Would players be opposed to allow firearms a different kind of bonus but to get the full benefit of various weapons in that fireteam? For example we dont like the bonuses and I honestly dont like that if you include a burst 3-4 weapon in a coordinated order where its power comes from its burst and not its damage output like a sniper or panzerfaust, perhaps a scalable burst value for how many participants are in the Coordinated order. Let's use these as suggestive examples. Coordinated Order/#of fireteam members shooting: 2 troops - Spearhead gets full burst, 2nd guy gets max burst of 2. 3 troops - Spearhead gets burst of 3, other 2 guys get burst of 1. 4-5 troops - current coordinated rules...
I am assuming you're asking that we allow fireteams to basically trade in their current bonuses to behave like coordinated orders instead? No, that'd be awful. You're suggesting giving the active player the ability to basically enforce uncontested normal rolls at the reactive player and utterly invalidating AROs outside of Dodge. The only reason it's ok with coordinated orders is because it expends a limited and highly valuable resource with command tokens.
There is a reason coordinated orders are so restrictive right now (no link, no sync, all same training, reduced burst to 1, etc.) and have a high price tag (1 command token). Imo, the game needs more ways for the reactive player to interact with the game, not less.
I agree the power of links is too much but the power of a few key solo pieces is also too much that some sectorials cannot deal with outside of getting lucky with some dice from a full fireteam. That's why anyone, myself included, try to suggest any variation of rules that already exist that at least a guestimated 50% players might be okay with. Currently I recognize people like Coordinated Orders in Vanilla and Sectorials. Seems like a good place to start for fireteams. I know some people think just moving multiple troops around with the same order is enough, and for some sectorials that's the truth but I'd wager for at least 60% like 80% of sectorials, that's probably not enough to compete with Vanilla armies. I recognize that which threat is bigger, Vanilla or Sectorial is also subjective, but that's also because it depends what you're going up against in a particular match and your meta so everyone's games arent repetitive. A good argument in that is the good ol, who goes first wins deal. Well, we dont want that either. Something along the lines of Chess, where there is only a slight advantage to White, is the ideal. As for helping the reactive turn. I agree, hence mentioning who goes first wins. I like the Suppression Command Token use. I like removing 2 orders. Would people be opposed to allowing more use for command tokens in the beginning for the reactive turn. These are the sort of changes that can at least be applied universally so CB doesnt have to try and rush and put another bandaid fix on to the problem by applying something not heavily calculated onto just one unit in each sectorial that makes the unit indespensible to the reactive turn but is also a hack job that comes with it's own problems, cause we've seen that too. As for the attitude, this is only the request I'll make for it to stop right away, I've always been respectful till people werent. And even then, I've held back alot. We can all imagine a worse side from anyone, it's not necessary to bring it out. If you dont like suggestions, say that, say why you dont like it, suggest alternatives, but attitude isnt needed or appreciated for anyone.
I think actual fire team bonuse are good as they are the problematic part are the combination of MSV and mimetism/marksmanship on the pointman (that is external to fire team rules) and sixt sense, ARO in general need to be weaker than active otherwise the game become boring with bunker tactics. The only real problem is the first turn where the second player have just to play "Hide and pray" for me the best solution could be something like in the first player first turn he can activate only one combat group.
AROs are already are already weaker than Active turn so not sure they really need to be reigned in. Not sure that only being able to activate one combat group when going first would be a good idea due to command tokens being able to remove orders. Only having 8 orders for your first turn would be pretty bad for many armies while some lists with access to Tactical Awareness and Lieutenant L2, NCO, etc would be even more advantaged than they are now.
Personally I just want Fireteams to be less clunky and easier to use. Works like a charm for Tohaa, 3 guys, +1 B if all 3 are alive, basically unlimited mix and match. Why not take something that works and go from there instead of clinging to the annoying 5 man teams everyone loves to hate? A high end solo piece is easily able to keep up with and outshoot any ARO piece. It's an arms race, if you simply remove +3 BS and Sixth Sense from Defensive links, 90% of Sectorials are crippled in ARO, one of the most important aspects of N4. Vanilla armies have diversity to offset that with marker saturation, camo ARO shellgames, Hidden Deployment options, disposable bodies that don't cost you Orders etc. Some Sectorials have the options to compete without a Fireteam in the mix to complement your initial defenses. Nontheless most don't. I do however think that having Linetroopers enabling a HI SWC weapon is shitty design. If it were up to me all the sleek min maxed link composition with Wildcards would be limited to Haris/Duo. While shrinking Core Teams down to 3 people but only allowing the native trooper, "counts as X" and specific Special Cores (MI/HI mixed Core etc). 3 of the usual midline HI are around the same cost as a Cutter, Marut or Avatar. With 1 Core per army and less ridiculous filler options, I'd be happy to grant full core boni to something like 3 Mobile Brigada. But it's not up to me and I've pretty much given up on wishful thinking. So I'll just sit it out until we eventually get a Fireteam Rules update and run the most broken thing that results from it.
Just cause you say that quote doesnt make any idea less valuable. The problem is we're all clamoring to find ways to fix problems while still working within CBs framework. Just a month ago, some of us myself included were saying it's better if the requirement is met before declaration (because then premeasuring), and many many people here were telling us NO because at the time CB was still holding onto their belief that no premeasuring is what makes them special (and all the little things associated with ZoC and premeasuring AROs). But they figured out that the right way to go was the making the Requirement necessary before declaration. Even despite the decision coming from CB at least a hand full of people bemoaned it due to 40k PTSD. But others recognized the FAQs benefit. Likewise the problems that are left will likely only be solved if CB breaks past their own belief system even more than they just did. In the meantime, we'll all twittle our thumbs coming up with ideas to try and fit their current narrative ultimately coming back to the same conclusion like with premeasuring ZoC, requirements before declarations, and other intuitive rule decisions will clear up pretty much all rule problems. And honestly, I suspect the true fix for what AROs are granted when entering ZoC is this. -Attacks made without the requirement of LoF or Silhouette contact grant an ARO of Dodge, Reset, Comms Attack and the like. If an Attack is made with a visor through smoke then an ARO of BS Attack -6 or Dodge -6 will be granted. AROs are not granted for one's ZoC merely being penetrated. LoF or Silhouette Contact is made. This begs the question: Then what does Stealth do if AROs aren't granted till the ZoC-Attack, LoF or Silhouette Contact Requirements are met; Stealth should change to where it puts a -3 penalty on the enemy for dealing with an attack inside one's ZoC, make it where this doesnt stack with the -3 penalty for dodging a template inside ZoC or Surprise Attack so it's not overwhelming. I think this is it and I hope people as smart as me or smarter try to break this because if it is, then a month from now, we could have a new FAQ that fixes alot. P.S. Reset and Dodge remain as a valid ARO for their ZoC being penetrated but it shouldnt be granted till after the 2nd short skill or the Long Skill is declared. That's the last bit so there is still something for the rea give turn to do but when its granted changes just slightly for outside LoF, inside ZoC with no Attack having been made. And if it's only movements then Stealth should ensure no ARO is granted. Now its done.
In response to multiple comments. Is it not the holding onto the quantum-ness and the abstractness that is causing our problems? The timing of some AROs doesnt work, and the bonus help some teams balance and others get over powered. There's too many units in the game to "fix", which they arent broken but when buffed with the multiplier of link bonuses, some of them seem broken, when the unit by itself is not broken. So it's the abstractness of fireteam bonuses that are the problem. (As a side note, I'd also like to say that alot of people like the flavorfulness of mixed links. So here is my question. People think too much burst or too many in opposed shots for foreteams to function like coordinated orders is a problem, and people wonder why fireteams cant have suppression fire, yet we like things simple and intuitive. If we agree that Suppression fire is a great tactic for defense then why not give it a slight boost to mitigate the perceived threat against fireteams acting like coordinated orders. The irony is then more intuitive this gets the more realistic too and this works great. Give Suppression fire the ability to split Burst in ARO. Face to Face rolls imposing a -3 mod to the enemy at up to 3 enemies, 1 die a piece, seems like a good enough buff to the defensive unit, while the active turn for vanilla will still have all it's current tools, and coordinated orders will still outrange, out burst (5>3) and outman(4attackers>split burst 3) while sectorials would still have to pay for their individual troops they would like in that fireteam, and as we all know, a Fusilier with a Combi will not hit like an Orc or some MSV+mimetism troop so fireteams functioning like coordinated orders against this suppression fire change seems like a good balance, simplifies the game, kept the flavor of mixed teams. How many command tokens is up to CB.
Imo reactive turn is all about wasting opponent's orders, not so much about doing kills. So I only deploy in a way that the expected value of my ARO is more than 1 orders waste for the opponent. Mind you that it isn't a completely null deployment, but here are some examples of things that I do leave up for ARO... Symbiomated Sukeul (very likely to be able to survive and guts prone, will have wasted an order and I get the chance of doing damage, but without sacrificing orders) Mines (costs opponent's orders, but doesn't cost me any) Camo troopers / Impersonators (Can be order intensive to deal with because of marker state, and has the high roll potential of wasting them multiple orders if they fail the discover) Hidden Deployed ARO (I get to choose the rangebands, so the shot is usually in favourable odds) Warbands guarding corners. But I'm not a fan of the traditional standing ARO (defensive fireteam, TR bot, etc.) I feel like they're too easily bullied by the active turn player and end up costing you more than it costs your opponent. I still think that playing most missions as a kill mission is still the way to go, at least for the first couple of turns, and going for a mostly null deployment really mitigates the alpha strike. It also forces to opponent to push up if they want to do damage, which cuts down the orders I need to spend for my strike.
Coordinated Orders from Fireteams also has the downside of encouraging homogenization of armament. You want all your members attacking so you want them all to have similar rangebands. You're actively discouraged from taking a Spitfire, sniper, BSG, and a pair of rifles as a Fireteam, which makes it a failure from a thematic standpoint. In addition to the unopposed attacks issue it doesn't solve anything, it just changes which Fireteams are oppressively good. Anything with widely available Panzerfaust type weapons is fantastic, 2-4 unopposed panzerfaust, blitzen, or flammenspeer attacks is phenomenally good and far better at nuking ARO units than an HMG with +1B and +3BS. Any Fireteam with easy access to cheap snipers is likewise excellent as their target is forced to choose between Dodging or eating up to four DAM15 (possibly AP) unopposed attacks. Maybe if you restricted a Fireteam to one free Co-Order per turn? But this still doesn't solve the homogeneity issue. I can see why it feels like a good idea on first look, but it has just as many issues as the current rules.
Replace +1B fireteam bonus with reroll 1 dice. This reroll cannot crit. For me that extra burst is most problematic on low burst weapons. With this change your ML won't double its effectiveness just by being linked.
Maybe but, let's say that my suggestion of scalable burst for number of participants was applied. Then at ranges of beyond 24 inches, Missiles, panzerfausts, snipers and HMGs sync well; between 16 and 24 snipers, red furys, spitfires, HMGs, marksman rifles, and Panzerfausts sync well; 8-16 spitfires, red furys, rifles, contenders etc, 0-8 combis, shotguns, grenades, pistols, SMGs, DTWs. Now after all the possibilities are named, you can see it works. I'd also like to point put that every army in the game has a Line or Garrison Troop that has at least one profile that has either two different range band weapons not including pistols (but pistols would finally have their day and more over many of them are assault, heavy, AP, breaker or multi) OR they have two different BS Attack types (standard, DTW or impact). It really depends on whos doing the shooting at what they are shooting at. And you did just say for firearms that everyone would want the same range bands, well no panzerfaust wielders have only panzerfaust ranges, but very very few panzer users also have a high burst weapon. Likewise scalable burst fornnumber of participants means that an HMG and a ML shooting at the same time with no one else would be just as effective as 4 panzerfausts of lesser quality troop or better. The argument for how to use command tokens for fire teams the one that makes more sense than fighting against these sorts of changes. I've seen no CT cost, 1 per team, I've suggested 1 CT at the beginning of the game. I could even see how one CT per each of the owners turn might work and then just disband the team if you're out of CT at the start of that turn or that you wish to use them in some other way. I like this idea alot actually, good job on thinking outside the box. As for the homogeneity, if you know you're limited to one Co-Order per turn you're much more likely to bring units that have more than 1 effective range band which is generally a BS of 11+ after cover and range mod is applied. Plus, almost every likable troop has at least one loadout with two positive ranges or types of BS Attack. That's why I like to talk the shit out of these ideas. Because we are making an effect on the game, we managed to get CB to make big call and they opted for ZoC premeasuring with emphasis on helping put the reactive player by measuring from the active troop so it doesnt give away HD position. I know I pushed for something very similar in PM with someone over there, and I saw someone, I forget who, had mentioned something similar. But others didnt like the idea of premeasuring even though it was the smoothest fix. So, if we keep hammering the shit out of these ideas and not the people we're talking to then 6 months from now, N4 could be damn near perfect...
It all sounds like convoluted difficult to remember rules to not fix an issue that may not exist. lets get back to basics... Why do fireteams exist, what issues they address, and how they solve them.
I can only assume this is for me since it was right after mine. I've voiced plenty what I think the original purpose of fire teams are and the pendulum has swung back and forth repeatedly in the stages of each edition. I think since you said it and you've been around at least as long as I have. 1)Why do you think firearms exist, 2)what issues do they solve, 3) how do they solve them, 4) moreover what issues do they create and 5) how to solve those issues?
