eh, why not though? you could end up with a better game.
i can try to split my description up more and cite more if you think it's misleading, do you?
the reason i included both was that perch voiced seeing no reason as to why the functions are set as they are, and my understanding is that there are a few different models, but the one that i have seen used the most is this combination, and i think it gives a good explanation as to why the functions interact as they do, and why we rank them in order as we do. i feel like the archetypes, even if jung did not associate them originally, are useful descriptors in terms of how the functions relate to one another...
by understanding Fi as a "supportive parent" function in an ENFP, and understanding the need for a child/"relief" role for the tertiary function, i think it becomes easier to see why Fe would not work there. concerning oneself with relating to others does not help when you are overloaded with restricting internal feeling analysis - but relating to the non-feeling external world allows you to make decisions and exert influence without upsetting the Fi parent - it literally relieves the cognitive overload. whereas having Fe in a relief role would create tensions between Fi and Fe, because they often have very different answers to the same questions. how do i interact with this person? Fe brings up a host of external relation issues that do not mesh with Fi's internal focus. Fe as a child would not be allowed to play. same with Te and Ti, as perch suggested. try to relieve Te with Ti, and you will end up with much conflict and tension, as Te advises to act objectively externally but Ti wants to look internally. Ti is not allowed, under Te's supervision, to play. but as a relief function in an INFJ, for example, Ti can play, because all that Fe advises is to deal with people issues interpersonally. she doesn't have any guidelines for T operation.
as far as i understand