This kind of low effort comment does not belong here. Could you please elaborate on what you find so funny?
Read SuperFluid's post again. He suggests adding Core to all basic light infantry for vanilla. As in, vanilla gets access to what we commonly refer to "defensive Core fireteams".
I seem to have misread your post. In this case, my reaction would be to laugh. Vanilla armies absolutely do not need buffs. For half the armies in the game it's outperforming sectorials, and the vanillas that are doing poorly would not really be helped by it.
I do think that fireteam restrictions add value, yes. Restrictions used correctly breed creativity and in case of sectorials it's also a question of theme with the sectorials all having a rather distinct theme compared to the soup-ish nature of vanilla factions. Fireteam restriction also kinda make sense for me from a fluff perspective. You'd expect those small spec ops teams (which Infinity "armies" effectively are) to be structured around a "core" team with smaller teams of specialists (haris and duo) supporting them. From a pure gameplay perspective they're going a little bit overboard with the mixing and matching of some fireteams. Don't get me wrong - I love the fact that fireteams are not exclusively comprised of one troop type and done sparingly it gives some really cool options. On the other hand examples like the above no Zuyong "Zuyong" fireteam indicate to me that they are not quite there yet with balancing those two extremes. I'd guess most of us would agree with the general direction they're taking with fireteams but there are still a few issues they should adress. All those I'd argue can be fixed with better wording of a few rules and maybe a bit more moderation on the part of CB.
The mixing does create diversity when used correctly though. Look at an army like Bakunin compared to TAK. Bakunin really only has two cores that people actually take (Moderator and Riot Grrl) and both of them have very predictable composition. The same was true of pre-rework JSA where 90% of lists used Keisotsu links. I never can predict what kind of link I'll be playing against in TAK (if there's even a link at all.)
I fully agree. Maybe I wasn't clear enough but I'm all for mixed links. My threshold is crossed when you can field a "troop x" link without a single "troop x" profile in it. Other possible restrictions might include only one wildcard per link or something like "majority has to be the profiles profiding the link option". I play Bakunin myself when my grumpy Corregidorians are out for a drink or ten. I'd love to see Observance fireteams, maybe a Clockmaker wildcard, a Bran + Morloks link or a few moderator fireteam options. But be careful with making Sin-Eaters linkable or when dabbling with Riot Grrls. Thats the delicate balance I'm talking about that I'm sure CB is aware of but not always on top of.
With Bakunin I honestly don't see what allowing all of the Reverend units to intermingle would really change, might as well allow it.
Ah. No. I would rather see fire teams removed entirely from the game. Clearly they never will be, and I find myself discouraged as things have progressed since last year. There's my "low effort" reply.
I have two questions. One, why? Two, what would you do to fix sectorials if you remove fireteams? Fireteams are the only reason most sectorials are competitive (with only 3ish armies where no-fireteam play would be considered viable at the higher level play) and sectorial-specific profiles are both hard to balance and annoying to vanilla players.
Two weeks after, not two weeks before. Sorry, I thought that was clear in the context of discussing what factions were taken to a tournament that took place just after a load of factions had been released. :-(
Will you elborate on this analogy more please? What are these "rock", "papers", and "siscors" you speak of?
It becomes very hit or miss, as sectorial players rely on their Fireteam - the rock - to win the day so its all up to the opponent to decide the game, choosing paper or scissors. A moderately smart player, knowing how to deal with a Fireteam will then go with the paper tactic and win.
That's the name of the children's hand-sign game in English. Rock breaks Scissors, Scissors cut Paper, and Paper covers Rock. The underlying accusation is that certain match-ups are unwinnable, and that's certainly not true in Infinity. But in 40k, for example, you defeat the opponent's long-range troops by engaging them in melee, and defeat his melee troops by engaging them at long range.
Not OP, but... I'd either get rid of the sectorials all together. Or keep them, but their benefit is not fireteams, but getting to use units from other armies.
