Deactivators has greater impact on gameplay than Sniffers did. Sniffers really were a niche build and they practically added their functionality to Pitchers -.-;; Making the Avatar cheaper while removing Burnt effect was a mistake, though.
A very underused design option is Sectorial only Profiles, especially linkable ones. 99% of all the good stuff ends up in Vanilla, where it might or might not be useful solo, but adds another option to the ever growing pool. Sectorial only Specialist and toolbox options is what I'd prefer over yet another Wildcard (character) that does what a Sectorial only Profile could have done nicely without the problem of then being able to slot in any Link, instead of making one specific Link a bit more unique. I'm sure you have the best intentions but what would the result of adjusting "oppressive Linked ARO pieces" be in reality? Even if you also assume the change is going to fix Core Linked SWC guns use during Active turn. Wouldn't that just mean high end solo pieces reign supreme instead, making the problems worse instead of better? I'm going to make the claim that the amount of Core Link use for defense is significantly higher than for Active Turn HMGs. Walking an entire Link across the table is a risky endeavor that may look good when it works, but can usually be hamstrung and opposed in a variety of ways. Defensive Links do not have to be, but can be dealt with directly. Long story short what's the problem you want addressed and what's the goal in mind you want to reach with the changes? I'm not opposed at all to changes, i.e. reduce the FTF potential of defensive Links, but make them significantly better at boosting survivability bonuses for Link members instead. Embracing the Order Sink concept instead of the current all out high lethality turret.
Hello, I join to the discussion a little late, I know. I was picking every message I want to "quote" but they were too many. So I will do my best to condensate what I want to say keeping in mind what it has already been told. I agree with some of what @fatherboxx, @xagroth, @QueensGambit and others said in general and I respectfully disagree with what others said, like @Ayadan, @Willen,@Hachiman Taro, etc. I have hear complains about fireteams bonuses like "forever", too long before the wildcard "madness", and yet people still play vainilla or whatever sectorial they love to play. I don't see a lot of people going to that vainilla or that sectorial because it rocks at the moment... I believe changes in fireteam rules can, of course, be done, but they shoud be done extremely carefully, because it is not a thing about wildcards getting the full five members fireteams bonuses but some combination of rules we can find thanks to the "wildcard thing", and even those "heavy advantages" aren't in real as powerful as they could look if we only hear how people are complaining. If I take a look at the full five member fireteam core of bolts, the cheaper version: Spoiler: Full5Core ────────────────────────────────────────────────── 5 BOLT (Visor Multiespectral N1) Fusil de Francotirador MULTI ( ) / Pistola, Arma CC. (1.5 | 31) BOLT (Teniente) Fusil Combi, Escopeta Ligera / Pistola, Arma CC. (0 | 23) BOLT Escopeta de Abordaje, Drop Bears / Pistola, Arma CC. (0 | 22) MAQUINISTA NCA (Bioinmunidad, Veterano) Fusil Combi, Cargas-D ( | GizmoKit) / Pistola, Arma CC. (0 | 16) BIPANDRA Fusil Combi, Nanopulser ( | MediKit) / Pistola. (0 | 22) 1.5 CAP | 114 Puntos Abrir en Infinity Army I see more than 1/3 of the list total points (taking 300 p. as the standar) for a really really good snipper turret, but barely capable of do anything more if the rest of firetean has almost anything to do after the snipper's dead and they should deal against some "heavy target". If my maths aren't wrong the difference with the majority of TAGs in the game is superior to 24 points (the most common range band for tags I think is between 75-85 points aprox). So, this heavy piece, a TAG, which can put down that "snipper", the best ARO piece in your army, costs less than the entire "ARO piece", because the piece it isn't only the "bolt snipper" but the entire set. Of course, the "bolt snipper" will be something dangerous for the TAG, that is the whole point of place such a ARO piece. Even if we want to talk about order cost, probably we could bring at least 2-3 extra orders for our TAG for the same price as the full fireteam. All of us have a tendency to complain in general for some concrete things. For example, the "same ARO piece" can be done in Tunguska for almost 40 points less. Spoiler: OtherAROcore ────────────────────────────────────────────────── 5 SECURITATE (Teniente) Fusil Combi / Pistola, Arma CC. (0 | 13) SECURITATE Fusil Combi / Pistola, Arma CC. (0 | 13) SECURITATE Fusil Combi / Pistola, Arma CC. (0 | 13) SECURITATE Fusil Combi / Pistola, Arma CC. (0 | 13) GRENZER (Puntería) Fusil de Francotirador MULTI / Pistola, Pistola Breaker, Arma CC. (1.5 | 35) 1.5 CAP | 87 Puntos Abrir en Infinity Army Right now this pieces can be place to "check" pretty much every active piece our attacker can throw at us, but obly in that boards where exist one snipper nest where to place the whole fireteam and the snipper can control pretty much all the table. If this happens isn't a problem of the fireteam rules, is a problem of how the boardmap is set. When you place a "alpha stricke" in his weapon range bonus and in the 0/-3 weapon range of the ARO piece, the ARO piece probably ends in the morgue. So, right now, a bunch of people can be some danger for a heavy piece like a TAG. If we remove the fireteam bonus as we know then right now, the danger will be lower, maybe too low to even take in consideration that ARO piece. And with the increase of heavy weapons in game, the "old linked ARO piece like fusilers snippers, ML, etc" are out of the board. The problem it isn't that some "wildcards" add too much quality in a specific role in comparaison, the problem is that they are the only viable choice. If we think in changes like "no wildcards" can have the full member bonuses, but a "core" with only "regular guys" does, the danger here is that only a few combination will be valid to fight back, and if done without extremely carefull, then the "option's window" could be extremely narrowed. The danger is "per rules" this is the unique fireteam core which can work for that sectorial... this could put us in a place where playing will were too boring. Almost like playing a sectorial becomes to play a "closed list" with only a couple of option to customize. Some changes, how lose the +3 BS for wildcard don't look pretty dangerous for some wildcards. For example, I don't put the asawira spitfire because the he shoots to 17s while linked and in range but for all the others advantages. The HRL Muyib problably will be a different thing, without the +3BS comming for the fireteam it weren't a good ARO piece, if something with mimetims shoots at him, probably will be dead at first burst... too much SWC and points there for that. In active, the B+1 if he keeped after the changes... it would be insuficient to fight against mostly ARO pieces our rival had left. Too much risk in shoot at same BS as the enemy with only +1B... So, I'm not against the future changes, even I believe they could be a good thing in terms of "game options and experience", but fireteams are right now a really well adjusted game piece, so the changes should be done to have something different, yes, but as good as they are now. And they will be applied to another things, not only "fireteams". We will see what the future brings to us.[/SPOILER][/SPOILER]
I'm hoping for a light touch in the fireteam rework. When N5 eventually rolls around I would like to see a greater emphasis on unique loadouts and profiles for sectorials, with a matching dampening of core bonuses, but right now the balance between sectorials and vanilla is pretty great - that's not easy to achieve and shouldn't be thrown away lightly.
Thing you've got to acknowledge is that even a small change in the fireteam rules will completely change the entire balance of the game. At the moment vanilla is doing better in ITS than sectoral. Nerfing link teams is a terrible terrible idea. Change them up sure, but with an eye on the fact that a huge amount of people have bought them and run them regularly. Link teams are THE reason to play the majority of sectoral. If they suck, might as well delete sectoral and just do vanilla. If anything needs to happen, it's that they need to get better. Less egregious annoying units wildcarding might be a good thing for people who don't take two lists and plan ahead or those with older factions like MRRF that don't have a full toolbox all the time, but what are you gonna replace that loss of power with without fucking the sectoral? For me, I'd like to see a removal on restrictions of numbers on Harris teams and some bonus for duos other than just order efficiency. Making teams better at objectives (+3 wip bonus when linked on discover and objectives) would make pushing teams up more rewarding than sticking them at the back with a sniper doing his thing
I agree that a good way to change fireteams could include making the options that are NOT 5-Core more appealing. So rather than just nerfing stuff, you're encouraging more diverse builds... which will naturally dilute the prevalence of "4 mooks and a ringer" links.
Where do you get that information? In my area the only vanilla I ever see is CA and Nomads. Haqq too but that's because he's new and is finds sectorals too complicated. I'm the only one that tries vanilla YJ and I get my ass handed to me by link teams every time. I can get one guy on target while they get 3 or more. Carlos even said they don't have data from last year because there were no tournaments. I've never actually liked the fireteams. Sectorals yes. It used to be that Sectorals didn't have the variety but I'm finding that less and less to be the case. Not only do they have the troops needed to get the job done but way more efficiently too. I wanted and still want them to make some troops only available to Sectorals and Vanilla. Vanilla with low AVA and Sectorals with high.
Here we also don't have anyone playing vanilla except me, and I play vanilla Nomads and CA which are only two good vanilla factions. Everyone else abusing the crap out of link teams. Link team bonuses definitely need to be toned down.
This has a lot to do with one other thing. Sectorials are just cool. They are focused in the fluff, and have a unique visual identity. I don't play Vanilla, not because they are bad, but because I like coherent forces over a bunch of random loosely tied together group. Vanilla is like taking one RCMP, 2 NYPD, a SEAL, a JTF2, 2 Raging Floridamen, 4 Mall Cops, and throwing them all into a covert ops team together. Yea, sure, all from the same continent, but vastly different to the point where it makes no sense.
The last two tournaments I've been were both majority % sectoral, with vanilla combined been the most common vanilla faction. Tags and link teams are good in n4.
into a position to take like a consol. Vanilla I can move one guy with on order, most of the time. They have three that that can get to that same console. Even if they are cheap ass guys they can overrun. I've had HI on console and have had 3, I can't remember what now, kill him with ease and then take it over. I then didn't have anything thing that could get them off. It took me so many orders to get that one guy on the console I didn't have enough to get rid of the three guys that did the same with less orders.
That's one of the things that sometimes seems to get lost in the discussion, the reasons outside of pure table play folks might choose a sectorial over vanilla. That thematic focus for the forces is a real thing.
It's one of the biggest reasons I still cling to NCA. I'd be far better off bringing Vanilla PanO with my playstyle, but midfielders that aren't the awful Locust are not worth having to take such an eclectic force. Merc and Character bloat are also rampant in Vanilla factions especially, further degrading that cool identity advertised on the faction page.
I don't have any specific recommended changes; I'm just describing the current situation as I see it. I think that survivability vs. lethality is a good way to look at things.
Fireteams that move out in the field to objectives are extremely easy to dismantle. This is just insanity, vanilla Ariadna is easily the best army in the game right now and YJ is heads above the sectorial options vanilla armies are diffucult to figure out from the start and more expensive to collect which is why they are rarer in tournaments In the past, you either had new players starting with vanilla because starter sets were build around them - and playing badly because Icestorm and Red Veil are not exactly the most optimal sets for vanilla - or veteran players who could mix and match and dominate. These days, 2-player starters and Army boxes guide new players into sectorials right from the start and it is good - defensive cores are easier to play, limited range is easier to collect.
Mate if you have 4 orders left, you're screwed anyways. Any Guilang, Clilpsos, or random other camo dude sitting on the console in suppressive fire would've stopped you just as dead. Pushing into a B2 ARO is a lot easier than trying to brute force an attack at -9/-12 vs B3. If you only have 4 orders left to clear something off of an objective AND push the button, you've already screwed up. Mid-field links are notoriously easy to dismantle because you've got so many angles you can come at them from, and they're a lot easier to reach with various attack strategies; hackers/repeaters, melee specialists, speculative fire grenades, parachutists, hidden deploy infiltrators, suicide templates, mines... I mean, I guess if you don't have ANY of those left it can be hard to approach, but if you've only got basic shooty troops left (that can't challenge a haris in ARO) you're hosed anyways. When a link is sitting in its own DZ, it's relatively hard to challenge. Once its gummed up in the midfield you have so many more ways to attack it. Also, most haris fireteams aren't made up of 3 good gunfighters, so pick the weakest one, blow him away, and then kill the other 2 now that they've lost their bonus.
All true but I can't remember specifics anymore because it was a while ago. It was just to hold the objective. Not push button. i tried some shots on the group if I remember correctly but didn't have cover and got 6 ARO shots back.
If you're getting ARO'd by all 3 of them you're not slicing your pies correctly. ... of course, if you only have 4 orders anyways, it's not like you really have the luxury of spending orders on slicing the pie anyways, so you're a bit screwed there. At any rate; I don't think the fact that it was a Haris was what lost you that game, so using it as an example of how fireteams are too strong is somewhat disingenuous. A single HI sitting on an objective isn't exactly a massive ARO threat (unless it's in suppressive fire, and even then you can hack it/smoke it/whatever), and trying to retake the objective with only 4 orders is a Hail Mary. Even if they weren't in a fireteam, most solo offensive gunners still would've been able to push up and clear off the objective, and in Suppressive its probably just as dangerous if not more so than if it had +1B from a Haris.
