I can understand the wish to change Fireteams, but I don't think this would be a good direction. At the same time as completely removing all defensive benefits for Fireteams, you potentially make them more powerful in the active turn by forcing the target into a choice of Dodge, or suffer multiple Normal Rolls to hit them.
I dislike Fireteams - preferring a pure skirmish game, where every model counts. Yet, that might not work for Infinity. Where cheap models serve more as a resource to fuel powerful models. In that regard, where Fireteams work for me is when they give purpose to the cheap cheerleaders and make them a working asset. Less so, when they turn HI into a death star, yet again that gives purpose to the non-SWC HI. Where they don’t work is, when they just reduce cheap models to a simple bonus to an elite model, like when kazaks support a Vet Kazak or other mixed teams. The elite models are already cool and effective in and of themselves, they do not need more time in the spotlight or superpowers.
You know, as someone who's been sucessfully running solo Sheskiin a lot recently... I kinda agree that the idea of putting hyper-elite models into fireteams is not that good. Vet Kazaks can kick a lot of ass without fireteam bonuses, just like Sheskiin does... However, I honestly think the ideas being thrown around this thread for fireteams are just a bit whack, mates. Removing fireteams from the game would severely cripple some armies that are already struggling to begin with, and would force a total redesign to make more sectorial-unique profiles in order to justify taking sectorials to begin with. Not to mention some profiles seem to be tailor made to work in a fireteam (the gwailios come to mind) I do agree fireteams need to be rebalanced and rethought, and that it is a good idea to check again which units can link with what. But I won't try so say how these changes need to be implemented. I have no idea that I feel is good enough and wouldn't break the game or break an army.
Like I wrote earlier on the Yu Jing forums, I've nearly entirely changed pace to O-12 since they came out and O-12 feels very solid indeed. There's no Fireteams so what you mention regarding certain models is very true (there's very little reason to take Kappa and even considering future Fireteams there's some very dubious loadouts). However, I must say playing the game as a skirmish game without Fireteams work really well and I think completely nuking Fireteams from the game shouldn't be an alien idea. For the most part I feel like death star lists in particular don't really work all that well as it is, and even if IA is less of a Death Star faction and more like a faction trying to make very large Star Destroyers, I've shied away from them on the simple fact that I can't get them to work when I have to face some objectively quality bunch of players each and every time I play. O-12 on the other hand, as limited as they are, is a faction where attention to features have been payed, they have the tools necessary even though the range of options available is still tiny compared to Pan-O. I mean, I'm not winning our tournaments, but I feel more like I'm playing to my level of competency with O-12, so when I can go with a 4-4 draw against the winner of the German satellite tournament, that's a pretty good result! (Besides, the guy is always a joy to play against, so even just playing against him is a win in itself) So basically, I think that they could actually make a game where sectorials could be Fireteam-free if they set their mind to it. Would probably mean they'd have to make a lot more sectorial-unique loadouts or even sectorial-only units (maybe Kriza is too rare to be played outside of Tunguska and maybe it's too difficult to get hold of a Jotums for black ops missions outside of Svalarheima) and they'd definitely have to reconsider the rather weird feature-complete nature of the cheerleader units. Like DaRedOne wrote, that's a lot of work, but I don't actually think Fireteams should be held as a sacred part of the game. Loads of other games do that already - and better IMO.
I moved back in October, and have been going through boxes and boxes of stuff I've picked up over the years. I recently ran across an old tabletop game by White Wolf (yes, the guys who created Vampire:The Masquerade) called Trinity Battleground, where the 'fireteam' on the table is your support mooks and the characters with big guns and whatnot are solo. That might be a more interesting/characterful idea than the current fireteams.
Fireteams are in a weird place at the moment. They're not OP, most of the best players seems to agree that overall vanilla factions are still very strong, if not outright at the top of the food chain, and there are a lots of different way to handle them. Yet, the game still kinda revolves around them, and IMO the ridiculous standard they set both for active and reactive firepower makes them act as "gatekeepers", rendering bunch of units obsolete, or at least much harder to justify in a list, simply because they can't meet those standard and can't really do their job as long as your opponent's fireteam is up and kicking. Looking at nothing but pure math on the dice calculator, just ditching the +3BS bonus for fireteams seems to be enough to let those units have some breathing room, and would probably let some factions enjoy a bit more diversity. On the other hand, if they're not exactly OP, is it the right thing to nerf them?
Cutting the quote down for emphasis only. Yes? Maybe. A feature can promote a way of playing that's not wanted without being overpowered. In case of Fireteams one simple issue I find with them is that they're time consuming to handle, and this is a big part of why they are typically not too OP, it's hard to put them all in a good position and this leads to a lot of potential fidgeting or second guessing or moving terrain around so you can reach and move all of them while at the same time this is what leads to them often being placed facing the wrong way or clumped up for templates to hit. I think Tohaa has it right in terms of size and number of Fireteams (flexibility shouldn't be for all sectorials) as well as impact of the bonuses. Also, if I were to remove only one Fireteam bonus, it'd be Sixth Sense.
You are probably right. It increases the offensive bonus but at the same time you have more chance to lose someone due to bad luck (HMG becomes burst 2 ...) and the power of the FT is defined by all its components, not just one super beefy guy supported by cheerleaders. And the main point was to erase one extra layer of rules. If it's too much, what about erasing FT rules and give sectorials more command tokens to do more coordinated order to reflect the fact the army act better on the field ? Like 6 or even 8 command tokens ? Wouldn't work for Tohaa and Steel Phalanx of course as the FT is whats define them ... I know I'm no game designer ... just throwing some ideas to make the game more simple. I just hope N4 bring some change to FT as well.
Have we mentioned defining and using all the terms and keywords in the rulebook? things like Trooper?
I kinda like sixth-sense as a bonus, it's a good counter to surprise shots, smoke tricks and camos. The rule itself is a bit messy, but the fact remain that it provides a solution to some very common and very strong tactics, which is a good thing IMO.
Reasonable, but it's way too much with so many factions getting access to cheap linked MSV super-gunners. The only mods which apply against them are FA2, Range and Cover, which removes a good bit of Infinity's interesting mod-stacking and can reduce many lists to crit-fishing. More mods that aren't purely visual or surprise might be a fun alternative to killing the Fireteam buffs.
It would actually be cool if in N4 all ammo types would be subject to a structure like this: 1. Ammo family: { Standard | Biotechnological | Combined | Special } -- defines the save attribute this ammunition targets (Standard targets ARM, Biotechnological targets BTS, Combined targets both, Special targets other attributes or doesn't cause a Save Roll at all like Smoke). 2. Traits -- ammo traits go here (instead of being only mentioned in the weapon chart) 3. Save type: { None | ARM | BTS | Both | Special } -- defines the save roll which a successful hit with this ammunition will cause. None means that this ammo type just modifies the Ammo effects, without causing a Save itself. 4. Effects -- effects that will take place for each successful hit with this ammunition type. Some effects replace effects of other ammunition types. 5. Critical effects -- effects that take place for each critical hit with this ammunition type is rolled. Then having discussions like this, that old discussion on Bioimmunity vs Breaker + Shock etc. wouldn't be necessary, and describing how different ammunition types combine their effects would also be easier, since only some ammo types will cause a Save, while others are just modifying the Save related to their ammo family. Examples: Normal Ammo family: Standard Traits: none Save type: ARM Effects: successful hit causes 1 ARM roll. Each failed Save Roll causes the target to lose 1 W/STR point. Critical effects: instead of making an ARM roll, the target loses 1 W/STR point directly. Viral Ammo family: Biotechnological Traits: System Shock (see Effects) Save type: BTS Effects: successful hit causes 2 BTS rolls. Each failed Save Roll causes the target to lose 1 W/STR point. Troopers having single Troop Profile and W attribute on their Troop Profile equal to 1 who lose a Wound because of this ammunition type will enter Dead state directly, bypassing the Unconscious state. Special Skills may modify this effect. NB: This should be probably keyworded into something like 'System Shock' so rules are less wordy, so I will use this keyword in the following examples. Critical effects: instead of making 2 BTS rolls, the target loses 1 W/STR point directly (without rolling a save), then makes the remaining BTS roll. Armour-Piercing (AP) Ammo family: Standard Traits: none Save type: none Effects: successful hit causes the ARM roll to be halved (rounding up), so ARM 1..2 becomes ARM 1, ARM 3..4 becomes ARM 2 etc. Each failed Save Roll causes the target to lose 1 W/STR point. Critical effects: same as Normal. Explosive (EXP) Ammo family: Standard Traits: Anti-Materiel Save type: none Effects: successful hit causes 3 ARM rolls, instead of one (so 2 hits will cause 6 ARM rolls etc.). Each failed Save Roll causes the target to lose 1 W/STR point. Critical effects: instead of making 3 ARM rolls, the target loses 1 W/STR point directly (without rolling a save), then makes the remaining 2 ARM rolls. Plasma Ammo family: Combined Traits: none Save type: Both Effects: successful hit causes 1 ARM roll and 1 BTS roll. Each failed Save Roll causes the target to lose 1 W/STR point. Critical effects: instead of making 1 ARM roll and 1 BTS roll, the target loses 1 W/STR point directly (without rolling a save), then makes the remaining BTS roll. This effect only applies to the Main Target of the attack in case of using a weapon mode that uses Templates. Flash Ammo family: Biotechnological Traits: Non-lethal Save type: BTS Effects: successful hit causes 1 BTS roll. Any failed Save Roll causes the target to enter Stunned state. unless target has any level of Valor skill (or a skill that provides any level of Valor), the target automatically fails the subsequent Guts Roll. NB: I would suggest Religious Troop to be merged into Valor as Valor X: Religious to make the rules more fluid. Critical effects: instead of making a BTS roll, the target enters Stunned state directly. Smoke Ammo family: Special Traits: Zero-visibility (NB: this is here to replace tha obnoxious Special Dodge thing which doesn't even have its own rules section), Harmless (NB: this trait makes it possible to affect friendly and neutral models with this ammunition type) Save type: none Effects: successful hit creates a Special Terrain area the size of a Circular Impact Template and infinite height that has the following Special Terrain rules: Zero Visibility Zone. the Special Terrain area created by this ammunition will be removed from the battlefield at closest end step. Critical effects: none. Eclipse Ammo family: Special Traits: Zero-visibility, Reflective, Harmless Save type: none Effects: same as Smoke, but the resulting Special Terrain area also has the Reflective trait. Critical effects: none. Nimbus Ammo family: Special Traits: Reflective, Harmless Save type: none Effects: successful hit creates a Special Terrain area the size of a Circular Impact Template and infinite height that has the following Special Terrain rules: Low Visibility Zone, Saturation Zone and the Reflective trait. the Special Terrain area created by this ammunition will be removed from the battlefield at closest end step. Critical effects: none. Adhesive (ADH) Ammo family: Special Traits: Non-lethal Save type: special Effects: successful hit causes the target to make a PH-6 roll. Any such failed roll causes the target to enter IMM-2 state. Critical effects: instead of making a PH-6 roll, the target enters IMM-2 state directly. Fire Ammo family: Standard Traits: none Save type: ARM Effects: successful hit causes 1 ARM roll. Each failed Save Roll causes the target to lose 1 W/STR point and then make another ARM roll. This process is then repeated until one of the following is true: the target makes a successful Save Roll the target enters Dead state if target has any Skills or Equipment that have the Fire-Sensitive label, successful hit also causes the target to enter Burnt state regardless of the Save Roll result. Critical effects: instead of making an ARM roll, the target loses 1 W/STR point directly, then makes an ARM roll and follows the rules for regular effects of this ammunition type. The target will also enter Burnt state, as per rules for regular effects of this ammunition type.
Yes, but a small thing. Critical Effect is repeated ad nausea. It should only be used in cases where it over-rules the general case of that "a critical hit causes the target to automatically fail one of the attack's ARM/BTS rolls". This way you'd only need to write it once and it reduces the over all rules overhead where you'd need to re-read all text for each ammo in case you missed something - and I think only E/M CCW and ammo that targets both ARM and BTS needs a specific line about crits. (as a side note, there is a general case at the moment, which is that failing an ARM/BTS causes you to lose one W/STR, but since absolutely all ammo has a special note on critical hits, you never, ever, use it)
Seriously. Trooper should mean the same thing every time it's mentioned in the rules; we shouldn't have to divine what the writers meant with some knucklebones and ayahuasca.
Myself, I'd rid the game of the capacity for running Rambo models and especially Rambo fireteams across the whole board, dominating the table and disregarding everything else. What's the point of making a 15+ model 300 pts list and then moving around only one or five models, which cost barely a third of the list together, if that, and the active element is likely at 40ish points tops? Or fighting with whole teams of specialists or singular Rambos, either solitary or at the spearhead of four cheerleaders, only there to cheese out a +1 Burst, +3 to hit and Stealth / Sixth Sense L2 for the already elite spearhead model? Or with choo-choo trains of cheerleaders who exist only to cheese out 25 movement Orders out of 5 Regular Order tokens, just to get their Forward Observer specialist to an antenna and let him click it with a sixth? Even if I just play Tohaa Triads in Group 1 and spend 10-11 Orders on moving them around, that's still an effect of 30-33 Orders actually spent! With a Vet Kazak choo choo train that's 50-55 effective orders spent. How about a ridiculous 30+ Order Kazak list, where I can make hundreds of effective Orders per turn by moving whole Fireteams around?! How the hell is this fair and balanced against a vanilla 10 or 15 Order list again? I'd probably go as far as disallowing spending "nested" Orders at all or making it an expensive tactical option rather than the norm. By default - one model, one Order, that's it. The shape of "fireteams" would be allowing 2 to 5-man Groups to exist at all and spending Regular orders within them like we do now for Regular troops, still one per model, but several per model allowed in a "fireteam". Today's "fireteam movement" allowed as a form Coordinated Order, paid with CTs. This would force people to use all the soldiers they deployed, make way better use of them and would cut down on all the Rambo bullshit we keep seeing on our tables. Want to move like a bloody SWAT team, five models acting for a single Order? Pay a CT each time and hope that they're in a Group together. They'll still have up to 4-5 Orders to spend like that, tops. That's at best one turn of Ramboing, half of the current range, not a full game, across the whole table.
You miss the point of the ops Infinity is supposed to represent. A few operators perform the mission, and everyone else is support; securing the perimeter, keeping watch, providing covering fire, standing ready to reinforce, etc. The "Rambo" mechanic actually simulates this fairly well, and is part of the game's appeal, IMHO. I've never understood the "change Infinity so that it is like every other game out there" attitude. If you want an "every unit moves and every unit shoots" mechanic, find another game. It won't be hard. Infinity should keep its unique mechanics.
You rather completely miss the point of what I said. No, Infinity would not be like ANY other game after those changes. Not with ARO, not with LIMITED coordination of Orders, not with the rule complexity, etc. The point is that 50 to 120 effective Orders per turn of a Sectorial vs 10 of a Vanilla list is a huge mismatch that the generalism of Vanilla profiles doesn't even begin to cover. The Rambo mechanic is a cheesy way to abuse the system that is nowadays so ingrained in the perception of the game that people like you will buck and bend over claiming that it's essential to it, while it's nothing of the kind. And you need to find another thread, this one is about suggestions, wishes and ideas for changes in N4. Those are mine and you won't be telling me to "find another game" or another kind of gatekeeping bullshit.
Uh? The Fireteams can get multiple movements... but fire bonus is just adding 1 to Burst, not multiplying by 3-5. They can not activate a console 5 times like if they were smashing drums, either. The penalties for the "free" motion is that they must stay near each other, providing a bigger target in the zone of action, instead of staying safer somewhere else. They also must react with same order, even if that means non optimal ARO, so less safe again. So you are not getting hundreds of effective (no matter how many times you repeat those words or make them more visible) Orders, only moving a "flexible silhouette" with improved stats but other cons in exchange. If so obvious, everyone would agree... which does not seem the case. You seem to be alone in wanting everyone having, so to speak, irregular training.
Aro baiting is a blight on the game. When my opponent baits a change face (why does the non stealth option provide the best way to get into cc by the way) and all I can do is an aro I don't want. You have removed agency. I'll die on this hill all day. I love Infinity it's a great game. But having to explain to someone what im doing and the look of realisation on their face and then the subsequent glazing over as they just wait for you to do it, the engagement, the risk, the foundation of aro choice is all destroyed. It's a rule that exists and I use it b cause I believe it is our job to work faithfully within the rules. CBs job is to create a ruleset that we want to continue playing. Please for the love of God at least look at it and decide if what it gives you in the game is worth the cost.
