Why do you think the Fireteam: Wildcard rule works differently in IA compared to every other sectorial? Any other troop with Wildcard can have as many of that type troop join a link, but IA is restricted to one. Is it a holdover from early on in its development? Does it balance something out that I don't see?
Because they have 4 different Wildcards, whilst most others have 1 or 2. Also probably to stop 2 Pangguling in every Core Fireteam ever.
Misleading title question. It works the same, there are just additional limits imposed. I actually think limits on Wildcards is better than free reign... The game already ends up with ridiculous links where a faction only has 1 Wildcard - Teuton Core link - 2x Santiago, 2x Magister, 1x Order Sergeant, or Order Sergeant Core - 1x Santiago, 1x Black Friar, 3x Father Knight.
I don't think it's misleading, IA's wildcard is basically a different rule. I'm with you though, I'd rather see more restrictions on wildcards, but if everyone else can cram a list full of cheap wildcards why can't we lol. Varuna has 3 wildcards with no restrictions, and arguably more potent choices. I do agree with the Pangguling problem though, but I wish I could haha.
Exactly! The same goes for deployment. It's bad enough to spread around 2 baggage bots and a Rui Shi. Clumping multiple S4 is even worse!
Because CB hates YJ and its players and they want to punish us. Probably for our horrible attempted genocide against the Japanese or our incompetent mishandling of the entire thing. Or maybe game balance.
Do you really had to post that? When everything is calm, you have to poke upset players. Just wow. You could have deleted everything but the last sentence. Posts like these are one of reasons that make YJ forum salty af. I do agree with restriction because of 3 haidao in a link.
I'd like it for a defensive link, having 2 Panggulings keep a defensive Zuyong missile launcher cores price down could be pretty sweet, and if you just want to shack up in your deployment zone the S4s don't need to move that much, but I know that really depends on the type of tables you play on.
It's tongue in cheek and a friendly light jab. People choosing to get salty are what make the forum salty. Right now it doesn't look like there's any salt flowing so I think it's all good.
All right. I just wanted to say that it's better to avoid giving them any reasons to start the argument all over again.
It comes across more as attacking people who are critical of CB so you can get away with being an ass to people and not worrying about the mod team bothering you.
Nah, if I wanted to attack people I'd name names and do it directly. I obviously can't control how people take everything and as we all know it can be hard to convey tone across text. Was going more for the whole this is absurd angle because I don't think anyone would actually believe that we were being punished with limited wildcards just because of the faction we play lol.
IA wildcards work more or less in the same way wildcards work in other sectorials, there are limited wildcards in other sectorials and there are sectorials with fewer wildcards and or more expensive wildcards including SWC. There is nothing controversial or out of place with IA wildcards.
Yes, but the implication is that existing YJ players are that unreasonable. I've already seen people saying that MAF players deserved to lose Bit due to their poor attitudes.
