1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Wildcards (not) replacing all Fireteam core Troopes

Discussion in '[Archived]: N3 Rules' started by Hachiman Taro, Jun 2, 2019.

  1. Section9

    Section9 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    6,148
    Likes Received:
    9,666
    I still think it would be better to actually make Fireteam Core a skill just like the rest of the fancy Fireteam skills. Makes everything more consistent.

    Exactly!


    Yes, I am rather impressed with the 'new' GW and actually talking about what is going on.


    Uhm, NO.
    • "Until 2 of X" means I can have 0, 1, or 2 of X.
    • "2 of X" means I must have 2 of X, any other construction is illegal.
    That is a significant difference!
     
    meikyoushisui and CabalTrainee like this.
  2. ijw

    ijw Ian Wood aka the Wargaming Trader. Rules & Wiki
    Infinity Rules Staff Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,331
    Likes Received:
    14,817
    Please read the bit in bold again. In terms of those units being mandatory there isn’t a difference when you’re replacing one of them.
     
    Ogid and A Mão Esquerda like this.
  3. Ogid

    Ogid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2018
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    755
    The key is that wildcard just let you include models instead of the ones that should be in that fireteam, that's all, but that doesn't change the other fireteam rules:

    If it's an special fireteam that needs a particular ability to work (haris, duo...), then that need to be present.
    If the fireteam has a rigid number of memebers (a core that can only be formed with 5 members, or a Haris that needs 3 memebers), then you need that number, with wildcard or without it. You can form a standard core with 2 to 5 models or a standard haris with 2 to 3 models, replacing any of the model. The fireteam having a more flexible number of members doesn't have any effect in the wildcard rule.
     
  4. Ginrei

    Ginrei Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    428
    The requirements you're placing for those Fireteams are for different situations. The Haris/Duo requirement is for all Fireteams of that type. Where as the Core requirement you've listed is not. It's only for Core+Wildcard. The basic requirement for Core is different.

    The basic Core requirement and Core+Wildcard requirement are both different than the equivalent Haris/Duo requirements. So whether or not we say the WIldcard rule is inconsistent, the FIreteam rules are inconsistent, or their overall interaction is inconsistent... it means something is inconsistent.
     
  5. Ogid

    Ogid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2018
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    755
    In this case I think the rules are well structured. They could be clearer tho (with a side note in wildcard saying that every other requisite must be fulfilled).

    Each fireteam has 2 requirements, the "ability" and the troops.
    For the "ability": in core you just need 1 of the trooper with Fireteam:Core (or 1 that count as), in Haris/Duo is just the same, you need 1 of them (it's true that core is not an ability and the others are, but mechanically there is no difference)
    Troops: Just get the number and type that the fireteam need, and then replace as many as you wish for wildcards as long as you keep the "ability" in the fireteam.

    In the wildcard rule doesn't say that you can jump over the "ability" requirement. Could it be clearer? Yes, but it's not inconsistent.
     
    A Mão Esquerda likes this.
  6. CabalTrainee

    CabalTrainee Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    495
    Likes Received:
    740
    It's the same thing.... but not. So it is well structured.

    [​IMG]


    If it was well structured all link teams would use the same rules.
     
    Berjiz, Hecaton, Ogid and 1 other person like this.
  7. Ginrei

    Ginrei Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    428
    We seem to have different definitions of what 'well structured' means. Just because the rules may work, does not mean they are well structured. I would call a straight line an efficient path between two points. A squiggly line twice as long may still connect them... but it's not an efficient path. Rules work the same way.

    All but one type of Fireteam has an equivalent Special Skill, and all but one requires this skill to be present in the Fireteam. If those skills are important enough to be required everywhere else, Core should follow the same path. If they're not important, get rid of them all, it doesn't matter, as long as things are consistent.

    I find it extremely unlikely the differences between the Fireteam requirements are important enough to justify creating this kind of inconsistency. I'm sure sticking to one system would have been more than adequate.
     
    Ogid likes this.
  8. Space Ranger

    Space Ranger Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    5,931
    Likes Received:
    5,079
    An example of "2 of X" is Ikari. A Special Fireteam of Keisotsu must be exactly 3 Keisotsu, 1 Tanko, and 1 Brawler. No more, No less. They can't even reform a team without those exact troops. It's very clear for them, but it's confusing the hell out of others.

    Then there are others that are “Can join XX but only on a Sunday when the moon is full and Every other Thursday, expect on a leap year”
     
    #308 Space Ranger, Jun 13, 2019
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2019
  9. toadchild

    toadchild Premeasure

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    4,262
    Likes Received:
    8,073
    That’s a great example, but Ikari don’t have any wildcards. If they did, one could replace any one of those five troops and it would still be a legal team.
     
  10. Ogid

    Ogid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2018
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    755
    XDD you guys are relentless.
    I agree that it would be better if the same system would be used for all "Fireteam:Skill", but this one is good enough for now. I rather them expending their time fixing other rules that need love much more than a technicallity about Fireteam:Core being or not being a skill.
     
    A Mão Esquerda likes this.
  11. Benkei

    Benkei Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2017
    Messages:
    1,757
    Likes Received:
    2,443
    And I still don't know if a Rudra can sub for a Yadu in an Asura + 2 Yadu link
     
  12. Ginrei

    Ginrei Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    428
    As I understand things, Yes it can. But I would not bet any money on it.
     
    Benkei likes this.
  13. Ogid

    Ogid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2018
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    755
    2 Yadus + 1 Asura special Haris
    Haris ability in Yadus. Haris ability needed.
    Rudra "can join" Yadu fireteam = wildcard only for Yadu fireteams
    So, you can do it as long as you don't replace the Haris Yadu.

    Group 1 and 2 legal Haris, 3 illegal Haris
    Operations Subsection of the S.S.S.
    ──────────────────────────────────────────────────

    GROUP 1[​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]3
    YADU (Fireteam: Haris) MULTI Rifle, E/Marat, Drop Bears (Throwing Weapon) / Heavy Pistol, Knife. (0.5 | 37)
    YADU Heavy Rocket Launcher, Submachine Gun / Heavy Pistol, Knife. (2 | 35)
    ASURA Spitfire, Nanopulser / Pistol, AP CCW. (2 | 70)

    GROUP 2[​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]3
    YADU (Fireteam: Haris) MULTI Rifle, E/Marat, Drop Bears (Throwing Weapon) / Heavy Pistol, Knife. (0.5 | 37)
    ASURA Spitfire, Nanopulser / Pistol, AP CCW. (2 | 70)
    RUDRA Red Fury, Mine Dispenser / Electric Pulse. (1 | 40)

    GROUP 3[​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]3
    YADU Heavy Rocket Launcher, Submachine Gun / Heavy Pistol, Knife. (2 | 35)
    ASURA Spitfire, Nanopulser / Pistol, AP CCW. (2 | 70)
    RUDRA Red Fury, Mine Dispenser / Electric Pulse. (1 | 40)

    13 SWC | 434 Points

    Open in Infinity Army
     
    #313 Ogid, Jun 14, 2019
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2019
    Ginrei likes this.
  14. Ginrei

    Ginrei Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    428
    That's a good simplification.
     
    Ogid likes this.
  15. Ogid

    Ogid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2018
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    755
    Ty, but that one is from @ijw: https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threads/forming-fireteams-a-summary.3553/

    That's again the same problem, key rules in the forum instead of in official sources. In the wiki you don't have so clear what "count as X" and "can be part of/can join" means, nor the "remember that a fireteam:X still needs the "Fireteam:X" ability under Wilcard rule.
     
  16. Cartographer

    Cartographer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    738
    Likes Received:
    1,216
    If the Asura was the Haris profile in your third example, it would be perfectly legal as a "Yadu" Haris, since we now know that the only requirement for a "named unit" fireteam is the presence of a single member of that unit (or a "counts as" trooper...).
     
    Ogid likes this.
  17. Ogid

    Ogid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2018
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    755
    Good one, I don't play Aleph and somehow I didn't see Asura has a Fireteam:Haris profile XD. Yep, in that case if the third one with the Haris in the Asura would be legal too.
    But the requirement for the "named unit" fireteam with the single member is just for the Cores, not for Duos or Haris. Asura Haris + Rudra + Samekh FTO would be legal too.
     
    #317 Ogid, Jun 14, 2019
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2019
  18. Cartographer

    Cartographer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    738
    Likes Received:
    1,216
    Yeah, good luck getting that one past an opponent or TO.
    When the Rudra specifically says it can join "any Yadu fireteam", to then try and claim that a fireteam: Haris containing exactly zero Yadu is in fact a Yadu fireteam, is pushing it (and a great way to gain a reputation you don't want in gaming circles).

    Until the fireteam: Core "clarification" we had exactly no guidance as to what a "named unit" fireteam actually was, regardless of whether it was core, Haris or duo.

    I'll say again, the whole set of fireteam rules need a complete cleanup.
     
  19. Ogid

    Ogid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2018
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    755
    As long as you work within the rules you shouldn't have problems:
    A yadu fireteam is composed by Y+Y; Y+Y+Y o Y+Y+X (being Y Yadu and X Deva or Asura)
    If I build my fireteam using that template but I change all Y for other models I will be fine unless in the rules there is something that check if I have any Yadu there for being a Yadu fireteam. That rule now exist only for Cores, so that Haris should be absolutely legal.
    I'm not pushing it, I'm working with the rules we have now. If CB doesn't want it to be legal, they only have to add a rule as they did with Cores or define that a X haris need at least one X or a troop that count as X. Don't overthink it, go RAW.
     
    Robock likes this.
  20. Cartographer

    Cartographer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    738
    Likes Received:
    1,216
    You are 100% pushing it if you're trying to form a "Yadu" fireteam containing exactly no Yadu. And that sort of action is exactly the way to quickly run out of players willing to play you.
     
    A Mão Esquerda likes this.
  • About Us

    We are a company founded in 2001 in Cangas (Spain), and devoted to design and manufacture games and figures. Our main product, Infinity the Game, was born with the ambition to satisfy the most demanding audience, offering the best quality.

     

    Why are we here?

     

    Because we are, first and foremost, players.

  • Quick Navigation

    Open the Quick Navigation