Why not? "Fireteam:core" isn't a skill, it's part of the sectorial rules. And Druze acquired through SoF are still Druze.
I can't even find the SOF Druze when Mercs are turned on in Q, but can find them in MO with Mercs turned on... SOF Druze are Mercenary Troops, QK Druze are Veteran Troops Edit: https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threads/soldier-of-fortune-fireteams.641/ Rough consensus is; yeah, they're linkable, but no they aren't the same so the Mercs don't get ADHL for Hunting Party, so don't confuse them
Since when does the classification of a troop mean anything about linkability? If a foreteam must comprise of Druze Shock Teams, the only requirement is that they are Druze Shock Teams. SoF Druze are still Druze Shock Teams.
See my edit Though going into the nitty and gritty of it; from common requirements of Fireteams is that the "A Fireteam must be composed of troopers belonging to the same unit, or of those that the Sectorial Army List specifies are able to do so. Some special Fireteams can ignore this Requirement, as specified in their description or in the Sectorial Army List." (bold my emphasis). At this point, I'd like an answer to whether it is sufficient that "same unit" means "unit with the same name" or "same Unit Profile" ( http://infinitythewiki.com/en/Unit_Profile ). The SOF Druze are not specifically specified by the Sectorial Army List to be able to form a Fireteam, so it's really up to whether same unit name is valid for either or both of the two requirements or not. @psychoticstorm is this something you could bring to the FAQ project if it's not already there?
You can show them both in DBS: And Functionally they appear like two entirely different units. They are two entirely different Army entries. One has effectively been split off from the other, simplifying things immensely. ;) Also @Mahtamori I'd hardly call that consensus. You have only 3 of the usual culprits in there, none of the outspoken ones and it's buried in a sub-forum. That's the sort of consensus that one sees in the Tohaa sub-forum, and we all know how that turned out. :P
I wouldn't know, and I do think that this does need a clarification - especially if Wu Ming ends up becoming Mercs due to being included in wayward Ikari or Riot Grrls due to StarCo. Still can't see SOF Druze in Army 5 for Qapu Kalqi after a CTRL+F5, though the do show up in Druze Bayram Security. Weird.
Wu Ming and riot grrls won't become mercenary troops. They have origins in Nomad/Yu Jing forces and some of them happen to work for Merc Companies. Things like Kaplan, druze, etc originate from mercenary companies and some of them happen to work for established military forces (namely Haq).
Too much for the statline, mostly. AD at least forces you to either risk or use inferior option. They would move where Daofei is and take up its role. In fact. Especially the specialists, will be even better as such, WIP14. Too much BS for the sniper one, considering the other options we have. May be limited camo, like the Raiden we had?
But it hasn't got infiltration, which is the big deal with Daofei, nor an extra wound? The only thing it'll do better is WIP.
Again, the problem is that Camo troops cannot link. The purpose behind splitting the profiles between AD Tigers and Multiterrain Tigers was to give a high-quality linkable troop option. To give non-AD Tigers Camo would defeat the purpose we split the profiles for in the first place!
I disagree with the premise. I think a more accurate/useful concept is to give a meaningful profile that fills a niche that isn't presently filled. Both "Multiterrain + Fireteam:Core" and "Multiterrain + Camo/Limited Camo" Tigers do that. However one of those changes is interesting for Vanilla as well as IA. Although admittedly you're unlikely to use more than AVA3 Tigers even shared between AD and Camo. But if you build them as a swing Loadout rather than a split one there would be some fun options. You also have a decent fluff hook by saying that they're expanding the number of Tiger Regiments and training them to fulfil the role previously performed by Raiden.
Fair point. I think I'd still rather have the Tigers linkable in at least one Sectorial, but that's a different discussion. Arguably, Tigers already perform the role that the Raiden do, just a little differently. Combat Jump is broadly comparable to Limited Camo+Infiltration, and possibly more useful since you can drop the Tiger anywhere on the table, even in the Opponent's DZ. Obvious trade-off being losing the order.
True, if they lose jump. But then why the Tigers, no jump would make them something entirely else. As for Daofei - not rare to pick WIP14 Guilang AHD (and lose a deployable repeater) because Daofei is so much better at shooting stuff than hacking it. What makes camo AHD hackers so special is the ability to recamo, essentially rendering hacking them with KHD impossible. As I said, the sniper stats is too much for Camo, I don’t believe we will ever get BS13 camo sniper, it’s rare as it is among factions. So that’s two profiles that will get “too good” by camo, all the while losing one of the fluffiest things about Tigers - jumping in the middle of the action. I’m on the same train with Section9, I’d prefer linkable AD, which is somehow classic sectorial move. But I also doubt we’ll get more than Haris, if even that, because a 5-man BS16/B5 Mimetism entering freely from the side of the table is pretty awesome, and they also have a Paramedic and AHD, and even BSG for close fights if you manage to pull this. Well, man can always dream of something.
From what I can tell, Section 9 doesn't mean linkable AD, but linkable without AD. AD is one of those skills that I think are hard-locked not to be combined with Fireteams, just like we'll probably never see a trooper with a longer-ranged weapon than a Rifle together with Sensor. This particular branch is all about what could be done about Tigers when they can't use AD.
That's correct, I don't believe that AD is a linkable skill. I mean, even Corregidor's Hellcat's aren't linkable, and if someone with Superior Combat Jump isn't linkable, who would be?
