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

Mixed Fireteams: a proposal

Discussion in 'Access Guide to the Human Sphere' started by Cabaray, Apr 13, 2021.

  1. Cabaray

    Cabaray Well-Known Member
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2017
    Messages:
    241
    Likes Received:
    557
    Hey Guys,

    I have been having fun so far with N4 and mainly playing it through TTS. But I have a pet peeve about Mixed Fire teams. I want to propose an overhaul and have put some ideas to paper which I want to share here.

    Their are a massive amount of combinations of units now along the 34 sectorials that are allowed to form link teams. In the early years it was simpler: "troops of the same unit type could form a link team, steel phalanx and tohaa being an exception". Now we are at a point that I as a veteran player and warcor, am at a loss what is possible. If a MO player would come and role up with his crossier core and have two crossiers form up with a clipper, knight of hospitaler and a knight commander, I would not know beforehand if it is allowed, cause their are factions that run these kind of combinations of heavy infantry and REM with missiles inside a Light infantry core. The structure has become muddled with wild cards, counts as, unique exceptions, minimums, etc. For your own faction that you play, I can still say: "pretty cool I can combine X,Y,Z". But I have no clue what is allowed outside of that. The internal logic of old has been lost and it is a hassle to check what is allowed. Mistakes can be made easily and what to do when someone does not have the right combination?

    At the same time their is a combination that keeps bubbling up: that is the Heavy Shooter dude, fueled by cheap cheerleaders. Mostly winged by a haris that is also pretty efficient in cost and firepower. And since we are now locked in a 15 unit cap. That means 8 models having almost the same composition as any other sectorial. The other 7 have to bring a lot of flavor to the mix if they are not straight up cheer leaders themselves to fuel these two link teams. Worst case a game can turn into who has the best efficient build link teams.

    And if you ask me truly in my heart of hearts. I think Infinity is meant to be played vanilla without link teams. I don’t think that link teams are overpowered. I think link teams make the game less interesting than what a Vanilla list offers to a game of infinity. But I spoke to Guttier a few years back and he told me that link teams sell models, so CB is going to keep them in, they have these SWC boxes after all, and I do not want to be unreasonable, but I do think that some reigning in is in order. I would like to see more "logic" in the make up of a fire team.

    My gold standard would be the days of old. Only troops of the same unit can form link teams (with steel phalanx and Tohaa as notable exceptions). That is how they sell the boxes after all of the same trooper with different weapon load outs. Now it has turned into buying such a box just for the HMG. So I think I am in the right here, but this might be a bit too harsh, since a lot of freedom has been permitted in later editions and to do that is to go against the design philosophy of Corvus Belli: “Don’t nerf, bring things in line”. So with that in mind:

    Where I would start off is that the majority of a link should be from the same unit. In a core, three should be from the same unit, two in a haris and well one in a Duo. The logic behind that is that the majority can keep the training cohesion and the rest can follow suit.

    Next thing I would propose is bringing in the unit classification to determine if a link team can be formed. A unit of Line troops that can core, can be joined by other Line troops that can core. Veteran troops that can core, can be joined by other Veteran Troops that can core and so on. This might have the effect that some units need to be overhauled in which bracket they fall. For example the Zuyong who is listed as Line troop, might fit more in with the elite troop section, But this way of putting link teams together serves the logic that units with roughly the same training and levels of expertise can at least support each other in battle. And that the units that form the link are way closer in points cost then say 1 HI with 4 LI.

    Then I would allow a few exceptions to cushion the blow of the change with the old situation.

    • A core, haris or duo is allowed 1 Wildcard unit. Not breaking the unit majority needed. So for example if you add the Unknown Ranger to a Minutemen core, there should still be at least 3 minutemen in that core.

    • A core, haris or duo is allowed 1 FTO REM. Not breaking the unit majority needed. Something CB introduced and is pretty fluffy to bring a robot companion to the squad for support.

    • A core, haris or duo of elite troops or veteran troops, is allowed to bring 1 Line trooper unit that is able to core, haris or duo. Not breaking the unit majority needed. This is mostly to help put the cost down of an expensive link, but not go too far overboard of having one heavy trooper being followed around by 4 cheerleaders. See it as their intern that needs to be shown how the professionals handle the battlefield.

    • Very sparingly have a few counts as models, with only 1 counts as unit allowed to join a link, Mainly for troops who are currently allowed to join links but are currently listed as Headquarter troops for example. That they count as a unit roughly the same cost bracket. Say a Aquila Guard, counts as an Orc for link team purposes.

    • And a few set fire teams: like joan and her hospitalers. Or the A-team of Hannibal and his companions in the Foreign Company. But also sparingly so we as players can understand that some teams of an internal logic of why they form a team.
    So that means in any occasion that a core link team will have a max of 2 different unit profiles differing from the existing core, Haris 1 different unit profile and Duo also 1 different unit. That would in my mind still allow a lot of mixing and matching while not turning into a vast mix of units with only one trooper actually being the core unit in that formation.

    And Steel Phalanx, Tohaa and Spiral can still have their special thing going on, cause if the other factions adhere to this rules, it is not so difficult to understand their setups.

    What do you think?
     
    #1 Cabaray, Apr 13, 2021
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2021
    ETEA, Ecthelion, Danger Rose and 15 others like this.
  2. the huanglong

    the huanglong Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2017
    Messages:
    2,023
    Likes Received:
    3,657
    Good way to make unit types always matter, but maybe consider classifications like line, veteran instead.
     
    Dragonstriker and Cabaray like this.
  3. Kreslack

    Kreslack Unknown Ranger lead the way!

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    583
    Likes Received:
    800
    I really like needing at least half of the link to be from the same unit. Makes the rifle and specialist options from the units much more attractive options.

    I think Wildcard Characters/Units shouldn't have to match unit types. But do have to take up one of the non majority slots.

    Also strongly for only one 'counts as' allowed. But I think he should be able to fill one of the majority slots. They should really reign in the 'counts as' list to compensate.

    I think all the factions should pretty much be held too it with a few small expections for Tohaa and Steel Phalanx. But they should also still 'mostly' have to play by the same restrictions.
     
    ETEA, Stiopa and the huanglong like this.
  4. Triumph

    Triumph Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    5,715
    Likes Received:
    6,472
    I handle the infinity orders for the LGS, I've stopped ordering line infantry SWC boxes for them for the most part, they don't sell anymore. Mixed links have done a pretty good job of killing their reason to be in a link.
     
    ETEA, Ecthelion, inane.imp and 6 others like this.
  5. fari

    fari CRISTASOL, EL LIQUIDO DE LOS DIOSES

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2017
    Messages:
    4,069
    Likes Received:
    4,434
    Mixed fireteams proposal. Go back to only same units can link (including characters of the same unit, like Isobel or Quinn), with important characters being wildcards and that's it. Tohaa and SSA are the exceptions
     
    Dragonstriker likes this.
  6. Cabaray

    Cabaray Well-Known Member
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2017
    Messages:
    241
    Likes Received:
    557
    Oh, that is even better. Did an update. And Kreslaks view on the Wildcard
     
    #6 Cabaray, Apr 13, 2021
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2021
    ETEA, Dragonstriker and the huanglong like this.
  7. Ghost87

    Ghost87 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2017
    Messages:
    118
    Likes Received:
    151
    Well done. Reflects opinions from various other threads but gives a possible solution.
    I also appreciate the attempt to make mild but well thought out modifications instead of throwing everything over board. Because let's be honest: a 180° turn in fire team rules will not happen.
     
  8. Kiwi Steve

    Kiwi Steve Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2018
    Messages:
    117
    Likes Received:
    185
    This very much reflects my view of the state of the game.

    Link teams which enhance cheap line infantry to be decent performers (bs14-15, +1B) is one thing, but did we really need to link guys who were already pretty good to make super super soldiers.

    As a mainly Nomad player I'm looking at units like Evader and Kriza here, but I also see this in my regular opponents Shang Ji, as these units already look competitive on their own.

    IMO the wildcard Evader singlehanded took Wildcat link from a maybe to a no, closing up design space in a competitive list and limiting the models I would buy rather than expanding them.
     
    ETEA, Ecthelion, inane.imp and 4 others like this.
  9. Metal730

    Metal730 Well-Known Member
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2019
    Messages:
    171
    Likes Received:
    281
    I honestly don't see how fireteams make the game less interesting than vanilla. At least for me, I pretty much always take models in fireteams I wouldn't take in Vanilla. In vanilla there is the illusion of choice because you get all the things! But in practice people stick with the ones that are the best 1 or 2 of that particular role. I personally see a lot more similarities between vanilla lists than sectorials.

    If your argument is that fireteams aren't well balanced I'd also disagree but I do think there is much more of a discussion to be had over that.

    Ultimately what is interesting is also subjective, I would feel stifled under the restrictions you've outlined above and would find this game both less interesting and less enjoyable.

    While I recognize that you may believe this statement strongly it is important to note that this is your opinion. I haven't built a CJC list in n4 without Wildcats yet and another person I know who runs CJC has also used Wildcats to great effect on multiple occasions. While the Evader is certainly awesome he hasn't invalidated Wildcats for myself or those I know.

    Likewise for the Kriza. It's an awesome profile and the model is what got me into Infinity but it honestly hasn't made many of my TJC lists because there is, in my eyes, steep competition for those points and those fireteams.
     
  10. SpectralOwl

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2018
    Messages:
    1,891
    Likes Received:
    3,130
    I've mentioned this in other places, but it bears repeating here; IMO the Fireteam rules are well-balanced if the whole link is in the same points bracket, and can even survive a mixed-in Specialist or quirky unit from a higher or lower price point. The entirety of the current problems with links comes from the lack of restraint of the team designing the armies at the moment, with safe discount choices and efficient gunners available at startlingly low costs being the norm. Mixed links aren't inherently a problem, I actually think when handled well they can easily increase the number of viable options for Sectorials, and they make collecting armies much easier since there's not quite so much of a pressing need to hunt down Starters or SWC boxes.
     
  11. Surmelk

    Surmelk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2018
    Messages:
    107
    Likes Received:
    112
    As a player of bouth vanilla and sectorials I'm rather happy with the link rules as is. I have found building links to be more fun than ever. The flexible links also makes me use more different models than ever.

    Links are usually the main reason for me to play sectorials. If the links gets to clunky or unflexible I will rather always play vanilla. Looking at all those sectorials and my models, that makes me sad.

    Edit: If we will see changes to fireteams it is likely to be only changes to bonuses or link-rules other than their composition. Changing which models can be in the links would mean an overhaul of all the sectorials and their core, counts as, wildcard etc models and balance that is a huge job and seems unlikely
     
    #11 Surmelk, Apr 14, 2021
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2021
    Cthulhu363 and Metal730 like this.
  12. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    7,205
    Likes Received:
    6,535
    The problem is that right now, they constrain listbuilding options as there are de facto "correct" builds for a lot of sectorials.

    I'm fundamentally opposed to the OP's idea that vanilla is the "right" way to play Infinity, as I see sectorials as more interesting forces with interesting limitations and advantages, but mixed fireteams are making different factions kind of samey.
     
    ETEA, Stiopa, Kreslack and 1 other person like this.
  13. Arloid

    Arloid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    55
    Likes Received:
    69
    This just complicates it even further. Just simplify it to skill tags in the unit profile on the army sheets.

    Fireteam FTO
    Signifies what units can join the minority section.
    Example: fusiliers
    fireteam FTO (2 orcs)

    Fireteam Joint-Op
    Signifies units of which only 1 of can join an fireteams minority section.
    Example: Crosiers
    Fireteam Joint-Op 1 (Knight Commander)

    Fireteam Wildcard
    Added to unit profiles of units that can join the majority section of another unit.
    Example: Order Sergeants
    Wildcard 1: (Crosiers, Hospitaler Knights, Teutonic Knights)
     
    Cabaray likes this.
  14. SpectralOwl

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2018
    Messages:
    1,891
    Likes Received:
    3,130
    Just played against a relatively fresh player, who was using Military Orders for the first time. And UNHOLY SHIT was it impossible to explain how the fucking Fireteams worked. Forget power scaling; I may have lost a player off the back of just how dense that idiotic Special Fireteams chart really is. You need Crosiers and Order Sergeants to make a basic team, every Friar except one can go in, Teutons are downright bizarre and the Crusade Fireteam is so tricky to explain without a diagram that it isn't funny.

    CB really can't go back on Fireteams as a whole, but the mandatory mixing and FTO cherrypicking needs to vanish. The Fireteam rules are complex enough already without needing to spend 15 minutes determining if a link is legal.
     
    ETEA, Ecthelion, inane.imp and 6 others like this.
  15. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    12,018
    Likes Received:
    15,302
    I don't think that limiting number of wildcards and "guest units" into a Fireteam will correct the inherent imbalance with Fireteams mostly 'cause the issue tends to be with that one really strong shooting unit using stacking fireteam bonuses. Typically is also involves a significantly more expensive unit slotted in to a much cheaper core, sometimes with the cost of all other units in a fireteam being less than that one strong unit.

    It does have merits in making fireteams less confusing, as @SpectralOwl outlined

    Still, current sectorial balance is made up off the back of really mixed fireteams, so strictly limiting the number of "guests" would require a huge balance pass over the entire game.
     
  16. Arloid

    Arloid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    55
    Likes Received:
    69
    Until you take into account that sectorials basically devolve into 1-3 core + as many effective wildcards the sectorial can reasonably take while staying point effective. With NCA I still feel like I have some choices to make, but there are some pretty oblivious wildcards like the Aquila that are going to be taken in every list. This often results in a select "team" to form in every list, resulting in a certain "core" being preffered for either chearleading or performance. This is somewhat developing in fusilier cores where a CSU and Aquila are a given with the fusilier Lt. There is some choice between the orc feuerbach/hmg and fusilier hmg/sniper with the orc shotgun also being interesting, but you can pretty much feel the linklock if the orc gets preference with an fusilier paramedic following for that HI revival.

    Honestly I see a lot of sectorials where the cores are close to locked in competitive sense.
     
  17. miguelbarbo84

    miguelbarbo84 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2018
    Messages:
    160
    Likes Received:
    169
    But there will always be optimal lists, specially if you consider "all comers", and that doesn't change by limiting the FT flexibility. If anything, it will be the other way around and some units will again be seldom used (which in the particular cases of Aquilas and Orcs is a real shame).

    I also agree that the current state is madness. MO is particularly affected as there are some clear and intentional limitations regarding liutenants, medics and cheerleader units.
    But, as others have mentioned, I think it would just be better to look at the bonuses and how those are applied. And clarify FT generation somehow, yeah.
     
  18. Arloid

    Arloid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    55
    Likes Received:
    69
    That can be remedied by making those part of the "wildcard" palette. Like I said above it can be adjusted so that things are balanced and interesting again. Additionally bonuses could be tied to the amount of majority units or those counting toward that. A Black Fiar could become interesting again if it can claim the +3 BS bonus while the link with the Aquila can't claim it.
     
  19. jake richmond

    jake richmond Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    295
    Likes Received:
    564
    While these suggestions seem fine, I'd REALLY prefer for Infinity to lose Fireteams entirely.
     
    Tourniquet likes this.
  20. fari

    fari CRISTASOL, EL LIQUIDO DE LOS DIOSES

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2017
    Messages:
    4,069
    Likes Received:
    4,434
    we'll see the fireteams rework, at some point. They have been working on it for some time.
     
  • 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