Genuine question. Fireteams are a bit of a mixed blessing sometimes, and when they are oppresive it's usually about super pointman in a pain train or an elite sniper aro and his cheap little helpers. Would it really break (or in other way degrade) the game to allow a link team hacker to hack while a grunt shoots and Lt dodges? Definitely it would make link teams more formidable in defense (especially close quarters) but recently Vanilla got a buff with duo, sectorials got a nerf with purity requirements so... maybe?
Given the recent changes toned down fireteams globally because of a few localised issues with them (kamau, grenzer etc) I can't see them being given another big boost. A big sweep like that will probably majorly benefit certain teams whilst not benefitting others very much. I'd like to see teams being worth it though, sectoral feels pretty meh at the moment
No, the purpose is to be able to force making a choice on a player. If you allow yourself to be maneuvered into a corner like that, that's on you. If I was going to make a quality of life buff to fireteams it would be to make them add dropped link members in the states phase rather than the start of the turn.
I would say yes only if the suggestion was to tone it down to limit them to declaring only one type of attack; Haris where one Dodge, one Hack, and one Resets - OK Haris where one Dodge, one Hacks and one Shoots - one of the attackers gets kicked out.
I get this line of reasoning, but Jan existing in the game is hardly 'allowing yourself to be maneuvered into a corner like that'. My bad putting the link team anywhere on the table I guess.
If you are finding you absolutely cannot space the fireteam out enough with people taking different pieces of cover so they don't all have to ARO at once (i.e. not conga lined behind a single building) then it's a sign your table is missing a tonne of terrain. Particularly scatter terrain. I find alot of complaints in this game can honestly stem back to people playing on bad tables, which doesn't surprise me much as I frequently see pictures from tournaments with fucking abomination tables that should never have been greenlit.
For me this topic isn't about a specific unit or anything. It's fairly widely accepted that vanilla lists are "stronger" than sectorial lists. Arguably that is not entirely correct; sectorials are made stronger to compensate for having a decreased number of units to choose from and the strength comes at a trade-off of making the list have more weaknesses. After all, if you made your sectorial list without link teams it'd be and perform like a vanilla list that has increased AVA of some units and are lacking in others. Some sectorials can actually play like this as long as you're not being too destructively reductive and think "I can just play vanilla instead", while some rare ones can dip their toes in both worlds. In either case, designing around this dynamic can be done in two ways; you can either decrease the impact of putting a lot of units in the same place or you can increase the benefit of doing so. A lot of suggestions I see focuses on the latter to which I can only say; all you're doing is making sectorials stronger against opponents who have not mastered dealing with a group of similar units effectively. This suggestion tackles the former which is why it's interesting. There's so many times when you can completely shaft link teams by forcing them to choose between saving the team with bad dodges or returning fire with decent odds - a choice vanilla is both less likely to have to make and won't suffer consequences for making at the drawback of having somewhat decreased power of return fire. Vanilla isn't stronger, vanilla has fewer exploitable weaknesses. This suggestion done right can decrease this gap.
