In Invincible Army, the Forward Fireteams chart looks like this: Min Max 1 2 HULANG (Forward Dep.) 0 1 KOKRAM (Forward Dep.) This is the only fireteam chart where the parenthetical is a Skill name that the Troopers also possess on certain—but not all—profiles. Every other case in the game is (Fireteam Name) or (Trooper Name). Why? More precisely, what does this do? This would result in any Hulang or Krit profile giving you a pure L2 duo: Min Max 1 2 HULANG 0 1 KOKRAM (Hulang) This would also make any Hulang + Krit profile a pure L2 duo: Min Max 1 2 HULANG (Forward) 0 1 KOKRAM (Forward) Making the current FTO profiles FTO-1 and the Forward Deploying (non-FTO) Kokram and Hulang profiles FTO-2 would let you do this, so you require a FD Hulang to start the team: Min Max 1 2 HULANG FTO-2 0 1 KOKRAM Or this, so you require a FD Hulang to start the team and you can only make a pure duo with Krit if you take his FD profile: Min Max 1 2 HULANG FTO-2 0 1 KOKRAM FTO-2 (Hulang) Buuuuuuuut. None of those is the case. RAW I think right now it doesn't do anything, you can put any Hulang and any Krit in a duo and it's a pure duo because that's what the rules say to do with parenthetical terms in a fireteam chart, and the rules don't tell you what to do if that parenthetical is a Skill name. Can someone poke someone at CB to ask them to clear this up? There are literally multiple ways to do whatever they were trying to do with this, according to their own rules, and the thing they actually did is not clear because it ignores the syntax used in every other army chart.
Following up: It's been brought to my attention that the Shindenbutai has a similar setup, in the Sayo fireteam. It permits a single Shizoku (Strategic Deployment). The rulebook's wording on parentheticals in fireteams isn't great, and doesn't cover how to read this type of notation. The only reason the Shizoku entry is clearly understandable is that it's the only trooper in that chart with the (Strategic Deployment) label. By CB's own logic, Shizoku (Strategic Deployment) should be Shizoku FTO-2. Having to cross-reference how a notation is used in a different army shouldn't be the prerequisite for understanding what a notation is supposed to do. There's still the open question, in IA Forward Fireteams, if the (Forward Dep.) label is supposed to grant link purity to the team if you take the Forward Deployment Krit and Forward Deployment Hulang as a duo. RAW the rulebook says "When calculating the Fireteam level, Troopers belong to the same Unit if they have the same Unit name or are listed in the Fireteams Chart with the same term between brackets." As it stands, the duo is a level 2 if both are Forward Deployment Hulangs, or if one is a FD Hulang and the other is a Forward Deployment Krit. Also, because the (skill) notation doesn't match how it works elsewhere in the game, the Forward fireteam is still a mess even if the Sayo fireteam isn't. Normally, troopers with parentheticals in their fireteam chart don't have that notation on the unit entry, it's inherited via the chart when you add the trooper to the relevant fireteam. For example, Griffin (Fennec) isn't on the Griffin profile, but when you put a Griffin in the Fennec fireteam, you treat it as having (Fennec) for fireteam comp purposes. Both the Hulang FTO and Krit FTO profiles are wildcards. By the logic of the (Fennec) example, adding any Krit to a Forward Fireteam would apply the (Forward Dep.) fireteam label (but not the skill) and you'd still get a pure Level 2 duo. Because the rules don't cover how to read this notation, it's a bit of a problem if more units get this treatment over time. CB pls fix.
It took me a while to figure out how to treat the table, but actually it is pretty simple and all other fireteams where something similar happens follow the same convention. So believe it or not developers are being consequent when writing the tables. It is just developers are very bad at naming, which is unfortunate. I will make it easier: Min Max 1 2 HULANG (jackal team) 0 1 KOKRAM (jackal team) What is confusing people is to think that in that case the wording in brackets makes reference to an attribute of the unit. Actually and according to rules, it has always been a tag given in order to designate a special fireteam. If we miss that point then it is source for all kind of misunderstandings. Now the second thing that confuses people is to think that the name of the unit makes reference to all the loadout options, when it is just naming the name of a profile in the unit. It is as simple as this. Hulang unit has HULANG FTO loadout and HULANG. The latter being the FD profiles. And Krit Kokram has the KOKRAM FTO and KOKRAM unit names. With KOKRAM being the only FD one. So there you have it. According to the list HULANG and HULANG FTO are not pure lvl2 and so on. The possible links are: 2 Hulang with FD make a lvl2 link (jackal team) 1 Hulang with FD and Krit FD make a lvl2 link (jackal team) HULANG and HULANG FTO would not be a valid team according the table BUT HULANG FTO is listed as a wildcard. Notice it says HULANG FTO, not HULANG. That is the proof that KOKRAM is a unit name and KOKRAM FTO another different unit name, and the tables make it quite clear here. Therefore it is possible to have: HULANG +HULANG FTO as a lvl1 purity link, as they are not the same profile and as odd as it might sound. KOKRAM + HULANG FTO as lvl 1 link Then KOKRAM FTO is another wildcard which allows HULANG + KOKRAM FTO as a lvl 1 link. And these are all the combinations between Krit and the Hulangs. Probably quite disappointing as two HULANG FTO are not a legal link and therefore you can not have a sweet stealthy lvl 2 duo that would save you around 12 pts instead of being forced to 2 HULANG. Hope it makes things clearer. Current fireteam table is correct but it could take a bit o a fix by changing the special fireteam wording in the brackets to something less confusing.
I didn't miss anything. The term in brackets is, normally, one of these two things: The name of a different Unit that is in the same Fireteam chart — e.g. Order Sergeant FTO (Crosier), Zhayedan (Ghulam). If the bracketed term is a Unit name, then Troopers with that bracketed term count as the named Unit type, but only when checking Fireteam Level. The name of the Fireteam — e.g. Invincible, WinterFor Alpha. If the bracketed term is a Fireteam name, then any combination of Troopers with that bracketed term count together when checking Fireteam Level. The Invincible Army's Forward Fireteam and the Shindenbutai Sayo Fireteam both break those norms. The (Forward Dep.) tag doesn't match the Fireteam name: (Forward) =/= (Forward Dep.) It also doesn't match the name of a Unit. So it fails both of those two possibilities and has to be something else. The Sayo Fireteam allows only the Shizoku (Strategic Deployment) loadout, which is very clearly a Trooper skill, not the name of the Trooper. Shizoku have Shizoku and Shizoku FTO loadouts. The Sayo chart explicitly refers to a profile based on its Skills. I'm not misunderstanding it, Koni explicitly said that's what it does: Infinity Army - N5 - Updates & Bugs Pretty sure this is wrong, too. What are you basing this on? There's no rule that says this or anything like it anywhere, I've looked. The only actual rules relevant are on p. 129 and 131 of the rulebook: This is extremely clear and straightforward: Normally any loadout option for a given Unit profile can be used. As an exception, the FTO notation means that you are required to limit yourself to the FTO loadout options. As a further exception, if a specific named FTO ("FTO-2") is specified, you may only pick that one, even if there are other FTO choices. This explains how the things I listed above as 1. and 2. are to be read and understood. Hulang and Hulang FTO very clearly belong to the same Unit. There's zero basis for believing that they are treated as separate Units when determining Fireteam Level. Likewise, Sectorials that can put a missile REM in a fireteam (Shasvastii, Druze, OSS) can choose either the Guided or the FTO profile, because the chart doesn't require them to use the FTO profile the way it does for other armies with linkable missile REMs. They may still choose the FTO profile if they wish, nothing in the rules prohibits them from doing so.
I also think that IA's Forward fireteam is problematic. And I think it will be more clear if Shizoku (Strategic deployment) is Shizoku FTO-2 (Strategic deployment)
