When the Greeks got released they were really strong. What we see now is simply other armies rising into their level. QK is a similar story, they were the most flexible sectorial when it comes to fireteams, with Hafza and Haris options (IS as well, with their number of special cases). Now they're not unique, but still pretty flexible and I think they're doing pretty well, power level-wise? Also, Tunguska most likely shows that traditional power creep isn't an issue. The only thing to worry about is that whether older sectorials - PanO, Nomads, MAF, etc - will get their own fix.
Imho,mixed Fireteams are good and fun BUT I would have preferred to have many specific profiles for editorials army only. This way you can keep on differentiating a sectorial without creating new troops and without relying so massively on "Availability and Linkteams" that seems to be the only strong points of Sectorials Army. I could totally use an Hellcat with CoC only available for corregidor
A good compromise might be to handle fireteam options like Army does BS Weapons. When you click on it another window appears with all the details.
ISS is the perfect example here. They were not strong. They had standard sectorial fireteams. Wanted Hsien in a link? Pay for another 2 Hsien to get it! ISS got elevated to the standards of newer sectorials while some of the other old ones didn't. However, I'm not sure all sectorials need this and I would argue that the uniqueness that was exclusive for QK wasn't necessarily good for the game. Not a bad idea at all.
I think they're best used in the NA2 armies. It allows uncommon versatility in factions with less options. In the primary armies, I feel like the ISS style links are appropriate. A Haris with one heavy hitter and two weaker units. An HI core with weak "overseer" with special options. These make sense. But these new Tunguska links just seem silly. A Securitate link that can have no Securitate in it? Why can Raoul and Perseus link with a Stempler? Are they roommates who have the super jumping Zond as a wacky pet? What's the story there? I also agree with the idea of backdating the "old" sectorials. It doesn't have to be fancy, just like they did with MRRF. Would a Hospitaller and Magisters Haris plus OS core be that game breaking?
I've been wanting to start MO for ages based on the minis but I keep backing off after listbuilding. Backdating mixed links would be a breath of fresh air to MO
Uh... MO has mixed links, sure they could have done more with the Sarges but the Hospitaller/Santiago + Magister mixed link is the backbone of the Sectorial. Though I would love to see the Knight+Sarge Haris from the CBLs become a thing.
A single Father-Knight able to join every Core. I agree. Acontecimento is perfectly fine as is, for example. NCA could use some veriety, though, like Bolt links being able to include single Pathfinders and Mulebots. As for QK... it has seven unique and useful Core options, with most armies having access to 3-4 max, with some - SAA, NCA, Onyx - having two. They're still "the fireteam sectorial".
Yeah, or a FK joining Sarge links, that'd be neat. I don't think mixed links is the way to fix Bolts, their problems are deeper than Fireteam options (though I'd take a Haris or linked Trauma Doc).
Vanguards, Rodoks, Yaogats, Suryats and Daturazi. That's five main core options, before looking at options. Linkability is one of MAF's saving traits.
No, I suppose they are not. It's not like Aleph has many players compared with, say, Nomads or PanO... Yet if I want to make a Thorakitai Fireteam, I have to go with Thrasimedes, or pay a lot of points for Hector, or a lot of SWC for Alke... and the only way to make that link is with a character. It's not like most greek lists are 2 myrm links + agema + something, or Myrm link + thora link + agema/achilles... And the myrmidons are all the same loadouts. But I find amusing that your position on "balance" is "whatever makes all factions to more or less stay on the same level by my account of their perfomance". So by your accounts, CA should be nerfed, I assume...
As @xagroth points out there are the Onzat and hungries. I only counted two Haris. Kurgat Engineers and Sogarat+Kornak. The others combine with existing core options so didn't feel unique.
Yoghurts and Suryats have a native Haris, the latter of which can also include Kornak and/or Raktoraks. EDIT: I see what you mean by "unique" Haris now, but having both Haris and Core options for the same troopers still puts them ahead of factions like NCA, Onyx, and MO.
I very much like them, they can give a roll to some units, I think alot of the issues with slow MI can be solved by having them access to being very good members for mixed teams I still also would ilke a few more sectorial specific loadouts on some units
This makes more sense in some armies than others -- the 1 commander + 4 troops link is very thematic in ISS (and it's literally what an Enomotarch is, for SP), and the hierarchy is also available in JSA, with the Domaru + Kempei + Keisotsu or Kempei+Keisotsu core. It also plays because the "commander" in each case is a higher-ranking unit (in the fluff), which is why ISS has the Crane + CG link, the Hsien + Zhanying haris, the Zhanying + 4 Wu Ming core, and the CG + 4 Kuang Shi. Every special core in ISS follows this rule as far as I remember rn. On the other hand, it doesn't make as much sense in factions with less strictly vertical commands, such as Nomads. I even have mixed feelings about it in CA outside of Morats since EI command seems to be abstracted (G:Mnemonica/Autotool), but instead we have stuff like the Samaritan + Rodok core and the Samaritan + Xeodron haris.
It's funny, because they actually did lose things with the update. No more Azzy links. No more Hafza in Merc links. I would not want the link team notes removed from army. What's the problem with a note or two on a unit profile? Why would you want it split off onto another resource or have to open up the PDF when playing around with a new sectorial/perusing factions that you aren't familiar with?
