the rather good Garuda. Vanilla can bring a little of Varuna's competence, and can ignore the Locust just like NCA/SWF, but can bring most of the game's best solo gunners and all PanO's quirky tech. It's one of the bigger reasons I consider PanO to be one of the better internally-balanced factions, since there's serious upsides and downsides to subfaction choice. (As long as you're not after HI shooters. MO breaks the bell curve in half with its weight in that field.)
In my opinion fireteam rules are not the main issue the game currently has. Right now, the active player is in such an advantage that I'd be cautious to remove any defensive capabilities provided by fireteam bonuses. The active turn bonuses could be completely removed though.
Yeah, I agree completely. And I also hope that this is a sign of things to come. Personally I would like the removal of vanilla, but I know there's a lot of dedicated vanilla players out there, so it should stay for the sake of different tastes and preferences. Regarding fireteams: there will always be an issue with balancing them, because of the enormous variety of units being able to link, and the purposes they're used for - defensive vs aggressive teams, different range bands they engage in, etc. For me the beginning of the solution would be to cut part of that pool away. I really like the suggestion of Wildcards not being able to use fireteam bonuses, while still counting as part of the link so that other units could use them. Since most wildcards are either powerful or versatile, this wouldn't make them useless - just less of a no-brainer addon. And I'm a big fan of tradeoffs when balancing a list, for me units that have no - or very situational - drawbacks are a design flaw. Second main issue is the status of Sixth Sense. I can't think of a single other skill that can be such a game changer, or that interacts with some many other skills in the game. And with changes to MSV1 I'm not at all sure that Sixth Sense is still needed as part of a repertoire of a defensive fireteam. But there were good arguments about this on both sides of the argument. And third thing is the question of terrain, which was also raised in this thread already. Bad terrain layout can make or break the game, and I think it's even more true when it comes to fireteams. Balanced table would allow any kind of fireteam to be used effectively; skewed layout can mean that some fireteams dominate the table, or are rendered almost useless. And this will be true even with perfectly designed fireteam rules.
pure fireteam core can have a 6th member (no other bonus, pure team just get more resilient by having the spare already part of the team)
I just noticed a bunch of units now have the fireteam: core special skill. Is that new, or am I thinking back to N3?
That's been there in Army all the way back to N2, there's no actual Fireteam: Core skill just an awkwardly placed reminder.
How about pure fireteam core get all the fireteam bonuses one member sooner? For example +3 BS at 4 members. This would act as a way of reducing price/bloat for the pure links if needed or keeping the bonuses intact longer, if the player chooses to field 5 member anyway.
So a 2-member Core Team gets B+1? I think that is a bonus too good for just 2 Modells, less points occupied and better manoeuvrability. examples: HB / RTF / QK Ghulam Sniper + Ghulam Sniper -> saves at least another Ghulam 11pts / Snipers B+1 HB Lasiq + Lasiq (any profile) -> saves at least a Muyib 23pts / Snipers/ViralSnipers B+1 HB Muyib HRL + Muyib HRL Both TacAwareness -> saves at least another Muyib 23pts / 2x HRL B+1 CJC Wildcat + Wildcat -> saves at least a Daktari 14pts / HRL B+1 CJC Jaguar + Jaguar -> saves at least another Jaguar 10pts / Double Smoke Grenades
It is strong yes, but if you would like to make your one core team just being two jaguars for example, then go for it. One problem I see is swiching core between multiple 2 member units, but than again the 4 CP you spend forming groups is 4 CP not spent on takig away orders first turn and coordinating orders etc.
So, is this what the years-long discussion of fireteams has come to, fireteams need a buff? Or have I forgotten some context?
