We have been talking about in person tournaments again in our area and we now have an influx of new players. I as thinking of trying to a tournament with no fireteam rules. You can still play a sectoral of course. Some sectorals have troops not available to Vanilla (Gwailo, Crosiers, etc) or have a larger AVA of certain troops you want. I want this to be as accessible as possible, but mostly to new players that don't understand fireteams yet. What are your thoughts? I know most here are veterans but would you do this to help out new players getting in? Just wouldn't do it? I admit I have some curiosity if it works.
If this is a thing specifically to help your meta bridge a knowledge gap between players I would suggest rather than asking about it here just get all your veteran players together and talk it over with them. The opinion of internet assholes is ultimately not relevant to how your meta runs this kind of event, even if I were to espouse it to be the best thing ever none of my opinions matter because you need the support of your local meta.
Sounds like a good intro for a newer community, obviously Vanilla factions will be at a significant advantage but if everyone goes into it knowing that it should be OK. You could also plan a follow up session focusing on Fireteams, or maybe cap the event with a quick demonstration/intro to Fireteam usage.
I'd like to but need to make the argument to vets and warcore I work with to get it to happen. I'll to talk to them in a few weeks to get something for the end of summer or fall.
Why would you need an argument? make it a challenge, "hey guys challenge tournament, only sectorials, no fireteams"
If your the TO you can stipulate whatever you want. People are free to choose to not sign up. I'm fairly confident that if I banned fireteams at my next event I would still hit player cap.
Come at me bro I'm behind a TAG that generates four orders by itself and a swarm of 6-6 impetuous troops. (Yes yes I know you flogged the last Avatar player you played with a sectorial in Biotechvore :P )
Absolutely. Fireteams are a poor substitute for tactics. Making players rely on buying superior stats, rather than using positioning to gain an advantage. The best games are fought without fireteams. Fireteams also leech on the game space for TAGs. Making some of the most iconic models redundant. - The only positive about fireteams is that it can provide an opening for cheerleaders to accomplish something. But the current form of elite and mixed teams makes that unlikely, just turning the pawns into a passive bonus to a big gun.
I disagree with that. Fireteams can be a really cool way to bring flexibility to a force, and the ARO options they give can supplement factions who get jack all options in that department. There are arguably some problems (honestly I sit in the affirmative for that) but I think they add more than they subtract from the game by quite a bit. That said, I mainly just play 3 man teams, even outside of Tohaa. Running a team of fighter, button pusher, special role filler hits that exact niche that I like between larger scale and pure skirmish scale. Five man blobs for me are unwieldly, tedious to move, unfun to play and often really polarizing - they are unstoppable or very easily stopped and not often in between. Don't care too much if someone else wants to run them but they are not often in my lists (not that I'm playing much any more...) With regards to the OP, I'd play in the event but if I could choose between two events at once with all else being even I'd play in the regular event.
All I’m saying is, if I wanted to play a game, where 80% of the models just serve as ablative wounds to a heavy hitter, GW has that one nailed down. I bought into Infinity, because this was a game where every model had a purpose of its own. Of course given the nature of the game, some models, such as the ORC, become unattractive and fireteams is a way for line troops to get to serve an active purpose - but I wouldn’t say it’s a good one, and particularly, when it derails into ‘death stars’ and MrMcKilly and his no-name hangarounds. - I’d love it, if CB looked a little more to my other game; Malifaux. Here, every model serves an active role, even the cheapest and most useless. Of course it is a very different game, with less models on the table and less extensive hiring pool, but it does a very good job of making use of all your little toy men.
This is an incredibly boneheaded take. Then you talk about TAGs, which... have superior stats. You're just not making sense.
Well this just isn't the case at all. Not only do fireteams add flexibility and thus help respond to a variety of situations, but using a fireteam tactically is still a necessity. Board position is key with a fireteam too. Holding them back the whole game can easily be exploited (mission and board being taken into consideration). It's really easy to lose a fireteam if position and deployment are not carefully considered. Template weapons make short work of them. A guided missile or droptroop/infiltrator with a shotgun can make short work of them. Why would you complain about superior stats (it's just +3 BS) but then advocate for TAGs? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If you're not a fan of fireteams, that's grand - I'm not a fan of TAGs - but claiming they're a poor substitute for tactics is demonstrably false. They're just another part of the game that makes it interesting and challenges our abilities to think tactically.
This isn't about fireteams being good or bad. Maybe bad in that they add on a bunch of rules that new people sometimes don't get or like. About 6 of our players are very new and I don't want to have any barriers to being in a tournament. So we'd promote it as a beginners tournament. Hell me might even do it as a Code One tournament.
That is a actually a good idea. In N3 there was only 1 version of the rule, so "beginner friendly" tournaments had to enforce some bans, like no fireteam, no TAGs*, no Total Reaction HMG, max 1 combat group. But there is no need for all of that anymore. If you want new players to be able to enjoy a less complicated game (rule wise, but also in how to beat TAG/TR/B2 ARO Core/etc); just make it a CodeOne tournament. That version of the game will be perfect as introduction and build up gameplay tactic before N4 complexity. *in my meta, when we had many new player, TAG-stomp was a common irritating factor.
The problem with Code One is that that some of the new players have forces that are not C1. Like Haqq, Nomads, Ariadna. Yes Nomads and Ariadna but limited troops. So by doing N4 with no fireteams, it's "almost" C1.
