Smoothing out the wording is needed, definitely but the full meaning had to be stated so there were no loop holes. Because no team members are receiving any BS or Burst Bonus, the dice calculator reveals a lot of shots miss and HMG, MSR and ML ranges dont match up with small arms, so there wont ever be an ideal firefight for all members in a team. More members is for redundancy and expanding sphere of influence. If you think about it, a 2 guys on the outside of a building wouldnt really benefit from their 2 friends inside a building, but put one guy in a doorway that completes a visual circuit of overlapping fields of vision and being certain you dont have to look behind you. Well, watching a swat team clear a shoot house. They arent looking back or constantly checking their peripherals, theirs the knowing the rest of the team is doing their job, right? A larger team keeps that up and a larger team does allow for more attacks and specialists to be brought forward at the same time. If you're allowed to have a 5 man team, and reconstituting a team costs a command token, you wouldn't choose to form a 5 man team to make the team more resilient by virtue of more bodies and more table coverage? I do understand the original bonus are meant as an abstraction to represent a team working together, these suggested changes are less an abstraction and more a literal sense of the benefit of a fireteam. Even with 5 snipers on a roof or 5 HGMs moving forward, they are still heavily limited not only by B-1 but by positioning as well. It's not even close to as devastating as people think. Equivalent troops in sup fire range or with mods quickly even out the odds and it becomes a game of simultaneously trades. Yes the the team by virtue of unopposed rolls moves forward but unless luck and proper management takes place it's at a cost and that train loses steam over Time even in it's own active turn. It's better, to just use the Solo mode with the right tool and then Team Fire on the right target when you're expecting losses regardless. Remember, no BS or Burst Bonus means shooters wont be as deadly as they are now and then lower their Burst by 1 and rangers won't match up too... Maybe these suggestions actually deserve a fair shake? People love playing Infinity already, if anyone has players they can play and covid isnt a problem for them then they can let us know how its plays...
I actually really appreciate this diagram, but, what if the enemy is at 10 o'clock instead of 12? I suspect then the whole team is not able to participate. Not even talking about all the other factors involved. I think the main concern is despite the odds of all shots missing or bouncing off armor for more expensive troops, there is a chance of extreme luck outright killing a troop in one Order. There is also the fact that people are still thinking about tactics based on the current fireteam rules. I'm refraning ftom bringing up other possible solutions because they belong in the other persons thread. This is just a discussion of fireteams bring better versions of coordinated orders as WiT said.
It's enough with just two models able to participate to force an opponent into a very difficult position of having to either Dodge/Reset or giving some enemies unopposed rolls. With coordinated orders that comes with a huge reduction in burst and a limit to only at most 4 orders able to do it - you're suggesting a much smaller burst reduction and up to 12-ish times per turn. Then add in a hacker (or pheroware) into the mix and it gets impossible to even make bad choices.
Giving so much information upfront was intended to mitigate any possibility of fireteams becoming OP... it definitely can be cleaned up, I agree but it definitely had to be this specific. If a persons preferable solution is not a better version of Coordinated Orders that's fine, but I haven't seen any suggested changes that single handedly bring LI back tone down those Fireteams Ramboing up the field. That being said, I do understand the concern about 5 HMGs in a fireteam, but that means 5 SWC of the opponents force are all in one spot. They may kill everything they look at for a few orders, but their numbers will dwindle with the right AROs and that will lower their effectiveness as well. Where the current rules, you basically have to crit in order to score a hit on the guy shooting at you...
You think it should be exactly Coordinated Orded reductions? Cause if you can get enough people behind that idea you'll probably be able to get CB to change it in a year. But then B3 weapons might not be ideal for coordinated orders yet alone B4 weapons.
Even then, the amount of detail and granularity is expressly opposite one of the explicit intentions of N4, greater simplicity. It's immaterial how much thought has gone into your wall of text, the fact that it cannot be summed up simply means it's a non-starter. Fireteams as they stand are insanely simple to understand mechanically. Three members get +1B, four get 6th Sense, five get BS+3 and a +3 to Discover. Done and dusted. Again, good on you for putting in so much thought, but even so, unless you can describe it as simply as that, it's a complete dead end.
You're absolutely right. I'm hoping folks here settle that some form of coordinated order is the simplest way to reel fireteam lethality in while bolstering LI that are in the fireteam. Now I understand people's concerns about fielding 5 SWC weapons at the same time, and honestly, that's a fair concern. I'm hoping people come up with suggestions to change something instead of walking away from the table cause then no one gets any solution. Some improvement is better than no improvement as they say. You think a limitation on a max of 1 per any kind of SWC profile per unit per fireteam is suitable? I'm just having this thought now and it seems like it might work without steeping on too many toes. You can have as many HMGs or MSRs or hackers etc as you like in a fireteam but each must be from a different unit. Like 1 Orc HMG and 1 Fusilier HMG? But not 2 Fusilier HMGs? At least on the surface level it it should lower people's fears.
I don't like that restriction at all. It doesn't make any sense outside of the game rules. It also randomly allows the armies with particular types of wildcards to take more than one of a SWC weapon in a team, while the other armies never seem to have had that idea...
Indeed, I just looked at Invincible Army. I actually wouldn't want the game to become more restrictive like that but then game has restrictions because it is a game. Alternatively, it could be where each fireteam may only have one of any type of weapon... and yes I'm aware I'm throwing spaghetti at the wall but perhaps just limiting fireteams to only allow one of any kind of SWC weapon. So one HMG, one Spitfire, Sniper Rifle, one KHD, one HD etc...
I'm actually curious what the "minimum viable" is for fireteams. What percentage of players would play them if... You could form unlimited fireteams in a sectorial, with up to 5 models each, but they worked like Duos do (just with more members) so the only significant benefit was order efficiency and tinbots? (Secondary question, would people mostly use 2-3 man teams and stop playing 4- and 5-man teams due to being unwieldy?) You could form up to 5 fireteams, either Duo or Haris, they worked like Duos in terms of bonuses/tinbots/etc., but you only check Coherency at the start and end of the player turn? You could form some combination of fireteams with significantly reduced bonuses, but breaking coherency doesn't cause the stray trooper to leave the team, he just loses the effects of the fireteam bonuses while out of coherency with the team leader? The only fireteam bonus is that as long as 2 or more members are in a non-Null state, every member in coherency with the team leader gets 360 Visor? The only fireteam bonus is that if one member gets an ARO they can all declare an ARO? Core teams go away, 4- and 5-man bonuses go away, you can have two Haris teams, and Duos and up get 360 Visor instead of four-man teams getting Sixth Sense? All the current benefits apply, but only one member of a Haris or two members of a Core may be wildcards? (This gives the added benefit of letting counts-as troopers bypass the wildcard restriction for thematic reasons.) The reason I ask is that I'm not really sure what the minimum level of enticement for me would be, to make a sectorial feel balanced with vanilla without making fireteams too weaksauce to bother with or too OP to be fair. The problems I'm most aware of with link teams are basically: Moving links and managing coherency are a limitation, and also can get fiddly enough to slow down play, leading five-man teams to be semi-stationary. I think this tends to make play less dynamic, especially if that team is a sniper/marksman DZ castle. Managing big links but wanting to use them actively seems to encourage people to play a Haris and a short 3-man Core often enough for it to be a notable style of listbuilding. Mixed links tend toward min-maxing, and make very strong pieces even stronger while relegating line troops to filler duty. Sixth Sense is a big oof, especially with certain kinds of link composition. The +3 bonus to hit is just excessive when stacked on stronk pieces, and it's the first to be lost, so using it to power up a line trooper is a waste if you have any better gun at all in the link. It's almost always going to be slapped on a Kamau or Grenzer or whatever. The Core might be Fusilier link, but no Fusilier will ever use that MOD in the active turn. The rules are a bit fiddly to learn. I suspect that some combination of getting looser with coherency (to make managing links easier and encourage players to move them more), toning down bonuses in general, and capping wildcards at 1 per link would probably go a long way. That said, we're supposedly going to see new fireteam rules soon enough. Let's maybe wait and see what they come up with?
Of all the suggestions I've seen, I like the notion of treating Fireteams as units conducting a Coordinated Order, or alternatively making the bonuses contingent on the number of models with LOF but reduce the # required by 1 (so if you have 2 guys who can see, you get +1B, for example). The second suggestion is the simplest. It would also give Duos a real reason to exist. This would sway the power of Fireteams heavily toward Active Turn since an opponent can pretty easily pie slice to see one guy at a time in their turn. I prefer the first, because it gives you motivation to engage with, say, a combi (B2) and a Panzerfaust (B1) - in most cases it makes Suppression Fire more useful by means of providing B3. There could, of course, be some flex in there (e.g., rather than 1/2B rounding up for the Spearhead / Fireteam Leader, make it B-1, so a combi is B2 but a Spitfire is B3, that kind of thing).
I did originally type up alot but it's better to put it simply, right? Simply put, the struggle for solutions in the game is abstraction vs realistic. Abstract solutions to problems are easy to remember but dont always succeed. Realistic solutions are intuitive but complex unless you make the whole game realistic, the intuitiveness overrides the complexity. But that's a lot of work. Exactly, I believe that's how a participating high burst weapon should shoot if they are the spearhead/leader. -1 to account for waiting just a little bit longer for everyone to get into position. It's just, it doesnt make sense to limit the Burst of an HMG to 1 if he's not the spearhead. That being said, let's change the supporting troops burst to half rounded down to a minimum of 1 then. So combi, smg, sniper, ML, RL are all B1 if supporting, but spitfire, hmg, assault pistol at B2. If the troop has B+1 like Ajax then it's still half burst rounded down, so 2 for him.
For those reading, please keep checking back to the original posts suggestions, as the comments roll in, I'm making slight changes here and there to hopefully better address concerns about fire teams being OP while still getting Line Troops to participate more in the game.
Coming from Tohaa, my favorite element of link teams has always been the movement. I would play pretty much any of those adaptations you mention, as I mostly just want movement. But I gotta say, 360 visor seems like a really poor idea - facings are an element of the game that players have immense control over, and therefore, can use to make good game decisions. 360v just takes that element of the game away. No thanks. I'm a really big fan of the coherency relaxation ideas. Anything to make mobile big cores less annoying to deal with. I personally would also really appreciate it if the weird counterplay of bushes >>> link teams went away too.
A while back I posted a thread asking if people would still use fireteams if the only bonus was movement. The consensus ended up being yes, but definitely not 5-member teams due to the increased complexity of moving them around the table and associated vulnerability to templates. I think the actual minimally viable fireteam is way below current levels, but would significantly change how sectorials are played.
The only thing I want fireteams to get, is the ability to move together. Nothing more. That's already an advantage over vanilla.
Why two when we can have one suitable enough? Just let it be not cancelling Surprise and Smoke but mitigating them by 3 (Surprise [-3] ==> Surprise [0], returning fire through Zero Vis [-6] ==> returning fire through Zero Vis [-3]). Kinda your buddies shooting back at the same flashes in the mist, so it's easier to hit somebody there for the squad. No need to implement back the second level of the skill and also makes more interesting to add profiles with Surprise Attack[-6] (I remember only one troop with the rule and it's a lackluster though)
