The assessment that fireteams are too strong and sectorials have the inherent weakness of lack of flexibility/toolbox of Vanilla seems accurate. People have gone back and forth about making fireteams function like coordinated orders which doesnt necessarily remove the strength of a fireteam but it does mitigate the gameyness of one beast support by 4 mooks... in this example your fireteam's functional "coordinated orders" would really only be as good as the points you put into each troop.
I saw the thread about trying to give sectorials exclusivity, and that seems neat possibly the cure but for that one, you can tell that wont come till at least another season before CB considers what they'll make exclusive to sectorials. It also poses the risk of lowering sales and CB is more likely to choose sales over that method of balance. Further looking into is needed. I cant even really imagine what cleaned up fireteam rules would look like. What does that mean really, if it means smoother gameplay then I imagine them stripping away alot of stuff that people say is what balanced fireteams, if it means reducing power, then I can imagine some play choices reduced and some sales going down... The tough part is, there will be people unhappy about whatever choice CB makes but whatever choice they make, will it ultimately be good for the game 6-12 months after it drops or will it force people away from sectorials and thus away from the came cause there are people who just prefer that theme heavy play style. CB is pressured to simultaneously make drastic changes and do absolutely nothing for fear of a serious misstep.
I’d like to thank you both here for a very interesting conversation. You both made some excellent points and it’s refreshing to see people being able to disagree in good faith whilst providing excellent arguments on opposing ends. Very nicely done.
I have enjoyed seeing everyone’s thoughts. Having started in 2nd Ed, I’ve seen it go back and forth. My question is, what is the point of fire teams? Do they improve the gameplay itself? Do they help breathe life into the full range if models? ( I think that may have been part of the original intent) Do they address game balance issues? I think the game has evolved so much that they may no longer serve their original purpose. There may be another way to achieve the game design goals, that is significantly different than fire team rules. just my random thoughts. Resume lurking!!!
2nd ed. as well. but what way could make sectorials as good as vanilla if the whole point of sectorials is higher AVA, I mean, if someone brings 3 hidden deployment mim 6 troops that's good but we worry about diminishing returns right.
They represent combined arms doing cool stuff together, IMO. Moving diverse units down the field to operate closely together is interesting and fun. Coordinated orders just aren't quite as good at that, given the (needed) limit on the number of times one can use those in a game. They also provide a bit of a boost to defense, in a game that once had, then balanced out, and now again has a bit of an alpha-striking problem. The +1B in ARO comes in handy for blunting those aggro rambo runs.
Yeah good question. I’m not a game designer, but I do enjoy puzzling out this stuff from time to time. Maybe a version of inspiring leadership, where they get a free coordinated order each turn? Probably not enough. I do really like the Cover Fire rule from the infinity skirmish campaign floating around. A model activates suppression fire for one order and another model in AOC gets to move. To me that feels more like what links are supposed to represent. Letting someone from a team cover an advance or even use of a specialist skill would feel cool to me. Maybe giving links access to some new skills instead of bonuses to existing would be cool. They could be unlocked at list creation and stay with the members for the game. Then wouldn’t have to introduce as many new mechanics for moving multiple dudes.
Yeah definitely dimishing returns. AVA as an incentive/guide is tricky because it depends on you wanting to max out your AVA of a particular troop in a sectorial to be meaningful... and even sectorials often have enough unit choices that you could build a list of mostly singletons and still have a playable army. Then Vanilla has access to ALL of the sectorial options, so even at AVA 1 of everything they may have a dozen choices for a troop type they want 2 of. Unless AVA were more carefully cultivated in the game overall (difficult since Vanilla will have at leas AVA 1 of everything and has the most options), it frequently doesn't matter enough, to the point where a few sectorials out there are even accused of just being worse versions of vanilla. There's another thread going about sectorial-specific profiles and that may ultimately be the best way to differentiate them. That and/or severely curtail profiles in vanilla so that the most desirable versions of a particular unit exist only in the sectorials.
The sectorial specific profiles are where I was thinking it could go. Varuna has its own squalo TAG and it’s own ORCs. Svalargeima has much the same feel. Going down this route and not relying on the fireteams as a crutch may give the sectorials their own identity. AvA is an issue too though, as you noted @Lawson so getting the balance of this right would also be a step to be included when considering how to balance out fireteams and sectorials in general. As said though, having specific profiles in a sectorial may indeed be the best way to differentiate a sectorial.
The sectorial that uses fireteams the least is Shasvastii. Coincidentally it is also a faction that has entire unit that doesn't exist in vanilla (gwailo) and amazing 14 point hacker nox profile unavailable to vanilla. Food for thought.
Main selling point of Shas (at least from competitive pov) is increased AVA on Noctifers, Speculos and Calibans. Gwailos are so-so unlinked, and Nox hacker doesn't hold a candle to hacking in vanilla. On the other hand Shas links are weak and/or too expensive. Gwailo harris pays a lot extra for that FTO drone's nanoscreen. Noxes doesn't have much to offer as Sheskiin is great solo. And we don't talk about Jayths. Internal balance of the faction just steers you away from linking.
I agree. I was working on playing them again and I don't think I made a single Core fireteam. At least not a 5-man team. One time was by chance because I took a third Nox and thought "I might as well have them as a team". But the majority of my Shas had NO fireteams at all. It was all about AVA 4 Shrouded, AVA2 Speculo. I think if Vanilla went down in AVA for some troops there would be some that want to play a sectoral even without fireteams. Shasvastii is a good example of this.
And all of that shows that CB can make sectorials that are competitive and have serious reasons to play over vanilla without using fireteams at all.
I will say for Shasvastii though is that some of the reason you might not have any fireteams at all is just because they didn't give them very good ones as @DruidNei pointed out. Nox are meh and the Haris aren't great either. I've not heard of anyone taking Jayth consistently. Only on lark. I'd only use one for defending an area. The Gwailo is ok in a haris but it seems like a lot of trouble and points just to gain +1 Burst and some order efficiency. So is it that fireteams are not used because they are not offered in the first place?
IMO, the Gwailo itself is just a tad overcosted. FTO bot is tax enough as it is, but the Gwailo's own price tag is already a bit of a hurdle.
But on the flip-side there's sectoral like White Banner. I'll almost never take two Daofei, maybe 3 Guilang, certainly not 3 tiger soldiers. If it were not for fireteams, there's almost no reason to take White Banner over vanilla. Shasvastii has a some pretty good cheap troops. A Guilang might be better than a Shrouded but the Shrouded starts at 22pts and Guilang at 25pt. The hacker only goes up to 27pts. I've tried making WB lists without a single fire team but then I find that I could have made the exact same thing with vanilla.
The other thing about AVA to keep in mind is sales. If fireteams are done away with, those troops would have to become extra special or else sales will drop. I think slightly reducing fireteam power, and limiting units and profiles in Vanilla while providing exclusive profiles and units in sectorials is the happy middle ground. Alternatively, for reducing power, maybe the 4 man teams and higher should get 360 visor instead 6s. Fireteam leaders should be allowed to enter the suppressive fire state and remain in the team with bonuses. Team AROs are limited to Shoot or break coherency while the leader is in supfire. If the leader drops it, the team is allowed to change AROs as long as they declare the same, as before. Command token suppressive fire at the beginning of the game should apply to fireteams as well. This would return the power of Surprise Attack and get rid of fireteam smoke supremacy but also allow fireteams to be defensive and it's close to some old rules. Also feels a little more realistic and cinematic at the same time. Also feels like it will mitigate alpha strikes.
So, from LVO Studio Update. Mixed Fireteams and pure fireteam will have diferent benefits. Is a step in the right direction. Now could be a problem in what consider pure and what mixed. And what happen to Core Fireteams who need a wildcard because AVA 4
