Under the pretense that these extra units exist - I don't really enjoy them as they don't bring more interesting gameplay but bloat the mission complexity and require models that I don't ever intend on buying or painting - I think the healthiest option is to stick as close to the rules for other models as possible. Pay for them, let them take up space to circumvent the 14-Order-Avatar-Issue, preferrably make them optional.
Option A is probably the least disruptive to list building because if you have 15 troopers in your list, you can’t take the extras anyway If you build a list that’s 14 troopers and 300/6 then it’s fine so will give players an option during a tournament whether to include the extras or not if you make them cost points then it just screws up list building for ITS so definitely don’t do that
If they stay, Option “A”, where they take a slot but no points. As additional tweaks, only have one type of extra troop, and have it available in all missions to cut down on record keeping. Same with the auto-turret and terrain rules. All missions or none.
players have the option to build smaller lists than 15. By including these troopers you create a list design challenge for players. Do I stick with my normal 15 trooper list I have saved on my phone, or create a slightly different 14 trooper list so I can include the free extra? it may be as small as dropping the warcor, but it will have an impact on how players build lists I personally think option A is the most interesting, though I don’t particularly like any of them
Do such experiments , like free troops, have to take place in the tournament system? Is there no other way to solve this? Say, you make a fun system in which such things are tried out, and in the tournament system you take over the things that are well received.
@HellLois I don't want any free units at all. This is cancer and a lazy game design decision. I hate this concept from the very beginning. Where is option for me?
While free units aren't really gamebreaking they don't add that much interest to the game either, I would much prefer to see more of a rotation of missions between ITS seasons, cryogenics is interesting, and direct action missions are a nice alternative, but I do miss some old ones like cold sleep and sieze antennas, maybe even a set of 2-3 missions with 9 objectives like tic-tac-toe could come back, although those can be a hassle to set up for TOs.
I'm happy with everything the way it is now. But if we have to choose, option A looks best. I see certain problems with the list for the tournaments, unless of course free units are present in every mission. I would like to see more interesting options for free units. TAGs, s3 and s4 REMs, uber defensive hacker or specific units for missions. A mobile heater rem for Frostbyte?
D is similar to C. I won't take any extra, I want my opponent to pay full point and slots if he takes one. That said, just like SoF extra, it gives extra abilities to some factions. At point C, we are very close to just adding them to all army (like how several merc are available to all Vanilla factions); with the minor difference that it affects sectorials, and is only for specific missions. Although for B* and C*, as the first sentence said "in some ITS mission" I find it hard to implement. It will likely end up with option D (unless you allocate one of your 2 list for that mission) as a list used for multi-mission will suddenly have a 1 slot and 15pts hole in its list for one mission (which is still a valid list, just an inefficient one). *For A, you'd get a 14-models list, which is still playable. Speaking of C feeling like adding them to all faction, is that what ITS14 is testing ? if bashi/csu should be given to everyone ? I understood ITS13 testing of bikes, but i don't see what ITS14 troops are giving us. At least with option C I won't be forced to have an additional weak specialist to lose in Kill Specialists missions. Or is it testing the new "Reinforcement" rule ? I agree with Turrets as reinforcements, not bashi/csu/random troop.
To me C, the way it is right now, is the fairest to all factions. Some factions can easily absorb the cost of some troops, while others can’t. The same with troop slots. I also like the idea of the free troop being very specific. This year for the SEC DET, it’s obvious which one to take. For the Bashi, there are a few good ones depending on what you can do with it. Or there could be two choices, one a specialist, one a “shooter”. For example: This year could have been a choice between the two below. One a specialist you might need, or a good gun you might need to scare off some Bears or Wolves. CSU Breaker Rifle, Nanopulser(+1B) / Pistol, PARA CC Weapon(-6). CSU (Specialist Operative) Rifle, Light Shotgun / Pistol, PARA CC Weapon(-6). BASHI BAZOUK (Specialist Operative) Rifle, Light Shotgun / Pistol, CC Weapon. BASHI BAZOUK Rifle, Light Shotgun, E/M Mines / Pistol, CC Weapon.
Personally I'd like them to have a role in the scenario if they're there. Being able to bring a Wardriver along free into Mindwipe, or a Yuan Yuan into Looting and Sabotaging, seems a nice way to ensure that players don't need to tailor as much to account for oddball objectives without taking away from the strengths of a properly focused list.
This a hundred times. Mission specific, free in terms of points and army slots, but fairly generic to keep them in check. Corsair Bashis with DZ parachutists are too impactful imo.
Or, conceivably, have them be an add on TOs can use and add to all missions in a tourney, be it the troops, terrain rules, or turrets.
@HellLois I'm with @Vaulsc I'd like to add... I'd rather see varying rules and new missions, than a freebie model that occupies part of my Army list that comes from a different Army typically speaking... Experimenting with rules like the Bikes and REMs and this sort of thing is fun... New Rules.. keep up the good work
I would prefer not to see these as free units. If there are going to be fluffy units for a season (particularly if they coincide with the buffs of the season), I think that's great, but they should be an option like any other in ARMY (at their normal cost and Combat Group slot), and not mandated by the ITS rules. Sure, they may not be chosen as commonly, but I think that's fine if they're an option. Making them free forces them to be in lists, as you're strictly disadvantaged by not taking them, against an opponent who does. Others have noted that other options are logistical problems if they remain linked to missions (having to print multiple versions of several lists, for example), which I agree with. ITS has a lot going on, and I think many missions could have their dispersed rules turned into ITS Extras, that way there is some reduced mental load on players, and TO's have more leeway in customizing their events (with written support, as they can now, but native tools assist this). So Turrets, Terrain Zones, Special Movement rules, etc. can all be Extras that are optional to implement.
I went with C as it's the closest to what I'd like to see. I don't really like the extra units and mandatory inclusion adds a lot of mental overhead I don't really need during an event. Having them be available due to the season lore but totally optional and take up space/cost in the list seems fine to me. Or have them be an Add-on for the TO to choose for the tournament.
Great idea too! I too like when the troops is "a part of the story". I loved the other small things like the FO Remotes getting Tac Aware and Marksmanship too. It's a nice little thing that makes it interesting and fun. This year started to get to be a bit too much with all of the special rules though. It's a bit of pain to remember who has what. But then again, it made a lot of games more interesting.
I opted for C, but I really want something more akin to D or E: D: Permit your preferred costing or availability mechanism, but permanently keep them in their own independent Combat Group with no opportunity to move to a different Combat Group, or move other models or orders into that Combat Group. D's Logic: Everything's cool until my 300 point list accidentally funnels about 200 points of orders into a MBH Red Fury who got lucky and vaporized a flank. Now not only does my opponent feel bad because they got vaporized by a model not even in my available sectorial, but I feel bad because I'm literally leaning on a model outside of my sectorial to accomplish my goals because it's the most effective tool for the circumstance. It removes my agency as a player by saying "Here you go!" Additionally, I personally hate feeling pressured into buying or printing a model for competitive play purposes. It's a literal "Autoinclude" and I can't stand that. E: Opt against these kinds of additions entirely. Do not add new models or orders to the player's pools. Make these NPCs or some other aspect of the mission with an AI that makes them operate autonomously if you absolutely, positively have a business imperative that is forcing you to include new models into ITS. E's Logic: Emphasize working within the bounds of huge sectorials and missions and providing interesting bonuses for things in question. The Medium Infantry Forward Deployment +4" from a previous season was a great example of this. Another good example is the irregular order given to EVOs. The design space is immense in this game. You can start playing with "ammo types" to experiment, such as "+6 Pistols equipped with <ITS_AMMO> from 8-16 inches" Adding more models innately increases complexity, list-building, play time, and overhead. None of these are worth the value of adding more models.
I voted for option C, but want to add that, as others have said in this thread as well, I am not a huge fan of the extra profiles and would rather see further ITS seasons without any. I did enjoy the turret, on the other hand :)
D) Do forget about the abomination and don't add season profiles to armies evermore. Otherwise C) which is the closest to it.
