I think it would be best to just rewrite a lot of the Fireteam legality charts at this point. Basically since the release of Tunguska, there's been an increased focus on what "type" of Fireteam a given fireteam is, based on what its core unit is. Due to this, I think it might be better to reorganize the chart to make this more clear / make the chart shorter and easier to read. Give me a moment to play with HTML in posts and I'll show my take on a more complete/readable chart for a couple of armies. Here's what MO could look like: Here are the main reasons I laid it out the way I did: 1) We need to differentiate between Special Fireteam cores that have specific composition rules, and Special Fireteam cores that just allow 0-5 of another unit to join them somehow. Currently these are all called "Special Fireteam: ~~~" but I feel like this just adds to the confusion. Additionally, having the phrase "Special" in the Fireteam type is confusing because ultimately, it's still a Fireteam Core/Haris/Duo/whatever else gets added later. It's not a Fireteam:Special, it's a Fireteam:Core following the Fireteam rules of the sectorial army chart. 2) Having the Fireteam Unit come *after* the types of Fireteams that can be formed helps emphasize that that unit is the "core" unit of the fireteam and must be included. It's easier to read "Here's a Fireteam Core of X Unit, here's who can join them" than it is to read "Here's a Unit, it can core, also here's a bunch of other fireteam rules it has that have nothing to do with its own core." 3) This reduces the amount of space wasted with individual rows for each unit with a special fireteam ability/wildcard. Those don't need to be called out and just bloat the charts. The third column of the MO chart in the rules, for example, has 17 lines vertically, and every single one starts with "Special Fireteam." The version here has 11. The MO chart in the rules has 10 rows. This one has 5 and one empty row. It also reduces the amount of redundancy too -- the ASA fireteam chart would be like 5 rows long like this with only 4 special notes (and 2 of those would be in one cell). 4) Someone else pointed out to me that "replace" might be a better phrasing than "join" for the wildcard row. I attempted to do the same with IA and here's what I ended up with: The only problem I see in IA is the Yan Huo + Zuyong Haris special fireteam, which based on its composition rules is one of the Fireteams of the first type I specified in (1) above. Maybe the right phrasing would be "2 Yan Huo FTO can join a Fireteam Haris of Zuyongs"...? In either case, this chart also looks significantly tighter when its arranged this way.
Ok, fine, but there's no reason that the ruling about it requiring at least one trooper of the base trooper type follows from the rules.
Pretty sure that one is actually legal. It's a legal Order Sergeant link from the wiki ORDER SERGEANTS Core, Special Specialist Sergeants cannot be members of a Fireteam. Special Fireteam: Up to 1 Order Sergeant can join a Knights Hospitallers or a Teuton Knights Fireteam. Except Crusade Fireteams. Special Fireteam: Core. Up to 1 Black Friar (Albedo, Biometric Visor L1) can join a Fireteam: Core of Order Sergeants. Special Fireteam: Core. Father-Knights can join a Fireteam: Core of Order Sergeants. Compare to the Zuyong Dahshat link with the Rui Shi ZÚYǑNG Invincibles, Terra-Cotta Soldiers Core, Haris (the rest is blank no special link listed for them) @ijw can confirm but I'm pretty sure the MO link is legal in the same way the (no)Fontovik+112 thing is legal.
It is not legal. Father Knights, Santiago, and Black Friar all lack "Core" or "Special Core" in the fireteam column for their units.
That is not relevant here. 4 Vet Kazaks+112 is legal, Not because the Vet Kazaks have core (That is irrelelvant) But because the Core Fireteam they are subbing into is 4 Frontoviks+112 and the 112 Fills the "Original Trooper" requirement for that link @HellLois @ijw Though this is a good example of why this change is a Can of worms, the confusion in not only its implementation but the lack of correct terminology across the descriptions of link teams. Given the Mentioned Father Knight is not a "Wildard", nor a "Counts as"
It IS relevant though. The wording on all of those is "may join an order sergeant fireteam" which is the same as the "may join a zuyong fireteam" of the Rui shi in Dahshat. (Except the Santiago, which is a wildcard)
Less complicated isn't good enough imo. Find a group of tabletop gamers who have never tried Infinity before. Give them access to the wiki/army (just fireteam chart?) and have them take a true or false test. A test that lists various troopers and asks whether they are a legal X Fireteam or not. I wouldn't settle for much less than a 100% success rate. Which I do not think we'd get based on the current set of rules. (exceptions such as getting troop names mixed up would be easily filtered after speaking to each person about their incorrect answers) It's the continued use of inconsistent and undefined wording or terminology that gets them into the most trouble. Their attempts at using better words and more words to explain themselves is a poor solution. They've proven themselves inadequate to solve this problem. This is only my opinion on their rules and I understand some people are quite satisfied with the way things are. I don't think i'm asking too much from a game that requires such a large monetary and time investment. I hope CB hires a new writing staff/manager or QA team to ensure any new edition is of a higher standard.
Or maybe it's just the other side of the coin to those implying... the game is easy to understand if we all just hold hands across the world and agree to see things the way they do.
You would be correct if it weren't for the fact that Hungries and Pretas are listed on the http://infinitythewiki.com/en/List_of_Fireteams without reservations regarding control devices (Kuang Shi would have the same issue if ISS had any Wildcards) Typically errors like these would be because of legacy reasons (i.e. the control device being older than the Morat army's most recent readjustment and isn't intended to be mandatory anymore) but in this case I think it's simply overly-zelous addition to the wiki causing it - Hungries shouldn't be on the list at all, the control device handles those rules just like Puppetacticas
When you boil it right down, what you were essentially supposed to have with Hungries is an Oznat fireteam core that up to 4 Hungries can join.
I really want you to take the existing rules, as they're presented, and try to teach people Infinity from scratch. It's a giant pain in the ass. You've got out of date physical rulebooks, a wiki that has updates that aren't mentioned in the FAQ, and then when they actually do go to their first tournament they'll be blindsided by things like "Limited Insertion" being listed as a rules option for Frostbyte even though it's apparently not. As one of the guys I taught to play the game said, "How can I be expected to learn some kind of shadow rulebook that only exists if you spend time on the forums?" (I'm paraphrasing because there was more profanity in there). I honestly don't know why anyone bothers to learn Infinity at this point. I'm invested, sure, but it seems like a lot of work to wade through all the misinformation.
It's actually not the wording for Dahshat. Dahshat has no wording under Zuyong Links, it's blank, there isn't a special Zuyong link there's a special Rui Shi link. FK and Black Friars get a special link listed under Order Sergeants unlike the Rui Shi.
But the wording is still "may join a ____ team." Meaning the team must have at least one of wahtever _____ is. Zuyong have "core" listed in their fireteam options. FK/Friars just have "special/duo". The Rui Shi may join a Zuyong team, so it must have at least 1 Zuyong. FK/Friars can join order sergeant teams, so there must be at least 1 order sergeant. If it was worded similar to the Crane + CG team (Special Core: up to 2 FKs + OSs), it would be valid. But it isn't.
100% my feelings. I see a lot of potential in this game and i'm loving its mechanics, fluff and tactical options, but learning how to play it well is being a utter pain in the ***. To be fair they seem to be aware of this and trying to improve, but there is still a ton of work to do. But ey, Rome was not built in a day. If I find the time i'll make a post about it so we can discuss it without spoiling threads (like i'm doing right now lol)
Ehhhh I think that is very nebulous interpretation and simply over analysing the language used to denote that Cranes have a limited number that may join the link whereas FK's can join as many as you have AVA and space for. EDIT: ISS is probably a bad example to use in any case as they haven't been touched since wildcards became a thing. Their fireteams aren't even displayed or written in the current format either.
