Presumably the Shasvastii, even in their seed soldier outfits, hit the intersection of "Appealing enough to buy" on both looks and rules.
The story about the Caskuda that kept circulating is that the model was a production nightmare.
And as much as I compared the original Morat to Morat Mk 2 models as Star Trek TOS vs. Star Trek the movies as far as the difference in presentation goes, the Shasvastii analogy is the same sort of situation but with an art direction reboot thrown in.
I think that puts the idea of giving the Exrah the same sort of love/updates/digital treatment as... Well, it's like trying to ask DC to produce another Wonder Woman movie instead of another Grim Dark Superman. If they don't have a concept, it's not going to happen.
I think the problem with a revamped Exrah is with the current Infinity design styles there wouldn't be much difference in look between them and the Shasvasti.
Scuttlebutt is that last year was supposed to be Shasvastii vs. somebody, but the Shasvastii redesign wasn't done/good enough in time.
The Exrah were problematic for three reasons:
1. They were ugly/weird/different
2. E/M vulnerability was a terrible idea on their troops
3. If you asked about them on-line, the biggest thing you would hear about them is how to exploit Super Jump.
That's "Asking for Squatting". Because it's the same sort of problem: If no one in the design team can figure out what to do with it, or how to do it justice, you have to admit it's dead. I sure as heck wasn't happy when it was announced, but I don't think CB was happy admitting conceptual defeat either.
They've left the door open to a possible eventually reboot of the Exrah coming back as something else. For all I know, Tohaa, Onyx and the other stuff were designs that came about while CB was brainstorming trying to figure out how to resign CA and fix the Exrah designs.
Exrah coming back now would be meh in a hand basket.
They'll look like the rest of CA, and will have the standard S5, infiltrating specialist, vanilla regular troops, drop hacker, mixed fireteam every other new sectorial has.
.Mikes. wrote: Exrah coming back now would be meh in a hand basket.
They'll look like the rest of CA, and will have the standard S5, infiltrating specialist, vanilla regular troops, drop hacker, mixed fireteam every other new sectorial has.
Something to consider about Exrah is that CB decided to let them go years before they officially discontinued the models and removed the profiles. Exrah had 4 different unit types (Void, Vector and Jump Operators and the Caskuda) in original Infinity. that may not sound like a lot, but its actually huge. Within CA Morats also only had 4 units (Vanguad, Daturazi, Suryats and the Raicho) and Shasvastii only had 3 (Malignos, Shrouded and the Speculo). The EI units were limited to the Charontid, Avatar, Obsidian Mechanoid and the drones. So the Exrah were a full 1/4 of the Combined Army, and an important part of it. They were CA only MI. Many other armies had thematic sections that only included 2 units (like what would be come Military Orders, for example). So Exrah were pretty fleshed out from the go in comparison to most of the game's subfacions pre- HS).
If you have a copy of the original (or 2nd edition) Infinity book you'll see the Exrah featured prominently in fiction, photos and art. However, new Exrah are completely absent from Human Sphere. While every army was expanded with several new units and characters he Exrah were left out.
HS was the point where CB decided that they didn't want to keep making Exrah (for whatever reason). All 5 Exrah miniatures had been released at that point. CB could have decided to give Exrah new units, profiles, characters or a sectorial army in HS, but they didn't. In fact, the Exrah were one of the few thematic groups to not get a sectorial, while other groups that had only ever had 2-3 models received full sectorials.
HS was where CB really expanded the game and decided what to do next. A very few thematic groups from the original book like Kaumu, Securiate didn't make it into a sectorial, but nearly everything else did (and CB even released a few new units, like Nisse, which didn't belong to an existing sectorial). At the time I know a lot of us assumed an Exrah sectorial would happen eventually, but in hindsight I think its clear that this was the point where CB decided that Exrah were done.
People often point out the Exrah's subjectively unappealing designs as one of the reasons they were discontinued, but original HS was well before any redesigns started and CA especially was in its formative phase.Everything in the army looked like weird plant lizard circus clowns. Most people don't remember this, but there was a LOOONG forum discussion about whether the Suryat HMG was actually an Exrah because it looked like an Exrak and not really like a Morat. That argument will make more sense if you find the original model and see its old school paint job.
TL,DR: We often think of Exrah's removal from the game as a decision that CB made as 3rd edition was being released, but it was very likely made 5+ years earlier at the dawn of 2nd edition leading up to original Human Sphere.
Peacekeeper is fluffy, but sadly CB never did anything with the Concilium Convention, so it's utterly irrelevant.
The stats for O-12 so far seem like PanO+, good stats where it counts (WIP and BS), limited but solid choice of guns, and only the most useful skills available, with none of the horrendous skill tax some other factions pay.
Looks a little like Infinity Spess Marines in that regard.
Monkeysloth wrote: Wait? Really, just a fluff text rule that has no actual impact on the game?
Only affects campaign games from what Koni said.
The basic outline of it is that if you're playing a campaign/scenario where you aren't allowed to use lethal ammo types, O-12 units are always considered to be using nonlethal ammo types.
Cronch wrote: The stats for O-12 so far seem like PanO+, good stats where it counts (WIP and BS), limited but solid choice of guns, and only the most useful skills available, with none of the horrendous skill tax some other factions pay.
Since the in-universe reason for the absence of the Exrah is that they were exterminated by the EI for trading with humanity (apparently; so I'm told by a friend with the RPG), I could see them returning in the future as an unaligned force. Something as part of the Defiance line rather than the main game, or one or two as mercenaries or something.
I doubt it'll happen, but I can dream.
Are there any scenarios which limit "banned" weaponry? I've toyed with the idea in the past - having NPC Warcors transmitting battlefield footage, using banned weaponry in LOF of their cameras results in a penalty, and allowing players to hack the camera feeds.
jake wrote: Something to consider about Exrah is that CB decided to let them go years before they officially discontinued the models and removed the profiles. Exrah had 4 different unit types (Void, Vector and Jump Operators and the Caskuda) in original Infinity. that may not sound like a lot, but its actually huge. Within CA Morats also only had 4 units (Vanguad, Daturazi, Suryats and the Raicho) and Shasvastii only had 3 (Malignos, Shrouded and the Speculo). The EI units were limited to the Charontid, Avatar, Obsidian Mechanoid and the drones. So the Exrah were a full 1/4 of the Combined Army, and an important part of it. They were CA only MI.
Not surprised if they decided to cut something, it was MI.
jake wrote: Something to consider about Exrah is that CB decided to let them go years before they officially discontinued the models and removed the profiles. Exrah had 4 different unit types (Void, Vector and Jump Operators and the Caskuda) in original Infinity. that may not sound like a lot, but its actually huge. Within CA Morats also only had 4 units (Vanguad, Daturazi, Suryats and the Raicho) and Shasvastii only had 3 (Malignos, Shrouded and the Speculo). The EI units were limited to the Charontid, Avatar, Obsidian Mechanoid and the drones. So the Exrah were a full 1/4 of the Combined Army, and an important part of it. They were CA only MI.
Not surprised if they decided to cut something, it was MI.
MI in 1st edition was huge, really powerful models, Nomads were feared for their powerful MI units, Exrah had great rules powerful profiles (maybe too powerful in Kaskudas case) but they never worked, each model release was essentially a redesign the profiles were attractive, but the models were not, same with the CA drones until their redesign, "Starfish aliens" do not work...
Sad because I really liked some of the models.
@AndrewGPaul the in game explanation is the Exrah "company" that used to be in Paradiso was caught smuggling CA tech to human black markets and was wiped out by CA and replaced with another one, the replacement decided to be better safe and not commit greedy units close to humans, Exrah are still out there, just not on the battlefield at the moment.
It was the Concordat Exrah business group that got up to a little double dealing. The EI was most displeased, and wiped then out. Now the Commissariat Exrah are under contract and doing the transport and supply in place of the Concordat
I wonder if there has been any thought to having some Exrah as Mercs, like the Morat's Krakot Renegades.
HoverBoy wrote: Neat as that would be isn't capturing Exrah alive supposed to be near impossible. That was like step one of how Krakot came about right.
Krakot Renegades are Morats that have been basically sentenced to death camps and end up working as mercenaries. Exrah are moreso bug-people.
HoverBoy wrote: Neat as that would be isn't capturing Exrah alive supposed to be near impossible. That was like step one of how Krakot came about right.
Krakot Renegades are Morats that have been basically sentenced to death camps and end up working as mercenaries. Exrah are moreso bug-people.
I was more refering to the fact Exrah where basically unable to survive damage so live capture, and pressing them into service, would be harder.
Are there any scenarios which limit "banned" weaponry? I've toyed with the idea in the past - having NPC Warcors transmitting battlefield footage, using banned weaponry in LOF of their cameras results in a penalty, and allowing players to hack the camera feeds.
"Sir, we have word they used plasma weaponry in front of a warcor"
*Punches first into hand* "We have them!"
"Not quite sir. The.... well, the warcor was from PanO."
"...."
"...."
"... they couldn't connect the modem, could they?"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
shasolenzabi wrote: Man, I seriously want a heavy armor from Yu-Jing,,,the Mowang
solkan wrote: I think that puts the idea of giving the Exrah the same sort of love/updates/digital treatment as... Well, it's like trying to ask DC to produce another Wonder Woman movie instead of another Grim Dark Superman. If they don't have a concept, it's not going to happen.
The LOS indicators is a good idea, but since the relative orientation of a miniature’s head and the base tab is essentially random, it’s a bit useless to me. If I wanted something like that I’d need to paint them on myself.
AndrewGPaul wrote: The LOS indicators is a good idea, but since the relative orientation of a miniature’s head and the base tab is essentially random, it’s a bit useless to me. If I wanted something like that I’d need to paint them on myself.
The LOS pointers on the bases sounds to me like something that seems a great idea until you look a little closer at it.
* Uses Aristeia! dice.
* Enemies use AI deck
* Compatible with Infinity
* Expansions planned with more heroes, allies, and friendly remotes
* Enemies are Nox Troops, Cadmus, Gwailo, and other non-Shas units like Charontids
* All sculpts are exclusive to Defiance, and they're trying for each model being unique from one another
* Most Operation Wildfire miniatures are playable in Defiance
Even though it's short I'm glad to see them getting a video out showing some things off so people aren't left with bad videos from the show floor at Gencon.
Not sure how I feel about it using Aristeia dice, was hoping for more infinity light but I'll wait for a demo video to really decide.
Dysartes wrote: I'd've gone with the comic cover butt 'n' boobs pose on the hacker as being more problematic, myself.
Sculpt her as she was in that piece of art, minus the shouting, and I think she'd look much better.
Problematic? How so? In the art, she's still facing one direction and turned to the side. Is your problem that she's turned 38 degrees on the model instead of 32 degrees?
If you look at primary her top half, it feels like her torso is twisted a lot farther than it actually is. The angle of the photo makes it hard to see the direction her leg is pointed unless you really look for it.
The Nomad is not quite in the classic B&B position, but is close. It's the non standard boots -- they are nothing like other Nomad foot wear, that look silly.
Step and step and jazzhacker hands and step and step...
Red Harvest wrote: The Nomad is not quite in the classic B&B position, but is close. It's the non standard boots -- they are nothing like other Nomad foot wear, that look silly.
I hadn't noticed the battle heels until you pointed them out - that's another unfortunate element. What's wrong with a decent pair of boots, especially if you know you're going to need to be at least semi-mobile? Sheesh.
Dysartes wrote: I'd've gone with the comic cover butt 'n' boobs pose on the hacker as being more problematic, myself.
Sculpt her as she was in that piece of art, minus the shouting, and I think she'd look much better.
Problematic? How so? In the art, she's still facing one direction and turned to the side. Is your problem that she's turned 38 degrees on the model instead of 32 degrees?
As noted, the similarity to the B&B pose is my primary issue. In the artwork, the twist to the spine doesn't appear to be anywhere near as extreme, and she seems to be effectively multi-tasking (shooting/hacking/SHOUTING). It feels a more natural pose, compared to the sculpt, which looks to me more about flaunting what she has.
And, as noted by Red Harvest, the heels should've been boots.
I hadn't noticed the battle heels until you pointed them out - that's another unfortunate element. What's wrong with a decent pair of boots, especially if you know you're going to need to be at least semi-mobile? Sheesh.
Hold on. ... Yup... This is the Infinity thread. Thought I wandered into the Adeptus Sororitas thread by accident. If you are here to complain about sexy models in impractical footware, you are in the wrong place. It’s a bit like going into a Star Wars group and complaining that space ships shouldn’t make sound in the vacuum of space.
As noted, the similarity to the B&B pose is my primary issue.
That's a pity, I don't quite get why CB is making a boardgame that's seemingly not aimed at boardgamers? Surely they could've just released the models as "beyond whatever" pack instead if that's the case?
N4 huh? Did they say anything else about what it would entail? I mean, they spent all year selling three big hardback books (which admittedly was majority fluff) at a breakneck pace, and now N4 is only a year off?
I think N3 is an amazing system, but it could definitely clean up all the weapons, ammo types, and states - it's really excessive. I think they could organize the rules in a more model-centric manner (like putting all the rules pertinent to a model on a card) rather than rule-centric manner (all abilities listed together, all weapons, all ammo, all states, etc).
Edit: They don't even need to change the rules. Just organize them better.
...And cull the herd. Remove at least half of the hacking programs. And... yeah. N4 ought to be N3 after a good weight loss prgram, lean and mean and ready to kick some tucus. There is plenty of fat to be trimmed.
With Defiance releasing stat cards for each usable model, perhaps N4 will have stat cards.
Perhaps CB finally caved in to releasing stat cards for models, but before they dedicate themselves to unit profiles as such, they're willing to consolidate and streamline the rules.
Yeah, none of the edition changes have been major overhauls, certainly nothing like Warhammer or Warmachine have been through. N2 was literally just a reprinting of the N1 rulebook with the errata included, a new cover and a few additional photos added. N2 to N3 was a much bigger change, but it was still mostly cleanup aside (CC and hacking were the biggest changes).
I fully expect the same from N4, I just hope they don't go overboard and prune too much away. The game is excellent as-is, just clean up the presentation, combine a few hacking programs down, re-work the points calculations for some of the mediocre models and boom, done. They might not even need to redo the Operation 2 player starters
I'm neutral on n4. I'm hoping it's just the trimming everyone else has talked about but I doubt I'll really be able to get much going for it like I did at the start of N3 out here. Which is fine as Defiance seams more in line with what most of my friends would want to play anyway. Speaking of which that box is huge.
All they really need to do is cut down on the hacking programs and maybe try to make certain special rules less wordy.
Though I fear that if you oversimplified Hacking it would lose its flavor.
Personally, I would get rid of the current hacking system all together. Make it much more of a support system with very little in the way of direct offense, and that direct offense being difficult to pull off. So instead of a successful hack of an enemy hacker actually killing them, just have it disable their hacking equipment or other hackable equipment they might have. They'd need an Engineer to fix it and get it running again.
Red Harvest wrote: ...And cull the herd. Remove at least half of the hacking programs. And... yeah. N4 ought to be N3 after a good weight loss prgram, lean and mean and ready to kick some tucus. There is plenty of fat to be trimmed.
Amen brother!
Grey Templar wrote: All they really need to do is cut down on the hacking programs and maybe try to make certain special rules less wordy.
Though I fear that if you oversimplified Hacking it would lose its flavor.
Personally, I would get rid of the current hacking system all together. Make it much more of a support system with very little in the way of direct offense, and that direct offense being difficult to pull off. So instead of a successful hack of an enemy hacker actually killing them, just have it disable their hacking equipment or other hackable equipment they might have. They'd need an Engineer to fix it and get it running again.
Red Harvest wrote: ...And cull the herd. Remove at least half of the hacking programs. And... yeah. N4 ought to be N3 after a good weight loss prgram, lean and mean and ready to kick some tucus. There is plenty of fat to be trimmed.
Amen brother!
Grey Templar wrote: All they really need to do is cut down on the hacking programs and maybe try to make certain special rules less wordy.
Though I fear that if you oversimplified Hacking it would lose its flavor.
Personally, I would get rid of the current hacking system all together. Make it much more of a support system with very little in the way of direct offense, and that direct offense being difficult to pull off. So instead of a successful hack of an enemy hacker actually killing them, just have it disable their hacking equipment or other hackable equipment they might have. They'd need an Engineer to fix it and get it running again.
I like what you're sending out there!
But yes, hacking needs a good hacking, certainly.
Hacking and weapons lists need a trimming. There are too many similar programs & weapon profiles.
I know command tokens addressed some important balance issues, but it’s a clumsy meta tool.
It’d be nice if they could cut down on the number of tokens overall. You need so many damned tokens to play this game.
Hackers should basically act like support mages in a fantasy game.
Have your Hacker spend an order and give up to 3 friendly models in his hacking area +1BS.
Have you hacker hack up to 3 enemy models in its hacking area to suffer -1 BS.
Hack an enemy model to give friendly models a +3 modifier when ARO'ing in a FtF roll with that model.
Hack an enemy model to turn off a hackable piece of equipment it is equipped with. This would be how you defeat an enemy hacker. Brick his hacking device and turn him into an expensive cheerleader.
Hack a remote or TAG to cause wounds to it or take control of it(Only robots should be able to suffer wounds from a hacking attack).
Give all Ariadnan units a Hacking Resistance trait or something that increases their BTS value against all hacking programs to 10 or something.
Pretty much that. Get rid of about..half the ammo and weapon types? 70% of the fifty hacking programs, and generally make the thing manageable and it'll work fine.
If they could decide if they're a skirmish game or squad based game it'd be nice too, the Fireteams are a bit schizophrenic right now imo.
Oh, and consolidated fluff would be nice. When I bought N3 i really didn't expect to have nothing on Aleph despite the faction being years old at that point.
First and foremost, N4 needs to actually be complete and ready to go out of the box. N3's slow rollout was sloppy and felt pretty unprepared (and the miscommunication around them saying there would be no reprints of HS et al in order to sell remaining stock still remains a big strike against them for me). Worse, it simply retraced all the mistakes that ended with 2nd Edition being such a bloody mess at the end of its life.
All armies (including the ones with discontinued model lines) need to be ready to go out of the gate. They need to NOT annex major rules in later supplements, and they need to not perform the exact same release cycle again.
In general a living rulebook would be the best way to go, but so long as the core book is feature complete (i.e. you can run sectorials without having to reference some other book or document) then it should be good.
Other than that, general agreement with a lot of other folks. Trim the fat, knock off the barnacles and skim the accumulated cruft off. The game needs a ground-up overhaul and a house-cleaning, there are too many bloody special abilities, nested abilities, weapons, hacking programs, ammo types, etc. and all it does is act as a barrier for playing the game at a semi-competent level. It got to the point where my group would drop the game for a few months to play something else and when we came back, we had forgotten enough that the first few games were painfully slow. After a few cycles, a few months became half a year to a year between plays and now we basically just don't pull it out because our time is better spent on plenty of other games with as much depth but less baggage.
Infinity was my favourite game for a damn long time, and while I was initially hopeful with N3, it ended up breaking my heart and killing my ongoing interest in the game due to how badly handled it was throughout its life. Pervasive feature creep, rules bloat, newer lists making older ones often feel like beta-tests. Over-stuffed, super-optimized profiles getting used as crutches to make armies work and destroying any semblance of internal balance. To say nothing of the sloppy PR and lack of general planning (or at least the feeling that they were constantly flying by the seat of their pants as an outside observer).
I want to believe N4 can finally turn this around but... well, I've been burned enough that I'm maintaining my wait and see policy.
I'm in the same boat, I was really excited for N3 but I've actually played it less than second edition.
The game just has too many rules for it to be readily playable. It seems to sit somewhere between RPG and miniature game hybrid in terms of numbers of rules, complex interactions and abilities only available to a handful of units. I know people always whine about simplifying game systems, but it's possible to have a game with a simple rule set with lots of tactical depth.
I love the Infinity setting, the artwork and the miniatures, but the game as it stands is just too difficult to play and keep a group going. All it took for us was for one person to lose interest and move systems and it's been over a year since we last played. A simpler ruleset would be easier to sell to new people and to keep existing players engaged.
I want N4 to be a success, but it needs a stripped down, fully complete, ready to go rulebook that doesn't need a raft of addendum, FAQs, erratas and supplements as soon as it releases, especially when there's huge gaps in between as there were with some of the N3 books.
I'm really happy with N3. It's not nearly as complicated as it is disorganized and there's a lot of room to clean things up. Remove some profiles that don't have models, reorganize some of the "level" skills to remove some of the oddities from things like Veteran and Camouflage. Hacking really isn't that complicated and I like how it works overall, but there's tons of room to cut programs down to more distinct functions.
Cronch wrote: Pretty much that. Get rid of about..half the ammo and weapon types? 70% of the fifty hacking programs, and generally make the thing manageable and it'll work fine.
If they could decide if they're a skirmish game or squad based game it'd be nice too, the Fireteams are a bit schizophrenic right now imo.
Oh, and consolidated fluff would be nice. When I bought N3 i really didn't expect to have nothing on Aleph despite the faction being years old at that point.
Nah, Ammo and weapons are fine. It’s a nice modular system and since range bands and stats get printed on the lists it’s easy to check what it is. Plus 95% of weapons are shared between factions.
I think the ammo and weapon types are only fine if they make the ammo a function of the weapon profile. Having a 20 page catalogue of ammo types is all sorts of terrible, especially when the difference between ammo types is usually very minor.
Optimally, I'd like to see Infinity do character cards (stats, ability descriptions) and weapon/equipment cards (range, damage, ammo). That should cover all (or most) of the unit rules while still allowing you to pick models with different weapon loadouts.
They would solve the weapon and ammo issue, well any equipment issues really, but allowing army to print out those item's rules. This would be similar to the cards mentioned above but not something you have to buy -- just let their app make them in the army list pdf if needed.
Monkeysloth wrote: They would solve the weapon and ammo issue, well any equipment issues really, but allowing army to print out those item's rules. This would be similar to the cards mentioned above but not something you have to buy -- just let their app make them in the army list pdf if needed.
I'm less about the format these things show up in (though I'm absolutely on board with cards), and more about organizing the rules as either belonging to the unit or to the weapon. The basic rules for Infinity are fairly short, with the majority of the rulebook being lists of specific rules (many of them unique to only one model). I feel like the units and weapons are first order gameplay devices from which all the abilities, states, and ammo types are derived. Instead, Infinity treats abilities, states, and ammo types as primaries and units are derived from that.
It's like the difference between saying this is a loaf of bread - You can eat it, cut it, or toast it - and there are things you can eat, things you can cut, and things you can toast - bread is a member of these three groups.
Monkeysloth wrote: They would solve the weapon and ammo issue, well any equipment issues really, but allowing army to print out those item's rules. This would be similar to the cards mentioned above but not something you have to buy -- just let their app make them in the army list pdf if needed.
A ton of the game's more confusing elements can be cleared up with better presentation. MayaNet does a really good job of "compiling" a list down into what the unit can actually do and I think a lot of these kinds of problems can be solved by pulling in some of the interface of that program into the main builder.
LunarSol wrote:I'm really happy with N3. It's not nearly as complicated as it is disorganized and there's a lot of room to clean things up.
LunarSol wrote:
Monkeysloth wrote: They would solve the weapon and ammo issue, well any equipment issues really, but allowing army to print out those item's rules. This would be similar to the cards mentioned above but not something you have to buy -- just let their app make them in the army list pdf if needed.
A ton of the game's more confusing elements can be cleared up with better presentation. MayaNet does a really good job of "compiling" a list down into what the unit can actually do and I think a lot of these kinds of problems can be solved by pulling in some of the interface of that program into the main builder.
Yes and yes. Infinity is a complex game, but not really a complicated one. What it desperately need is to be a better teacher. New players (and I guess veteran players too, judging from this thread and some of the other comments I've seen this week) get confused by the amount of options, but the options aren't actually a problem and removing them or consolidating them doesn't actually make the game any better. Rather, players need to understand that they don't need to know all, or even most, of the game's rules. Instead,they need to know the game's basic rules and game play concepts and they need to know how to use Army and the wiki and how to print lists. Thats it. Unfortunately the game doesn't do a good job of teaching this to new players, and because of that too many players think they need to memorize all the rules, or know every weapon rage or hacking program.
Better teaching could really make N4 much easier to play without having to simplify any (or many) rules.
Infinity absolutely is a complex game. That should never change. Providing better learning tools is the best path to making the game accessible for players who like complex games and want to learn ow Infinity works. While the game may be able to be simplified in some small ways to improve accessibility and game play, simplification is likely to lead to a poorer game. This will sound exclusionary (and its not meant to be), but there are older many, many simple skirmish games to choose from. infinity's niche and a very large part of its appeal has always been its complexity. Any call to simplify should keep that in mind. I think a better path i to refine Infinity so it continues to be an accessible complex game.
When I started teaching Infinity (about a year before Warcors became a thing) someone at CB advised the following:
- Players should start with small 100 point armies. The armies should have only a single special feature each. For example, 1 guy with heavy armor. 1 guy with mimetism. 1 guy with a sniper rifle. Everyone else should be basic guys with rifles or shotguns or chainrifles.
- Leave out any complex rules. No camo. No hacking. No infiltration or AD. No imeptious no mines. Focus on shooting, movement, cover and order for the first 1-3 games.
- After a few games start introducing more advanced rules one at a time. Camo and MSV in one game. Hacking and Remotes in another. Close Combat and Impetious in another.
- After a few more games try larger armies and introduce a few more rules. Stress that they don't need to remember everything. You can look stuff up as you go. play at 150 points until they feel comfortable
- Try some 300 point games. Introduce Fireteams and Tags
This kind of incremental introduction is also suggested in operation icestorm and the other starters, but its not really pushed hard, and most new players want to try to jump into giant games with all the features right away. I started teaching this after we kept having new players join and then leave after a few games. With the help of this process we ended up growing our community to about 20 players over a year, and it stayed healthy for a long time (its still going strong). this process takes longer and requires actual teaching and patience, but its the best way to teach the game and results in players who understand how to play, how to look up rules quickly and who won't get frustrated and leave because they think they have to memorize everything.
I don't really like teaching with 100 point armies. I find too often that at that small a model count, losses just feel catastrophic when the order pool is trimmed so significantly. You also need to play on a weirdly narrow 2x4 table to keep ranges relevant but still provide adequate ARO saturation to "feel" right.
What I REALLY like is the Operation+Beyond armies. Full sized Limited Insertion army that generally isn't packing too many tricks. Each of them usually has one AD or Camo model that you get to teach as the "big trick" so they get to experience one of the game's more compelling features, but otherwise they're a pretty good mix of straightforward combat options.
The big deal is that you're learning before you try list building. Getting an appreciation for how the game plays and an understanding of what's in a unit profile makes Army significantly easier to understand. When players play with a preset army and only have to learn the rules of THAT army, a lot of the simplicity of what you actually have to work with on the table shines through.
N4 has me interested, but only if they go all in on consolidation.
None of the arguments where because all the books are free online somehow makes it okay. A bunch of spread out rules all over does not help a game grow.
Moreover, they doubled down on rules complexity for little gain.
Infinity will always be a complex game, but they went off the deep end and it hurt growth right when they really started nailing their model sculpts.
In general a living rulebook would be the best way to go, but so long as the core book is feature complete (i.e. you can run sectorials without having to reference some other book or document) then it should be good.
The wiki is well maintained & linked to everything in the army builder.
That’s been the living rulebook for some time.
Rather, players need to understand that they don't need to know all, or even most, of the game's rules. Instead,they need to know the game's basic rules and game play concepts and they need to know how to use Army and the wiki and how to print lists. Thats it. Unfortunately the game doesn't do a good job of teaching this to new players, and because of that too many players think they need to memorize all the rules, or know every weapon rage or hacking program.
This very much feels like saying "the game is fine, it's the players that are doing it wrong".
For reference, I started playing Infinity back in 1st ed. In fact, before 1st ed, when the rules were a small PDF on the first Infinity website. 1st ed had horrible translation, but sensible amount of special skills that were not hard to grasp. Then, each book started adding more skills and ammo types and all sorts of guff. At this stage, not only is it impossible to learn all the rules for most players, there's so many rules that do barely anything (Kinematika for example) that the game keeps getting bigger because CB has no other idea how to diffrentiate the tenth SK model for Nomads or fifth HI option for YJ otherwise.
There is a massive SKU and skill bloat, and when I came back to 3rd ed after passing most of 2nd edition, I honestly felt immediately put off, and I am, for most intents, a veteran, I know how the game works.
The game will not be simplified if you remove superficial skills that add little to the flow of the game, it will simply be more efficient ruleset. Right now CB is just proving they have no handle on what they want the game to do, they just throw stuff at the wall and hope the wall takes it.
Counterpoint: Between the armybuilder, the Wiki, and the Comlog app, I haven't even bothered to bring a rulebook with me for the last year and a half, not even to tournaments. They aren't needed. Once you know the basics, it's FAR easier to look up the wiki by circumstance
The books over the last year+ have had no rules in them, just fluff and the campaign revamp in the last one.
I'm REALLY hoping that all we get is a cleanup, I do NOT want the game to become less complex just to try and attract people that can't be bothered to learn the rules. I've said it before, there's TONS of skirmish games out there already that offer a simpler play experience, but there's extremely few that can offer the complexity and relative balance that Infinity has maintained. If you have a group that only gets around to this type of game a few times a year, you're better off using Infinity models to play Deadzone or Zone Raiders or Rogue Stars or a dozen other similar games. Infinity's complexity is a HUGE draw and I'd hate to see it lose that
Ronin_eX wrote:Other than that, general agreement with a lot of other folks. Trim the fat, knock off the barnacles and skim the accumulated cruft off. The game needs a ground-up overhaul and a house-cleaning, there are too many bloody special abilities, nested abilities, weapons, hacking programs, ammo types, etc. and all it does is act as a barrier for playing the game at a semi-competent level. It got to the point where my group would drop the game for a few months to play something else and when we came back, we had forgotten enough that the first few games were painfully slow. After a few cycles, a few months became half a year to a year between plays and now we basically just don't pull it out because our time is better spent on plenty of other games with as much depth but less baggage.
it is hard to keep track of. What really needs to go are the little differences, the minor but small distinctions between similar things and the different things that are pretty much the same, but SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT. Also how an actual rule is spread out so far, I've searched the wiki for how something works only to find out that the thing I was looking for was under the condition related to the thing so. Many. Damn. Times.
I want to believe N4 can finally turn this around but... well, I've been burned enough that I'm maintaining my wait and see policy.
I have learnt from GW not to wait. I hoped 40k would be better after the next codex/edition/FAQ/chapter approved for too long. Should have been playing Infinity instead.
If a company keeps doing a thing, they will probably keep doing it.
The other thing we can learn from GW is that more rules do not give a game depth (maybe the illusion of it, but not actual depth), or the complex play experience. Depth comes from having choices that actually matter. A game feels complex when several of those choices matter in one interaction. You need a lot of variation for the Infinity experience, but making it hard to remember and having minute differences that don't actually matter just makes the game a pain to play.
Sqorgar wrote: I think the ammo and weapon types are only fine if they make the ammo a function of the weapon profile. Having a 20 page catalogue of ammo types is all sorts of terrible, especially when the difference between ammo types is usually very minor.
Optimally, I'd like to see Infinity do character cards (stats, ability descriptions) and weapon/equipment cards (range, damage, ammo). That should cover all (or most) of the unit rules while still allowing you to pick models with different weapon loadouts.
It's already a function of the weapon profile. It says its a X weapon with Y damage type. Weapons could have any damage type and vice verse. And there really aren't that many ammo types or weapons. There are 23 ammo types, but really only about half of them are in any way common.
And no, there really isn't much in common with the different ammo types. Rolling twice with Double action ammo is very different from having your armor halved by AP. Its also mostly intuitive when it comes to combining ammo types.
The only part that is kinda messy is if you have Ammo that rolls against BTS and/or you've got multiple ammo types with some rolling vs armor and some rolling vs BTS. That could use some reworking. Though mostly a re-balancing, weapons which roll vs BTS are too cheap IMO for their power.
Its certainly an easier system than having unique weapons and statlines for every faction. If someone has an APHMG, it doesn't matter what faction it is. You know what its statline in. You know its damage 15, has machine gun range bands, and halves your armor.
While we're at it, it'd be nice if TAG weapons had different profiles to hand-held ones. It's stretching the ol' suspension of disbelief something awful when a tag-sized "HMG" with 30mm caliber gun is the same weapon as a SAW-sized HMG held by a Fusilier.
Cronch wrote: While we're at it, it'd be nice if TAG weapons had different profiles to hand-held ones. It's stretching the ol' suspension of disbelief something awful when a tag-sized "HMG" with 30mm caliber gun is the same weapon as a SAW-sized HMG held by a Fusilier.
Well, they're currently all +1 Damage, so the TAG-sized HMG is Dam 16 compared with the Fusilier's Dam 15.
That's...ok. Last time I checked ITS was just a tournament thing, not actually part of the game itself, but I suppose it does neatly underscore the problem, if you can miss out on important rules because they're in a random tournament pack.
Cronch wrote: That's...ok. Last time I checked ITS was just a tournament thing, not actually part of the game itself, but I suppose it does neatly underscore the problem, if you can miss out on important rules because they're in a random tournament pack.
They often use the tournament packet to beta test rule changes and honestly, I wouldn't call any of them "important" unless you're concerned enough about balance to be playing the ITS packet in the first place. FWIW, the other big ones are that Medium Infantry gets to deploy out a little farther, and if you have a single combat group your opponent cannot reduce your order pool on the first turn with a command token.
LunarSol wrote:I don't really like teaching with 100 point armies. I find too often that at that small a model count, losses just feel catastrophic when the order pool is trimmed so significantly. You also need to play on a weirdly narrow 2x4 table to keep ranges relevant but still provide adequate ARO saturation to "feel" right.
i agree that at that size losses can feel big, and both mistakes and good rolls are magnified, but I think thats an important lesson in learning the game. Its important to understand that each model matters, that dice rolls are unreliable, that losing can be catastrophic and that taking advantage of a good roll can win the game. And I think those are good things to learn first, and in small games. Starting with larger games, even just 10 orders, can gloss over some of these lessons and other important ones as well. It might not be the approach for everyone (and some players learn faster than others), but its worked consistently for me for years with dozens of players.
Cronch wrote:
Rather, players need to understand that they don't need to know all, or even most, of the game's rules. Instead,they need to know the game's basic rules and game play concepts and they need to know how to use Army and the wiki and how to print lists. Thats it. Unfortunately the game doesn't do a good job of teaching this to new players, and because of that too many players think they need to memorize all the rules, or know every weapon rage or hacking program.
This very much feels like saying "the game is fine, it's the players that are doing it wrong".
For reference, I started playing Infinity back in 1st ed. In fact, before 1st ed, when the rules were a small PDF on the first Infinity website. 1st ed had horrible translation, but sensible amount of special skills that were not hard to grasp. Then, each book started adding more skills and ammo types and all sorts of guff. At this stage, not only is it impossible to learn all the rules for most players, there's so many rules that do barely anything (Kinematika for example) that the game keeps getting bigger because CB has no other idea how to diffrentiate the tenth SK model for Nomads or fifth HI option for YJ otherwise.
There is a massive SKU and skill bloat, and when I came back to 3rd ed after passing most of 2nd edition, I honestly felt immediately put off, and I am, for most intents, a veteran, I know how the game works.
The game will not be simplified if you remove superficial skills that add little to the flow of the game, it will simply be more efficient ruleset. Right now CB is just proving they have no handle on what they want the game to do, they just throw stuff at the wall and hope the wall takes it.
thanks for your response. Here's some more thoughts. I'm a former teacher and a game designer and specialize in ways to present rules for easy consumption, so this is an interesting topic for me.. Which doesn't mean I'm right or know more than anyone else, but just that I think about it a lot.
In some ways "the game is fine, it's the players that are doing it wrong" is correct. I think its more accurate to say that the game is MOSTLY fine, but doesn't do a good job teaching players how to play it, and players have an understandable tendency to bring the habits and assumptions from other games to Infinity and then get (understandably) frustrated when the game doesn't work as they expected. Better teaching, clearer learning paths and a consolidation of rules into a single source can facilitate this, making it easier for players to learn and continue to play the game. With this in mind I think eliminating rules and simplifying will mostly be unnecessary.
You're advocating removing skills (and profiles maybe?), but would that actually help? As a player you're not required to know every profile, memorize every skill or be familiar with every hacking program (although thats traditionally what we all try to do). But theres no reason to memorize this stuff. Its just options. If we accept that, and accept that we can reference each as we need to then it mostly doesn't matter how many of this type of rule there are or whether we know them or not. Taking a few minutes while your opponent is setting up to look over the Shasvastii rules or check out weapon range bands that you can't quite remember is easier than trying to remember everything, and Infinity seems purposely designed with this approach in mind. And since you don't need to memorize this info theres no good reason to eliminate these kinds of rules. Getting rid of Redfury (for example) doesn't make the game better, simpler or easier. It just eliminates an option in the name of unnecessary simplification.
As someone who is also a veteran who has been playing nearly as long as you have I understand the instinct to be put off by a growing number of SKUs and skills. I'll sometimes step away from the game for a few months and then come back and feel overwhelmed. But growth and change are inevitable and having wealth of options (even ones that are only slightly different) enhances the game as long as you understand that you don't need to know or use all of them, and when you do that information is easy to find. Infinity as a system (mechanically and thematically)is about adapting
I think better organization, better explanation, better presentations and better teaching are what the game needs. Removing options as a way to make the game easier to understand is the wrong approach. infinity has a front end and a back end. The front end (the basic rules that you need to understand to play the game) is complex but relatively easy to learn (with patience), and that should always be the focus of teaching and the presentation, and the part that players memorize. The back end (all the rules for skills, weapons and ammo profiles, hacking, etc) can be as complex as needed because no one ever needs to memorize them, most people will only ever use a small portion of them during a game and they can all easily be referenced using available tools. Better tools will make both parts easier. Removing rules from the back end is just removing options.
Cronch wrote:That's...ok. Last time I checked ITS was just a tournament thing, not actually part of the game itself, but I suppose it does neatly underscore the problem, if you can miss out on important rules because they're in a random tournament pack.
Consolidation would be very good. having to keep up with seasonal rules updates can get tricky. Having all rules available in one place that all players can easily access is a good goal.
You know, a few years ago I think I would have loved this mode enough to start a whole new faction. Its certainly great. But I'm so burned out on both bikes and antipodes now that I just can't get excited. I may still get the model eventually just to paint.
LunarSol wrote:I don't really like teaching with 100 point armies. I find too often that at that small a model count, losses just feel catastrophic when the order pool is trimmed so significantly. You also need to play on a weirdly narrow 2x4 table to keep ranges relevant but still provide adequate ARO saturation to "feel" right.
i agree that at that size losses can feel big, and both mistakes and good rolls are magnified, but I think thats an important lesson in learning the game. Its important to understand that each model matters, that dice rolls are unreliable, that losing can be catastrophic and that taking advantage of a good roll can win the game. And I think those are good things to learn first, and in small games. Starting with larger games, even just 10 orders, can gloss over some of these lessons and other important ones as well. It might not be the approach for everyone (and some players learn faster than others), but its worked consistently for me for years with dozens of players.
Cronch wrote:
Rather, players need to understand that they don't need to know all, or even most, of the game's rules. Instead,they need to know the game's basic rules and game play concepts and they need to know how to use Army and the wiki and how to print lists. Thats it. Unfortunately the game doesn't do a good job of teaching this to new players, and because of that too many players think they need to memorize all the rules, or know every weapon rage or hacking program.
This very much feels like saying "the game is fine, it's the players that are doing it wrong".
For reference, I started playing Infinity back in 1st ed. In fact, before 1st ed, when the rules were a small PDF on the first Infinity website. 1st ed had horrible translation, but sensible amount of special skills that were not hard to grasp. Then, each book started adding more skills and ammo types and all sorts of guff. At this stage, not only is it impossible to learn all the rules for most players, there's so many rules that do barely anything (Kinematika for example) that the game keeps getting bigger because CB has no other idea how to diffrentiate the tenth SK model for Nomads or fifth HI option for YJ otherwise.
There is a massive SKU and skill bloat, and when I came back to 3rd ed after passing most of 2nd edition, I honestly felt immediately put off, and I am, for most intents, a veteran, I know how the game works.
The game will not be simplified if you remove superficial skills that add little to the flow of the game, it will simply be more efficient ruleset. Right now CB is just proving they have no handle on what they want the game to do, they just throw stuff at the wall and hope the wall takes it.
thanks for your response. Here's some more thoughts. I'm a former teacher and a game designer and specialize in ways to present rules for easy consumption, so this is an interesting topic for me.. Which doesn't mean I'm right or know more than anyone else, but just that I think about it a lot.
In some ways "the game is fine, it's the players that are doing it wrong" is correct. I think its more accurate to say that the game is MOSTLY fine, but doesn't do a good job teaching players how to play it, and players have an understandable tendency to bring the habits and assumptions from other games to Infinity and then get (understandably) frustrated when the game doesn't work as they expected. Better teaching, clearer learning paths and a consolidation of rules into a single source can facilitate this, making it easier for players to learn and continue to play the game. With this in mind I think eliminating rules and simplifying will mostly be unnecessary.
You're advocating removing skills (and profiles maybe?), but would that actually help? As a player you're not required to know every profile, memorize every skill or be familiar with every hacking program (although thats traditionally what we all try to do). But theres no reason to memorize this stuff. Its just options. If we accept that, and accept that we can reference each as we need to then it mostly doesn't matter how many of this type of rule there are or whether we know them or not. Taking a few minutes while your opponent is setting up to look over the Shasvastii rules or check out weapon range bands that you can't quite remember is easier than trying to remember everything, and Infinity seems purposely designed with this approach in mind. And since you don't need to memorize this info theres no good reason to eliminate these kinds of rules. Getting rid of Redfury (for example) doesn't make the game better, simpler or easier. It just eliminates an option in the name of unnecessary simplification.
As someone who is also a veteran who has been playing nearly as long as you have I understand the instinct to be put off by a growing number of SKUs and skills. I'll sometimes step away from the game for a few months and then come back and feel overwhelmed. But growth and change are inevitable and having wealth of options (even ones that are only slightly different) enhances the game as long as you understand that you don't need to know or use all of them, and when you do that information is easy to find. Infinity as a system (mechanically and thematically)is about adapting
I think better organization, better explanation, better presentations and better teaching are what the game needs. Removing options as a way to make the game easier to understand is the wrong approach. infinity has a front end and a back end. The front end (the basic rules that you need to understand to play the game) is complex but relatively easy to learn (with patience), and that should always be the focus of teaching and the presentation, and the part that players memorize. The back end (all the rules for skills, weapons and ammo profiles, hacking, etc) can be as complex as needed because no one ever needs to memorize them, most people will only ever use a small portion of them during a game and they can all easily be referenced using available tools. Better tools will make both parts easier. Removing rules from the back end is just removing options.
Cronch wrote:That's...ok. Last time I checked ITS was just a tournament thing, not actually part of the game itself, but I suppose it does neatly underscore the problem, if you can miss out on important rules because they're in a random tournament pack.
Consolidation would be very good. having to keep up with seasonal rules updates can get tricky. Having all rules available in one place that all players can easily access is a good goal.
I think that's actually a really solid point. None of my group considers the rules to be overly complex, but then almost all of us play with a printed out armylist and a phone/tablet at the ready to check the Wiki, or the comlog app, or the Infinity Helper app (which is just an offline copy of the wiki). You memorize the important things like structure of an order, available ARO options and the most common weapons/skills/interactions and the rest you look up as necessary. Some people like games where everything you need to know can be easily displayed on a summary sheet, and Infinity is most certainly NOT one of those games. The wiki is an incredible tool and is already essentially a living rulebook, it gets updated often and is much more complete than the rulebook PDF. It's extremely easy to search through even in the middle of the game. Most of us that have been playing N3 heavily the last few years still pull it out a couple times a game to look up something or other, it's just 2nd nature and an accepted part of playing the game for us, but it's also extremely easy to do. Nobody memories all the hacking programs, nobody memorizes all the weapons and all the profiles, especially those of us that play multiple armies, but everything is on the armylist printout or easily searchable. You just need to accept that Infinity is not a game that will ever be playable with a summary page.
So yes, clean up the rules a bit for N4, clearly mark nested rules, alter some of the mediocre profiles or points costs, but the complexity isn't a problem if you're just willing to use the readily available tools
if you're just willing to use the readily available tools
It really doesn't sound much more enticing by saying I need to bring half a dozen sources beyond the book(s) to play the game. Like, at all.
Getting rid of Redfury (for example) doesn't make the game better, simpler or easier. It just eliminates an option in the name of unnecessary simplification.
If said option brought very little to the table, why have it? I love Kinematika, because it's a perfect example of a skill that not only does very little on it's own, being extremely situational, but also has two levels for some unholy reason.
At this point, I firmly believe CB comes up with all those new skills because they cannot make distinct units otherwise and that's the only reason to have those new abilities.
You don't need a half dozen sources; least of all, you shouldn't bring the book(s). They're fine for fluff, but probably the worst way to consume the rules.
LunarSol wrote: You don't need a half dozen sources; least of all, you shouldn't bring the book(s). They're fine for fluff, but probably the worst way to consume the rules.
This apparently has to be reiterated every single dang time people talk about Infinity's "what you need" vs "what you don't need" for games requirements.
Not everyone plays at places where they can be using digital as a valid method of rules queries.
LunarSol wrote: You don't need a half dozen sources; least of all, you shouldn't bring the book(s). They're fine for fluff, but probably the worst way to consume the rules.
This apparently has to be reiterated every single dang time people talk about Infinity's "what you need" vs "what you don't need" for games requirements.
Not everyone plays at places where they can be using digital as a valid method of rules queries.
I actually mostly use a tablet in offline mode, but even then, I would go with print outs of anything I need over the rulebook any day of the week. It's an object oriented game design and needs a compiler for human consumption.
if you're just willing to use the readily available tools
It really doesn't sound much more enticing by saying I need to bring half a dozen sources beyond the book(s) to play the game. Like, at all.
You need 1 resource with 3 programs on it. That's it. A tablet or phone with 3 apps: Army, Comlog and EITHER Infinity Helper if you have no Wifi or a web browser for the Wiki if you do. That's it. If you think ahead and print out an armylist then you don't need the Army App. If you don't already have a tablet or a phone, then you can get a amazon kindle fire for $35, far less than the cost of the printed rulebooks and you can use it for all your other gaming too. Just load it with Army, Comlog, Infinity Helper. Done. At your preference, you can also load any PDFs you want for the rulebook, profiles lists, FAQ and ITS, but that info is already covered and easier to read in those 3 apps. CB is literally giving you all the tools you need to easily and quickly access any rule in the game, for free, and the community has made even MORE tools, for free. Those "Half dozen sources" are all the same info in different ways, depending on how you like to look at it.
Getting rid of Redfury (for example) doesn't make the game better, simpler or easier. It just eliminates an option in the name of unnecessary simplification.
If said option brought very little to the table, why have it? I love Kinematika, because it's a perfect example of a skill that not only does very little on it's own, being extremely situational, but also has two levels for some unholy reason.
At this point, I firmly believe CB comes up with all those new skills because they cannot make distinct units otherwise and that's the only reason to have those new abilities.
Kinematica is a perfect example of the complexity and nuance that I DON'T want CB to trim away, it's a great rule. You say it's situational and does very little. EXACTLY! But it's also something relatively easy to remember/check, comes on only a few units, and when it comes into pay it's EXTREMELY useful! Kinematica lets you dodge further in ARO, that's it. Level 1 is 1" further, level 2 is 2" further. On it's surface, not a big deal, but many of the units that have it are close combat troops, so when somebody is close, you can Dodge-Engage as an ARO, and oh look, you have a 4" reaction instead of a 2", which can be a tremendous difference. Or, they put it on fast models like bikes to represent their extra speed. It's difficult to dodge on a bike, but if you do, you're going to move further than somebody on foot. Makes sense. It's a mechanical rule that adds flavor to units AND it actually very useful to the models that have it. On a high Phys model like my Domaru, they dodge 4" on 14s! I have crossed half a board and gotten into close combat ON MY OPPONENT'S TURN because of Kinematica, it's AWESOME! But you want to cut it because it's "situational"? THE FETH?!
I don't want to play the game that people are proposing, Infinity is great as-is. It can use a bit of clean up and clarity, but the complexity and nuance that you're dismissing is what makes it so great. I've seen too many other games that were ruined by new editions streamlining away all the interesting bits.
This apparently has to be reiterated every single dang time people talk about Infinity's "what you need" vs "what you don't need" for games requirements.
Not everyone plays at places where they can be using digital as a valid method of rules queries.
But they can digitally argue about not being able to use digital rules queries online? Uh, OK, sure, in the rare case you regularly play locked inside a faraday cage then the books are still an option. They aren't the best way, but refusing to use the best way because you prefer another less-best way is a problem of your own making.
I have a tablet (I think anyway, haven't used it in a while). I have a smartphone. And I despise using either of them for rules as a personal preference. I will be honest, if I was a new player, and not a returning/existing one, I'd be running for the hills right now with how fiddly you make the game sound compared to other offerings, which make do with primitive books.
Anyway, I really hope they do end up improving the game, but with the official forums being their usual echo chamber, I suppose I shouldn't have too high expectations? We'll probably end up with N3, but a few rules will be different, like N2 was to 1st ed.
N2 was an improvement over N1. N3 has ‘evolved’ into a convoluted mess of a game that just doesn’t need to be as muddy as it’s become.
As Kalamadea noted above, this really looks to be because CB is using these new rules to differentiate units when really the sculpt itself could’ve been a differentiator.
Cronch wrote: I will be honest, if I was a new player, and not a returning/existing one, I'd be running for the hills right now with how fiddly you make the game sound compared to other offerings, which make do with primitive books.
Do you connect to this website by connecting directly to its ip address or do you let the technology others have created do the work for you?
There's pretty much nothing out there that makes do with primitive books anymore. 40k is a disaster in book form and PP has essentially abandoned the concept. The new edition of Malifaux works pretty well physically and will continue to do so until January or so when they publish an errata.
Well that's nice. I think I'll just leave the thread, apparently I'm just not advanced enough to enjoy a game where the rulebook is the worst way to play a game. Because that's a sign of sophistication, not horrible rules writing.
Cronch wrote: Well that's nice. I think I'll just leave the thread, apparently I'm just not advanced enough to enjoy a game where the rulebook is the worst way to play a game. Because that's a sign of sophistication, not horrible rules writing.
I'm not trying to be mean about it; honestly, half my point is that I think the rulebook sucks too. I just also think the game behind it is pretty great and worth playing. I do think that if you insist on playing with just the rulebook, its not going to be an enjoyable experience. That's not a critique on you as a person, just the reality of the tools available. Some of that is 100% a fault of the rulebook itself, but some of it is also just a matter of the game being fairly complicated and while some of that complication is what makes the game great, it also just doesn't translate super well to a static page. Using technology that filters out the noise means the game can be complicated and fairly accessible. It just makes for a crummy rulebook.
aka, the game isn't the problem. But I know it totally has a problem. But that's not a problem, unless you make it a problem.
This circular logic is what's driving him away, as it has been for a long time now. Hence N4.
Infinity has problems. Let's see if they fix it or double down on it for N4.
As for me, if they try to keep things that are now core like Fireteams as weird separate rules with odd interactions with everything, I won't bother with N4.
I mean, if the N4 Rulebook is significantly improved that would be fantastic I’m just not expecting it to be. I felt the same way when I’d see people trying to play Warmachine out of the forces books instead of the cards. It’s just not a medium well suited to the game.
Cronch wrote: Where is that written? I don't think I've seen that in the main book?
As mentioned, its ITS. Which the vast majority of even casual gamers still use in their garage games.
But even without +1 damage for being TAGs, most TAGs have Multi-HMGs. The ones who have regular boring HMGs are usually the smaller TAGs, whose HMGs are certainly no larger than those carried by heavy infantry. They're just carrying it like a human would carry a rifle. And Multi-HMGs are definitely way different from regular HMGs. Being able to pick between AP or Shock is a big deal, and having that Anti-material Explosive shot is also a big deal. Especially in ARO.
Plus simply being on the chassis makes a big difference. A TAG can be a lot more aggressive in its moves than most models, so you can use its weapons to greater effect. Most models will want to move such that they only take 1, maybe 2, AROs at most. A TAG can risk more thanks to its 3 wounds and higher armor overall.
In Infinity, its not about any particular aspect of a model. its about all of the pieces together.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LunarSol wrote: You don't need a half dozen sources; least of all, you shouldn't bring the book(s). They're fine for fluff, but probably the worst way to consume the rules.
Ehhh. Books are fine as rules reference. They just need to have a cleaner layout and make an effort to streamline some of the more lengthy special rules, as well as not hiding the rules for one special rule inside of another special rule that someone could easily completely miss.
For example. One of the biggest benefits of having Sixth Sense is that you ignore Stealth. However, the actual Sixth Sense rule DOES NOT SAY THIS! You have to read the Stealth rule to realize this. This is the sort of thing that needs to be fixed. The Stealth special rule should have the line about it being ignored by Sixth Sense deleted, and have that sentence instead moved to the actual Sixth Sense rule(as well as to Deployables and Equipment).
Another example would be deleting Surprise Attack from the list of skills that Martial Arts gives to a model automatically. Martial Arts does not let you use the Surprise Attack skill as it requires you to be in a market state, and every marker state already gives Surprise Attack.
Sqorgar wrote: I think the ammo and weapon types are only fine if they make the ammo a function of the weapon profile. Having a 20 page catalogue of ammo types is all sorts of terrible, especially when the difference between ammo types is usually very minor.
Optimally, I'd like to see Infinity do character cards (stats, ability descriptions) and weapon/equipment cards (range, damage, ammo). That should cover all (or most) of the unit rules while still allowing you to pick models with different weapon loadouts.
It's already a function of the weapon profile. It says its a X weapon with Y damage type. Weapons could have any damage type and vice verse. And there really aren't that many ammo types or weapons. There are 23 ammo types, but really only about half of them are in any way common.
And no, there really isn't much in common with the different ammo types. Rolling twice with Double action ammo is very different from having your armor halved by AP. Its also mostly intuitive when it comes to combining ammo types.
The only part that is kinda messy is if you have Ammo that rolls against BTS and/or you've got multiple ammo types with some rolling vs armor and some rolling vs BTS. That could use some reworking. Though mostly a re-balancing, weapons which roll vs BTS are too cheap IMO for their power.
Its certainly an easier system than having unique weapons and statlines for every faction. If someone has an APHMG, it doesn't matter what faction it is. You know what its statline in. You know its damage 15, has machine gun range bands, and halves your armor.
What they really need to do is just get rid of weapon and equipment names all togethor and do this unit does 13 damage with range band A. This unit has 2 attacks at damage 12 range band B. It's way easier to just remember what the range bands are as there's only a few in the game instead of remembering what every weapon does. Yes army makes it easier but it's still a mess to look up every weapon even on a print out sheet. This game really doesn't have a different damage to range spread then any other I've seen but they way they present it makes it look way worse as just a one point damage difference is a different weapon. CB won't though as they insist part of the reason people like the game is the fluff names for all the equipment and skills. That's why you have Morat which is just a copy of another skill. But it just clutters stuff and makes the game more of a hassle to play then it really needs to be.
Sqorgar wrote: I think the ammo and weapon types are only fine if they make the ammo a function of the weapon profile. Having a 20 page catalogue of ammo types is all sorts of terrible, especially when the difference between ammo types is usually very minor.
Optimally, I'd like to see Infinity do character cards (stats, ability descriptions) and weapon/equipment cards (range, damage, ammo). That should cover all (or most) of the unit rules while still allowing you to pick models with different weapon loadouts.
It's already a function of the weapon profile. It says its a X weapon with Y damage type. Weapons could have any damage type and vice verse. And there really aren't that many ammo types or weapons. There are 23 ammo types, but really only about half of them are in any way common.
And no, there really isn't much in common with the different ammo types. Rolling twice with Double action ammo is very different from having your armor halved by AP. Its also mostly intuitive when it comes to combining ammo types.
The only part that is kinda messy is if you have Ammo that rolls against BTS and/or you've got multiple ammo types with some rolling vs armor and some rolling vs BTS. That could use some reworking. Though mostly a re-balancing, weapons which roll vs BTS are too cheap IMO for their power.
Its certainly an easier system than having unique weapons and statlines for every faction. If someone has an APHMG, it doesn't matter what faction it is. You know what its statline in. You know its damage 15, has machine gun range bands, and halves your armor.
What they really need to do is just get rid of weapon and equipment names all togethor and do this unit does 13 damage with range band A. This unit has 2 attacks at damage 12 range band B. It's way easier to just remember what the range bands are as there's only a few in the game instead of remembering what every weapon does. Yes army makes it easier but it's still a mess to look up every weapon even on a print out sheet. This game really doesn't have a different damage to range spread then any other I've seen but they way they present it makes it look way worse as just a one point damage difference is a different weapon. CB won't though as they insist part of the reason people like the game is the fluff names for all the equipment and skills. That's why you have Morat which is just a copy of another skill. But it just clutters stuff and makes the game more of a hassle to play then it really needs to be.
That would be an incredibly unappealing dumbing down of the game to only give every unit a single weapon.
And you're kinda missing a lot if you think the only difference between weapons is 1 point of damage. Sure, yes. Its 1 point if you're talking about 2 weapons that both only have normal ammunition. But thats not a problem in and of itself. Especially since you can have more variety with ammunition types.
Take a Spitfire vs a Molotok. Same range bands, same burst. The Spitfire is Dam14. The Molotok is Dam13 and is AP. They're two very different weapons because of that, despite on paper seeming very similar and samey.
The Spitfire is better vs anything with armor 0 or 1 because of the higher base damage, and the Molotok's AP does nothing. They're the same against Arm2 and 3. But the Molotok's damage output increases significantly against anything with Arm4 or higher.
You've gotten some very drastic differences in the weapons with minimal rule confusion or with any lengthy unique rules that only exist for a particular weapon. It adds flavor as well as tactical depth to the game with minimal confusion.
I have more fun playing this game than any other. This is just my opinion, but printed books as the rules reference is not a good solution. It makes all errata and additions require additional literature. Many of the rules also require checking other rules due to interactions and nesting. The wiki and comlog are how everyone play localy and it works fantastic. I think the ability to make tweaks to rules via wiki edits is the optimal solution for these type of living rulesets.
My shasvastii just showed up, so I've been playing around in army making lists and suddenly noticed that the Aswang is gone. What happened? Did it just become another unit (like the Haramaki to Tanko)? I have't read the new book yet (I've been on an Infinity break since earlier this year).
Sqorgar wrote: I think the ammo and weapon types are only fine if they make the ammo a function of the weapon profile. Having a 20 page catalogue of ammo types is all sorts of terrible, especially when the difference between ammo types is usually very minor.
Optimally, I'd like to see Infinity do character cards (stats, ability descriptions) and weapon/equipment cards (range, damage, ammo). That should cover all (or most) of the unit rules while still allowing you to pick models with different weapon loadouts.
It's already a function of the weapon profile. It says its a X weapon with Y damage type. Weapons could have any damage type and vice verse. And there really aren't that many ammo types or weapons. There are 23 ammo types, but really only about half of them are in any way common.
And no, there really isn't much in common with the different ammo types. Rolling twice with Double action ammo is very different from having your armor halved by AP. Its also mostly intuitive when it comes to combining ammo types.
The only part that is kinda messy is if you have Ammo that rolls against BTS and/or you've got multiple ammo types with some rolling vs armor and some rolling vs BTS. That could use some reworking. Though mostly a re-balancing, weapons which roll vs BTS are too cheap IMO for their power.
Its certainly an easier system than having unique weapons and statlines for every faction. If someone has an APHMG, it doesn't matter what faction it is. You know what its statline in. You know its damage 15, has machine gun range bands, and halves your armor.
What they really need to do is just get rid of weapon and equipment names all togethor and do this unit does 13 damage with range band A. This unit has 2 attacks at damage 12 range band B. It's way easier to just remember what the range bands are as there's only a few in the game instead of remembering what every weapon does. Yes army makes it easier but it's still a mess to look up every weapon even on a print out sheet. This game really doesn't have a different damage to range spread then any other I've seen but they way they present it makes it look way worse as just a one point damage difference is a different weapon. CB won't though as they insist part of the reason people like the game is the fluff names for all the equipment and skills. That's why you have Morat which is just a copy of another skill. But it just clutters stuff and makes the game more of a hassle to play then it really needs to be.
That would be an incredibly unappealing dumbing down of the game to only give every unit a single weapon.
And you're kinda missing a lot if you think the only difference between weapons is 1 point of damage. Sure, yes. Its 1 point if you're talking about 2 weapons that both only have normal ammunition. But thats not a problem in and of itself. Especially since you can have more variety with ammunition types.
That's not what I'm talking about. I'm saying that infinity really isn't different then other wargames when it comes to differences in weapons (damage, range, special effects) but infinity focuses the presentation on the fluff/name of the weapon while other games the focus is on the stats and the name of the weapon isn't important and usually less of a focus. Infinity is presented in a way that makes it look more complicated then it actually is and it's done on purpose.
Reminds me of the Cadwallon RPG from Rackham. Dang good game but frustrating to figure out because the designers thought it would be clever to purposefully make things hard to follow and understand as the city the book was set in was "terribly mysterious" so lets make the rules the same. Infinity is similar as they want you to see a unit is religious or a morat for "fluff" even though those rules are the same and just tell you to look at other rules. Weapons are similar. They've got all these various names, many hard to remember, that are the focus they want you to see when looking at a unit instead of the numbers that those weapons actually represent. CB likes to make things more difficult on the player/reader as they feel it makes the world more authentic to see words instead of stats on their unit profiles. It's dumb.
I don't think CB is capable of reorganizing things to make infinity easier to play (not dumbing it down as all the accusations always say) as they think they're been cool and clever with their rules and all that stuff does is get in the way.
Monkeysloth wrote: CB likes to make things more difficult on the player/reader as they feel it makes the world more authentic to see words instead of stats on their unit profiles. It's dumb.
Thats an interesting opinion. And you're probably right that play might be made easier by makin the change that you describe. but I also think that would rob the game f a LOT of its appeal. What you're describing as "dumb" is a huge amount of the appeal for many, many gamers.
Monkeysloth wrote: CB likes to make things more difficult on the player/reader as they feel it makes the world more authentic to see words instead of stats on their unit profiles. It's dumb.
Thats an interesting opinion. And you're probably right that play might be made easier by makin the change that you describe. but I also think that would rob the game f a LOT of its appeal. What you're describing as "dumb" is a huge amount of the appeal for many, many gamers.
While I don't play, just like to paint the models, I've got a Warmachine card here. I can see the weapon's damage, range and special rules/effects symbols quite clearly. Then above that info, in a smaller text, is the weapon name. You can have your easy to find stats and still have the fluff. Then if you need to know what the special effect symbol is you look in one place in the rule book. CB stats block is just a name, that requires you to look elsewhere for damage, range and effects, then you have to look up in a different location the ammo effects which may require you to look up another location for a status effect. I don't see the appeal to that. Sure this day and age you can print out all the different charts and pages but you're still shifting between lots of pages to find info while most of that info can all be in one place.
And the dumb comment was towards CB's attitude towards their rules. If you're trying to get people to play your game, and thus by your product, why make it more difficult to do so?
Monkeysloth wrote: CB likes to make things more difficult on the player/reader as they feel it makes the world more authentic to see words instead of stats on their unit profiles. It's dumb.
Thats an interesting opinion. And you're probably right that play might be made easier by makin the change that you describe. but I also think that would rob the game f a LOT of its appeal. What you're describing as "dumb" is a huge amount of the appeal for many, many gamers.
While I don't play, just like to paint the models, I've got a Warmachine card here. I can see the weapon's damage, range and special rules/effects symbols quite clearly. Then above that info, in a smaller text, is the weapon name. You can have your easy to find stats and still have the fluff. Then if you need to know what the special effect symbol is you look in one place in the rule book. CB stats block is just a name, that requires you to look elsewhere for damage, range and effects, then you have to look up in a different location the ammo effects which may require you to look up another location for a status effect. I don't see the appeal to that. Sure this day and age you can print out all the different charts and pages but you're still shifting between lots of pages to find info while most of that info can all be in one place.
And the dumb comment was towards CB's attitude towards their rules. If you're trying to get people to play your game, and thus by your product, why make it more difficult to do so?
When I play Infinity I use Army to build the lists.I can bring those lists with me either by printing them or on my phone, laptop or tablet. if I'm using a device all the Weapon info is right there, easily displayed. And since its connected to the wiki I can click on keywords to see any rule i don't know. if I'm not using a device I can print my list, including a list of weapons and hacking programs used in my army, including damage, ranges, ammo types, etc. Army will also print Metachemisty, Booty and Fireteam charts if I need those.
So... it sounds like what you want is already there? Or mostly already there?
I really struggled with the game until I started using Army. It basically compiles it all down to a warmachine like card and makes it much easier to play. I don’t think cards proper really work for the game because of equipment load outs. You’d either need so many cards you’d struggle to keep things organized or the card would have so much extra data it would still be fairly confusing. Printing the list after building it let’s Army cut out everything you don’t have available.
So now think of it this way. For infinity to prosper, it needs to grow.
Now imagine a new player trying to get into the game, or start a group, with the state of the rules being all over the place right now.
Even if everything is online, it's still extremely useful to have some sort of consolidated focal point for players to jump in at.
CB failed at this with N3, which is why N3 hasn't grown in the way they wanted.
N4 might just be a series of learn to play books, followed by a link to web resources, but that's still better than the unconsolidated mess of N3 from the very start.
So now think of it this way. For infinity to prosper, it needs to grow.
Now imagine a new player trying to get into the game, or start a group, with the state of the rules being all over the place right now.
Even if everything is online, it's still extremely useful to have some sort of consolidated focal point for players to jump in at.
CB failed at this with N3, which is why N3 hasn't grown in the way they wanted.
N4 might just be a series of learn to play books, followed by a link to web resources, but that's still better than the unconsolidated mess of N3 from the very start.
Infinity has been growing by all accounts. The growth has always been slow, but it never seems to stop either. The rules are an absolute nightmare to start with. While they need cleaning up, I don't think cleanup, consolidation, and removing nested rules is going to make the game much easier to learn. I think the best way to make it understandable is to produce some high quality learn to play videos that walks people through various game concepts. Similar to what GW has been doing with the Becca Scott videos.
The TLDR version:
Corvus Belli isn't a public company. They don't have to make stuff available. They can say their numbers are shooting through the roof and nobody can dispute it with hard facts.
The rules are an absolute nightmare to start with. While they need cleaning up, I don't think cleanup, consolidation, and removing nested rules is going to make the game much easier to learn. I think the best way to make it understandable is to produce some high quality learn to play videos that walks people through various game concepts. Similar to what GW has been doing with the Becca Scott videos.
"Our rules suck. They should be cleaned up and consolidated. But let's not do that and instead create more external things and not fix the core problem."
No one's asking for just a consolidated rulebook guys. Of course videos and other resources are good things. Stop getting focused on the idea of only the rulebook. We're saying CONSOLIDATE and CLEAN the entire game so that there's one point of entry, one consolidated reference and rules point that tells a player how to play.
Look at the downloads page, there's:
0-12: Profiles and New Rules
Rules N3 Human Sphere N3 Rules
New Rules
Deadalus' Falls New Rules
N3FAQ
A better example is the Star Wars Legion rules reference. One single document, updated and kept as one single document for every new rule that's released.
A wiki doesn't cut it by itself because it's only good for players already immersed in the game, it doesn't show players the whole of the rules, just individual rules.
The rules are an absolute nightmare to start with. While they need cleaning up, I don't think cleanup, consolidation, and removing nested rules is going to make the game much easier to learn. I think the best way to make it understandable is to produce some high quality learn to play videos that walks people through various game concepts. Similar to what GW has been doing with the Becca Scott videos.
"Our rules suck. They should be cleaned up and consolidated. But let's not do that and instead create more external things and not fix the core problem."
No one's asking for just a consolidated rulebook guys. Of course videos and other resources are good things. Stop getting focused on the idea of only the rulebook. We're saying CONSOLIDATE and CLEAN the entire game so that there's one point of entry, one consolidated reference and rules point that tells a player how to play.
Look at the downloads page, there's:
0-12: Profiles and New Rules
Rules N3 Human Sphere N3 Rules
New Rules
Deadalus' Falls New Rules
N3FAQ
A better example is the Star Wars Legion rules reference. One single document, updated and kept as one single document for every new rule that's released.
A wiki doesn't cut it by itself because it's only good for players already immersed in the game, it doesn't show players the whole of the rules, just individual rules.
Monkeysloth wrote:
While I don't play, just like to paint the models, I've got a Warmachine card here. I can see the weapon's damage, range and special rules/effects symbols quite clearly. Then above that info, in a smaller text, is the weapon name. You can have your easy to find stats and still have the fluff. Then if you need to know what the special effect symbol is you look in one place in the rule book. CB stats block is just a name, that requires you to look elsewhere for damage, range and effects, then you have to look up in a different location the ammo effects which may require you to look up another location for a status effect. I don't see the appeal to that. Sure this day and age you can print out all the different charts and pages but you're still shifting between lots of pages to find info while most of that info can all be in one place.
And the dumb comment was towards CB's attitude towards their rules. If you're trying to get people to play your game, and thus by your product, why make it more difficult to do so?
The issue you're missing is logistics. Cards are difficult to update. Any physical thing is, but cards more so.
Having a list of weapons and ammo in the rulebook and having profiles refer to that makes the easy to update and use army builder we have now possible.
Plus the shared weapons fits the theme and feel and makes the details and rules common in skirmish games easier to communicate.
How long the list of weapons and ammo is a bit long for my taste though.
Hacking and weapons lists need a trimming. There are too many similar programs & weapon profiles.
I know command tokens addressed some important balance issues, but it’s a clumsy meta tool.
It’d be nice if they could cut down on the number of tokens overall. You need so many damned tokens to play this game.
There seems to be a lot of weapons that are basically "combi-rifle but with xxx ammo". I would have thought that listing them all as "COMBI Rifle (std / AP / DA / etc)" would make things more straightforward.
The other thing I'd look at is the different levels of skills. Re-number them so there's no level 0, for one thing, and for those ones where level X has no connection to the others, make that a different skill entirely (for example, one of the levels of Marksman explicitly states it doesn't grant access to the other levels - make it something else instead for clarity).
Unrelated, but one thing I'd like to see is some brief discussion of the military formations of the various powers. As it is, we know of the various different units available, but there's nothing about the higher organisations; how many Zhanshi make up a squad, for example? and how are they armed? Are hackers squad- or platoon-level assets? We've got some colour scheme options in a couple of books but nothing more. Not really relevant to the game as such, but it fills out the setting in the same way that all the unnecessary background detail in early 40k really fleshed out the setting. Or perhaps that stuff's in the RPG?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LunarSol wrote: I don't really like teaching with 100 point armies. I find too often that at that small a model count, losses just feel catastrophic when the order pool is trimmed so significantly. You also need to play on a weirdly narrow 2x4 table to keep ranges relevant but still provide adequate ARO saturation to "feel" right.
I've always demoed with starter boxes, simplifying things if necessary (for example, Operation Icestorm and Red Veil simplify those models armed with MULTI rifles down to COMBI rifles, ignore the invisible placement of TO Camo models and disregard hacking. If I were demoing to someone who'd never played any miniature game before in their life then I might go down to the progression in those boxes (start with three basic riflemen, go from there) but otherwise that's too boring IMO.
As for keeping on top of the game, I've been playing since before 1st edition came out (still got the little booklet that the 1st ed starter sets came with). I've never really gotten to grips with the Fireteam rules (I prefer the main faction army lists), and the hacking rules have always been a bit of a dark art. Although having Possessed a Jotum the other week, I'll need to read (and paint) more.
In general a living rulebook would be the best way to go, but so long as the core book is feature complete (i.e. you can run sectorials without having to reference some other book or document) then it should be good.
The wiki is well maintained & linked to everything in the army builder.
That’s been the living rulebook for some time.
That's fine, except my gaming venue has poor wifi and iffy mobile signal. Keeping a browser open on my iPad pretty much drained the battery as it hunted for a signal for four hours.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kalamadea wrote: Counterpoint: Between the armybuilder, the Wiki, and the Comlog app, I haven't even bothered to bring a rulebook with me for the last year and a half, not even to tournaments. They aren't needed. Once you know the basics, it's FAR easier to look up the wiki by circumstance
I'm a fan of online and PDF rules, but I've found that it's quicker to leave the rulebook open at the index then flick to the relevant page than it is to use the wiki and wait for the page to load.
if you're just willing to use the readily available tools
It really doesn't sound much more enticing by saying I need to bring half a dozen sources beyond the book(s) to play the game. Like, at all.
You need 1 resource with 3 programs on it. That's it. A tablet or phone with 3 apps: Army, Comlog and EITHER Infinity Helper if you have no Wifi or a web browser for the Wiki if you do. That's it.
This is the first I've heard of the Infinity Helper app. It's not referred to on the official website (nor is Comlog, as far as I can tell) and isn't available on iOS.
If we're at the point where I need an Android tablet to play this game, then that should be made pretty clear right on the website.
Kinematica is a perfect example of the complexity and nuance that I DON'T want CB to trim away, it's a great rule. You say it's situational and does very little. EXACTLY! But it's also something relatively easy to remember/check, comes on only a few units, and when it comes into pay it's EXTREMELY useful! Kinematica lets you dodge further in ARO, that's it. Level 1 is 1" further, level 2 is 2" further. On it's surface, not a big deal, but many of the units that have it are close combat troops, so when somebody is close, you can Dodge-Engage as an ARO, and oh look, you have a 4" reaction instead of a 2", which can be a tremendous difference. Or, they put it on fast models like bikes to represent their extra speed. It's difficult to dodge on a bike, but if you do, you're going to move further than somebody on foot. Makes sense. It's a mechanical rule that adds flavor to units AND it actually very useful to the models that have it. On a high Phys model like my Domaru, they dodge 4" on 14s! I have crossed half a board and gotten into close combat ON MY OPPONENT'S TURN because of Kinematica, it's AWESOME! But you want to cut it because it's "situational"? THE FETH?!
I agree that Kinematika isn't an obscure rule or one that never comes up (although the name's rubbish), but IIRCARO Dodge used to let a model move half its 1st MOV value, rather than a fixed 2". That represents fast models dodging further without needing a Skill to show that.
Cronch wrote: Where is that written? I don't think I've seen that in the main book?
As mentioned, its ITS. Which the vast majority of even casual gamers still use in their garage games.
I've never looked at an ITS document, and neither has the majority of my local group. All, the "T" stands for "Tournament". If I'm not going to tournaments, then there's nothing of interest to me (or at least, there shouldn't be) in it. If it's a preview of a rules change, then incorporate that change into the proper rules documents.
That's fine, except my gaming venue has poor wifi and iffy mobile signal. Keeping a browser open on my iPad pretty much drained the battery as it hunted for a signal for four hours.
The apps (I'm pretty sure there's an official one, but I use MayaNet) work in offline mode with most of the wiki stored locally so it shouldn't be too big of an issue.
Ah, now that I look it up, I see that finally MayaNet is available on iOS.
Still, the fact that these are all unofficial third-party apps and there's no mention of them anywhere on the official website means that CB clearly don't intend these to be a primary source of game rules. I'd never heard of MayaNet before, for example.
There's an official one apparently that's basically an offline version of Army. I know a few people I play with use it. I've just not tracked it down as it seems to be a self install kind of thing.
Only for Android or PC (and the PC version looks like it installs another app which runs the Army data files. It took me a while to find the icon in the Start menu because it’s not called “Infinity Army” .
The mobile browser version works OK, apart from not being able to generate a PDF of the courtesy list.
It's a stand alone program that runs on Windows or, oddly enough, Linux. I find it convenient. It does not update as quickly as the online version. It based on the electron platform, FYI. To get the mobile version, I had to sign up for the Beta? It updates on my phone and tablet, and is certainly convenient, even without a wifi connection.
I'm underwhelmed by the releases shown. Meh.
Maybe we'll hear more about N4 from the Interplanetario this week-end. I'm certain the CBeros will get earfuls about it from the attendees.
The Army Mobile app/site is what makes Infinity really work right now. Without the app/site, Infinity would be a super mess with rules scattered across way too many rulebooks and PDFs. The App/Site and wiki make Infinity approachable by new players and lets them slowly ramp up their knowledge of the game.
My real wish is that CB would make an iOS app (for my iPhone/iPad friends) and update their Kindle app (it does not have O-12 or Spiral Corps. yet).
-----
There are many things CB could do to make the game tighter and better (better organization would help a lot), but I do not want them to go full on "8th edition 40k". I like the complexity with Infinity and would not like it as much if that complexity were removed. I also kind of fear the ARISTEIA! dice are going to replace the d20... :(
Here's a simple improvement: Make armor saves successful on ties and just increase the damage of all weapons by one. That way the math for armor saves is more intuitive of quicker to calculate.
Cannibal wrote: Here's a simple improvement: Make armor saves successful on ties and just increase the damage of all weapons by one. That way the math for armor saves is more intuitive of quicker to calculate.
Cannibal wrote: Here's a simple improvement: Make armor saves successful on ties and just increase the damage of all weapons by one. That way the math for armor saves is more intuitive of quicker to calculate.
Every roll in the game has a target number and a binary "above or not" resolution, that includes armour rolls.
Why would you want to change that?
Cannibal wrote: Here's a simple improvement: Make armor saves successful on ties and just increase the damage of all weapons by one. That way the math for armor saves is more intuitive of quicker to calculate.
Every roll in the game has a target number and a binary "above or not" resolution, that includes armour rolls.
Why would you want to change that?
It just makes the math a little more intuitive and a little quicker to do. It's easier to just subtract armor from weapon damage to get your target number than it is to subtract armor and then add one to get your target number. Is it a huge thing? No, but just changing "above or not" to "equal or above or not" would speed up the game in a small way while detracting nothing from the actual play and balance. It feels like a lesser version of when D&D went from THAC0 to D20. Same odds, easier math.
Cannibal wrote: Here's a simple improvement: Make armor saves successful on ties and just increase the damage of all weapons by one. That way the math for armor saves is more intuitive of quicker to calculate.
Every roll in the game has a target number and a binary "above or not" resolution, that includes armour rolls.
Why would you want to change that?
It just makes the math a little more intuitive and a little quicker to do. It's easier to just subtract armor from weapon damage to get your target number than it is to subtract armor and then add one to get your target number. Is it a huge thing? No, but just changing "above or not" to "equal or above or not" would speed up the game in a small way while detracting nothing from the actual play and balance. It feels like a lesser version of when D&D went from THAC0 to D20. Same odds, easier math.
You don't appear to understand.
Right now, every roll in the game is calculated and resolved in exactly the same way.
You want to make armour a special case.
That is bad game design.
Armor is definitely not resolved the same way as any other roll. Its the only one you're rolling high for instead of below a target number. In all the other cases you have your BS 12 and get to say "you need a 12 or lower" or something to succeed. With armor you look at your Dmg 13 and have to say, "you need to beat a 13 so you need a 14 or higher" which is very different when the rest of the game rewards you for matching the target number.
LunarSol wrote: Armor is definitely not resolved the same way as any other roll. Its the only one you're rolling high for instead of below a target number. In all the other cases you have your BS 12 and get to say "you need a 12 or lower" or something to succeed. With armor you look at your Dmg 13 and have to say, "you need to beat a 13 so you need a 14 or higher" which is very different when the rest of the game rewards you for matching the target number.
Armor rolls work the same way as other roles but switch the player. Instead of the attacker needing to roll at or under the target, they witch the roller to the defender (I believe to make the game experience feel better) and reverse the roll needed to higher than the target.
One of the major reasons I do not play this game is because I cannot pronounce the names of most of the units. They need to make it more consumer friendly.
The "armour" roll, is actually just a "damage" roll being made by the owning player rather than the attacking one.
e.g.
Hit by combi, damage 13: -3 for armour, -3 for cover, you need to roll 7 or less to cause damage. Switching players, the owning player wants to roll 8 or more.
It's amazing how just a perspective change can hoodwink in that way.
Smellingsalts wrote: One of the major reasons I do not play this game is because I cannot pronounce the names of most of the units. They need to make it more consumer friendly.
This is a change I'd find disspointing. Most names have an origin or reason to be, and simplifying them into simpler english terms is no guarantee they won't be butchered to be honest
Smellingsalts wrote: One of the major reasons I do not play this game is because I cannot pronounce the names of most of the units. They need to make it more consumer friendly.
I've definitely felt overwhelmed by the names in the past, but that's mostly a matter of trying to read statlines in Army without having any physical objects to attach them too. The names are really interesting and do a great job of keeping the world, well, worldly and I'd hate to get rid of them.
It might be nice to focus some of the names a bit though. For example, before I got into the lore, I had trouble with the units that reference their ship name. Corregidor Alguaciles for example wasn't super clear to me whether the unit was Corregidors or Alguaciles. I wouldn't hate to see that cleaned up, as I feel like its definitely more of a translation artifact.
I am just /smh seeing all these comments about basic math and reading being too difficult....perhaps this isn't the hobby you're looking for. Maybe people are just trolling idk....
I for one enjoy its complexity vs. other 'streamlined' skirmish games that have been watered down for the masses.
The names are well researched and fluff is written to match the ethnic backgrounds when possible. The names make sense when you actually read the background and fluff.
There's a difference between "complexity" and "bloat".
Infinity has some complexity to it, but it's also full of bloat thanks to nested skills.
Regarding the names? The issue tends to be that pronunciation does not come easily to everyone--and then there are the people who think they're pronouncing it correctly but are butchering the names that don't help things either.
I have a history of leaving games when they get too simplified for wider appeal, I don't want that for Infinity. It's complexity is the hook for me. I'm not saying the math is "too difficult," it's not. I'm just saying it could be slightly more intuitive to speed up gameplay slightly without subtracting anything from the internal balance. If folks are going to push back so hard against the idea then have it your way. It's really not a big deal, just an idea.
Smellingsalts wrote: One of the major reasons I do not play this game is because I cannot pronounce the names of most of the units. They need to make it more consumer friendly.
Are you for real?
You're asking for one of the best things about Infinity/CB to be removed, because you're ignorant.
The way CB actually put some thought and research into their units and names with nods to cool but obscure (to outsiders) facts and history is awesome.
If my home country or culture was included in Infinity I would be stoked at the thought and detail; I would be disappointed if CB didn't use names and words from my language.
Also, Infinity is a game made by Spanish people for people across the whole world. What you in particular find easy to pronounce isn't easy for other people who play Infinity.
So for whom should it be easy to pronounce?
How about we respect the cultures of other people and put some effort in? Just make it a multicultural experience for everyone.
Getting hung up on model names is silly anyway. If you really want, you can just ignore their names. I usually do just that. Instead, the more relevant information is what weapons they have, along with their BS and any special rules. Since those things are shared by most factions, and easily referenced by looking at the Army printout, its really irrelevant if you don't know what that model is called.
It also helps that there is a huge amount of overlap between factions. Everybody shares the same weapons. A Sniper Rifle is a Sniper rifle no matter what faction its in. Furthermore, most factions have units that are functionally identical.
Almost everybody has a Combi-rifle munchkin for 10 points. And those who don't are still quite close.
Almost everybody's basic munchkins have the following profile combinations: Combi-rifle munchkin. HMG munchkin. Combi-rifle/Light Grenade Launcher munchkin. Combi-rifle/Hacker. Combi-rifle/Paramedic. Combi-rifle Forward Observer.
Almost everybody has an 8 point Flash-pulse robot.
There might be some minor stat differences, but you can simply remember that associated with the faction rather than a specific model. Like you can easily remember that most people's basic dudes are BS11. Except PanO who have BS12.
The names are just fluff bits that, after some immersion, you might begin to associate with the rules. But its easier to start out and look for patterns in statblocks and loadouts.
Also as others have pointed out, it is likely yhat you're mispronouncing some of the names you think you know.
What matters is being understood by the opponent, I know I probably won't ever get the yu-jing names right
The names are well researched and fluff is written to match the ethnic backgrounds when possible.
Except the fact that Yu Jing names are all spelled using some bizarre, XIX century imperial british system no one uses any more, and of course we are talking about the company that allegedly believed poles will be thrilled to have the Teutonic Knights as a "local representation" unit CB's "historical research" is as deep as a highschooler's report, done exclusively via wikipedia. Which is fine, it's clearly just pop-history meant only to use cool names instead of "344th Infantry Regiment" or "51st Armored Company" that historical games would use.
Except the fact that Yu Jing names are all spelled using some bizarre, XIX century imperial british system no one uses any more
Whats bizarre about it? English, and indeed most Western languages, use phonetic word structures while Asian languages use Concept word structures. Thus, it makes sense to translate the sound of the word you are trying to show in English when translating it from a language that uses Concept structures. It's a good way of translating the sound, if imperfect.
It would make zero sense to use the Mandarin characters as the official name of the units since if you didn't read Mandarin you wouldn't have any way of telling the difference other than the statblock. While since most of the game's audience lives in a country that uses a derivative of the Latin alphabet and the sounds associated with the letters, they can at least get some sense of the sounds and then use those sounds to associate as the names of the units.
Cronch wrote: There are different ways to transcribe Chinese. CB decided to settle on one of the more inaccurate and old methods.
So? We're not translating ancient Chinese literature here. We're making names for toy soldiers in a fictional future Chinese empire with a loose base in some Chinese phrases and sayings.
Pronunciation is easy. There is no one correct pronunciation-- do you think all English speakers pronounce all words the same way?, so as long as you and your fellow players understand what you refer too, it's all good.
What info is coming out of Interplanetario this week-end? Y'know, news and rumors stuff?
Cronch wrote: There are different ways to transcribe Chinese. CB decided to settle on one of the more inaccurate and old methods.
So? We're not translating ancient Chinese literature here. We're making names for toy soldiers in a fictional future Chinese empire with a loose base in some Chinese phrases and sayings.
People forget their game of toy soldiers is 'science fiction' and get tripped up on semantics, pseudo-history, and apparently adding and subtracting.
Cannibal wrote:Here's a simple improvement: Make armor saves successful on ties and just increase the damage of all weapons by one. That way the math for armor saves is more intuitive of quicker to calculate.
LunarSol wrote:
Cannibal wrote: Here's a simple improvement: Make armor saves successful on ties and just increase the damage of all weapons by one. That way the math for armor saves is more intuitive of quicker to calculate.
That is a good suggestion.
The maths for armour saves works if it were presented as a Normal Roll made by the firer to penetrate the armour (the damage is the target number, Armour is a negative modifier) and the penetration roll succeeds on the target number or less, like every other Normal Roll in the game. I suspect that’s how it was done initially, but it was changed at some point to give the target player something to do during the attack sequence - the same reason why saves in Warhammer and 40k are made after the Wound roll.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote: There's a difference between "complexity" and "bloat".
Infinity has some complexity to it, but it's also full of bloat thanks to nested skills.
Regarding the names? The issue tends to be that pronunciation does not come easily to everyone--and then there are the people who think they're pronouncing it correctly but are butchering the names that don't help things either.
Unless I was talking to someone who actually is Chinese, then I don’t care if I mangle the pronunciation. I don’t bother with pronunciation guides in fantasy novels for the same reason.
Cronch wrote: There are different ways to transcribe Chinese. CB decided to settle on one of the more inaccurate and old methods.
So? We're not translating ancient Chinese literature here. We're making names for toy soldiers in a fictional future Chinese empire with a loose base in some Chinese phrases and sayings.
Crunch’s post was a reply to a claim that the names are “well researched”. If they’re using a Romanisation method that’s out of date, it doesn’t promote the claims about the research. Although perhaps those transliteration are correct in Spain.
Personally my feeling is that if “Yu Jing” is supposed to be pronounced “You Cheeng” why not spell it that way?
Language evolves over time (See the great vowel shift of old English for an example. English changed dramatically after the Normans invaded England being another example.). In a couple centuries perhaps Chinese starts getting pronounced and spelled differently than it is today- especially after China effectively absorbs all the disparate cultures that make up Yu Jing. That's a good enough explanation for me to get on with the important things in life, like throwing fits over Haq Hassasins.
Since I am guessing this is a good place to ask, what are some suggestions whether with purchases, learning the rules, standard game sizes, etc... that you guys have for new players?
As the wife and I continue our skirmish liberation tour, post 40k/AoS we're thinking of giving Infinity a fair shot, but threads like this, for the uninformed, just feel impenetrable.
We're looking at buying Operation Wildfire purely assuming its a good start point, but are the rules really cryptic and spread between four books? Has point-size bloat hit where model counts for normal games have grown a ton?
Any good place to watch videos or learn about the state of the game right now?
The Operation packs are a great place to start, particularly if you then move on to the associated "Beyond" pack. The campaign in them does a good job of teaching the rules and by the end of the Beyond set gives you a 300 point army with a good mix of straightforward combat models and a few trickier pieces to learn some advanced rules. Honestly, the most important thing about them I've found is that they just give you a good base to learn from.
If possible, I'd avoid trying to learn the game from the rulebooks. It's an easier system to learn in stages, which the Operation books do a good job of providing. Alternatively, Corvus Belli has some solid tutorial videos to walk you through combat resolution and there are a number of solid tutorials on YouTube. Mostly though, its a game I think clicks better when you're seeing it on the table. Getting the rhythm of moving, letting your opponent declare reactions, then declaring your attacks makes all the complicated stuff make a lot more sense. I had a lot of trouble wrapping my head around the game until I stopped trying to overthink it and just put models on the table. What you do is a lot simpler than the words required to describe it.
TLDR. I've been getting the infinity itch (booked my Doc's appointment) but a friend mentioned something about N4. They can't be bringing out a be edition already can they?
NewTruthNeomaxim wrote: Sounds like a plan. The Wildfire models and factions aren't my favorite, but it does sound like where we will start.
So lets say we get it from Miniature Market... am I crazy in thinking I don't see anything called "Beyond Wildfire" up for order?
It's not up yet.
Basically, CB has and always will be:
"X month is when it goes up for order, it comes out the next month". It's supposed to go up in October/November-ish.
Do we need anything else in terms of books, movement tools, etc...?
Basically everything you'll need is either online or in the booklet. The booklet will show you the faction profiles and that's about it.
I hear there's also a game akin to OG Warhammer Quest on its way?
NewTruthNeomaxim wrote: Sounds like a plan. The Wildfire models and factions aren't my favorite, but it does sound like where we will start.
If you don't like the Wildfire models, check to see if the other three operation boxes have something you like better:
Operation Icestorm (PanO vs Nomads)
Operation Red Veil (Yu Jing vs Haqqislam)
Operation Coldfront (ALEPH vs Ariadna)
They are all excellent starter sets that should roughly cover the same material (they even have their own Beyond boxes as well). Wildfire has improved cardboard terrain and thicker tokens/templates, but really, just choose the box with the models you like the most.
So lets say we get it from Miniature Market... am I crazy in thinking I don't see anything called "Beyond Wildfire" up for order?
Usually shows up a few months after the Operation box gets released. They release these things at the same time every year, so my Beyond Coldfront preorder was made November of last year, probably shipped by early December.
Do we need anything else in terms of books, movement tools, etc...?
All in the box, except the full game rules, which are available as free PDFs online.
I hear there's also a game akin to OG Warhammer Quest on its way?
Defiance. They are running a kickstarter at some point in the near future for it. Don't know when the release timeframe is, but they are already including Defiance cards in Wildfire and the GenCon Valkyrie blister.
Interesting. OG Warhammer Quest, along with Mordheim are some of our all-time favorite gaming experiences. I could see myself incredibly interested depending on the execution.
I ended up ordering Wildfire and the "Advance Pack" which seems to be releasing concurrently, and has models for the same factions. Seemed like it was intended to be a companion product, and i'm down for Robo-Doggo.
Never understood it, myself, but it appears to be a limited release that has models that won't appear for several months. Kind of a GenCon bonus offer. Also, the models will be sold separately, and I'm not sure about this, but potentially more expensive if bought separately.
Basically, it's a "GenCon exclusive" of two units bundled together at the same time as the Big Box that they're tied to. When they come out in a few months time, they'll be sold individually(for a huuuuuuuuge markup).
overtyrant wrote: TLDR. I've been getting the infinity itch (booked my Doc's appointment) but a friend mentioned something about N4. They can't be bringing out a be edition already can they?
The current edition released in December 2013, so it will be 7 years when the next edition releases in 2020, in all probability December 2020.
Best place to start is with one of the boxes, yes. The downloadable rulebook is divided into basic and advanced sections. After playing the scenarios in the box, play through the basic section of the rulebook. Then start adding on rules etc.
November releases:
- Beyond Wildfire;
- Hulang;
- Pavel Aleksei McMannus;
- Kiel-saan with Mk12;
- A mercenary company 300 pts pack;
- Vallejo Model Color O-12 Pack;
- Vallejo Model Color Shasvastii Pack
Interplanetario saw some renders(Libertos Freedom Fighter general release, Kiel-Saan, Helot Militia)--but they're hosted on the Infinity forums and you can't tag those over really easily.
Was it confirmed that the "???" army pack was going to be a NA2 pack?
Edit: I see that Bostria has confirmed that, oh well curious to see which one it'll be
The renders for Beyong Wildfire were shown some time ago,
it contains for the 0-12 A character AD troop (Cuervo Goldstein) and 2 different heavy infantry models . For the shasvastii a Sptifire Caliban, a boarding shotgun Malignos and Sheskiin the cadmus special character.
MayaCast's FB page has a gencon seminar album with the pics, I can't fetch them for now
NewTruthNeomaxim wrote: Since I am guessing this is a good place to ask, what are some suggestions whether with purchases, learning the rules, standard game sizes, etc... that you guys have for new players?
As the wife and I continue our skirmish liberation tour, post 40k/AoS we're thinking of giving Infinity a fair shot, but threads like this, for the uninformed, just feel impenetrable.
We're looking at buying Operation Wildfire purely assuming its a good start point, but are the rules really cryptic and spread between four books? Has point-size bloat hit where model counts for normal games have grown a ton?
Any good place to watch videos or learn about the state of the game right now?
If you like the two factions in Wildfire, go for that. Or Red Veil or Icestorm or Coldfront. If you're not keen on the miniatures in those sets, just buy a starter set each that you like and use those. If you're total beginners to wargaming you can follow the structure of the Initiation sets (mission 1, use the three basic riflement each to learn the basics of actions and AROs. In subsequent missions add the other units in one at a time to add in their special rules) but other than that I think starting with a full starter set of six models each is a decent place to begin if you're new to Infinity but not to gaming as a whole. I'd be inclined to ignore the Fireteam and Hacking rules in the beginning (even if the starter set you choose inclues a hacker), and perhaps abilities that allow secret deployment (like TO Camo and Airborne Deployment) to make it simpler.
That's basically all you need to know, to be honest.
Or, you know, maybe i want to see what the story is going to be so I can pick a relevant faction and maybe paint up some models in a campaign appropriate way?
Again:
It's a campaign. Every faction will be shoehorned in, Yu Jing players will complain that they're getting shafted, and the campaign mechanics will be exploited in a silly way.
You might think this is just snark--but these "campaigns" are everything that people complained about the old GW ones. They take a tiny area, fit every faction in and then it gets gamed by specific factions of RL players who go out of their way to keep elements of the mechanics to themselves after being told how it works by the people running the campaign.
Sigh. CB has not as of yet told us what we want to know about the campaign, except its start date.
If you're interested, pick a faction you like, and play for fun. Oh, and save yourself the grief and avoid the inevitable grievance-mongering that will arise on the official forums.
This is it from CB pro tempore:
On September 2, the 11th season of ITS will begin, and with this, the online narrative campaign will begin in collaboration with On Tabletop (formerly Beast of War) will be Asteroid Blues.
The operations under Aïda Swanson command have violated the defenses of the Abyss Jump Portal. The independent colony of Novyy Bangkok has become a base for launching undercover units into the Human Sphere.
Hunh? I had no idea Beasts of War changed the name. Meh.
Red Harvest wrote: Sigh. CB has not as of yet told us what we want to know about the campaign, except its start date.
If you're interested, pick a faction you like, and play for fun. Oh, and save yourself the grief and avoid the inevitable grievance-mongering that will arise on the official forums.
This is it from CB pro tempore:
On September 2, the 11th season of ITS will begin, and with this, the online narrative campaign will begin in collaboration with On Tabletop (formerly Beast of War) will be Asteroid Blues.
The operations under Aïda Swanson command have violated the defenses of the Abyss Jump Portal. The independent colony of Novyy Bangkok has become a base for launching undercover units into the Human Sphere.
Hunh? I had no idea Beasts of War changed the name. Meh.
They did because YouTube demonotized them, also removing them from suggested videos, and when they finally got a reason it was because of their name.
So, is the start of a new campaign/season a bad time to get into the game? Forgive my lack of knowledge, but hearing people talking about faction abuse, etc... sure isn't helping me feel like this is a good time to get into Infinity. :-p
So, is the start of a new campaign/season a bad time to get into the game? Forgive my lack of knowledge, but hearing people talking about faction abuse, etc... sure isn't helping me feel like this is a good time to get into Infinity. :-p
Frankly, it's going to depend entirely upon your local playgroup.
Infinity is hard to get into because despite a lot of people saying they play it, it gets shelved very quickly in my experience when the ITS setup alters things too dramatically.
If you like the models though, go for it. Just be aware that ITS changes things far more often than GW does and quite more significantly.
So, is the start of a new campaign/season a bad time to get into the game? Forgive my lack of knowledge, but hearing people talking about faction abuse, etc... sure isn't helping me feel like this is a good time to get into Infinity. :-p
Frankly, it's going to depend entirely upon your local playgroup.
Infinity is hard to get into because despite a lot of people saying they play it, it gets shelved very quickly in my experience when the ITS setup alters things too dramatically.
If you like the models though, go for it. Just be aware that ITS changes things far more often than GW does and quite more significantly.
That sounds rough, but at least it won't be a $500 shift in my competitive army every time GW realizes they have too many Drop Pods in the warehouse. :-p
Part of my skirmish game world tour has been liberating myself from the ITC/GW carnival of stupid it brought out of me, by playing into my desire to stay at top tables. I'm having a lot more fun, and spending a lot less now, but it sounds like Corvus Belli might be a little capricious in maintaining its balance?
Boy I hope that isn't the case. Game looks amazing, but our local venues are bloodthirsty army hoppers with unlimited budgets.
Balance between factions holds up pretty well, even though balance within a faction can swing a bit. There are units that really are not worth fielding.
Red Harvest wrote: Balance between factions holds up pretty well, even though balance within a faction can swing a bit. There are units that really are not worth fielding.
Any suggestions on what those would be for Ariadna, 0-12, and Combined Army? Those are the things i'm currently looking at buying models for.
O-12 is such a new faction that I don't think that a good analysis of it is available. A good analysis that is based on some empirical data, rather than armchair speculation. There are fine analyses of CA and Ariadna on their respective sub-forums, here https://forum.corvusbelli.com/forums/ariadna.22/ and here https://forum.corvusbelli.com/forums/combined-army.25/ You will find some useful info there, much better than I can give. I haven't played against a CA army in years. And the Ariadna player in my group is very casual about it.
So, is the start of a new campaign/season a bad time to get into the game? Forgive my lack of knowledge, but hearing people talking about faction abuse, etc... sure isn't helping me feel like this is a good time to get into Infinity. :-p
Frankly, it's going to depend entirely upon your local playgroup.
Infinity is hard to get into because despite a lot of people saying they play it, it gets shelved very quickly in my experience when the ITS setup alters things too dramatically.
If you like the models though, go for it. Just be aware that ITS changes things far more often than GW does and quite more significantly.
That sounds rough, but at least it won't be a $500 shift in my competitive army every time GW realizes they have too many Drop Pods in the warehouse. :-p
Part of my skirmish game world tour has been liberating myself from the ITC/GW carnival of stupid it brought out of me, by playing into my desire to stay at top tables. I'm having a lot more fun, and spending a lot less now, but it sounds like Corvus Belli might be a little capricious in maintaining its balance?
Boy I hope that isn't the case. Game looks amazing, but our local venues are bloodthirsty army hoppers with unlimited budgets.
Infinity might not be balanced perfectly, but which faction you choose isn't winning you the game. There are no netlists because everything is situational and what's good depends on the mission (which you should know before making a list).
Also keep in mind that Kanluwen's level of negativity and explaining things in the worst possible light is on the level of art. It is almost as impressive as how bad GW manages to be at balancing games.
Infinity might not be balanced perfectly, but which faction you choose isn't winning you the game. There are no netlists because everything is situational and what's good depends on the mission (which you should know before making a list).
Not even remotely true. Certain factions are basically an almost guaranteed win, especially in light of their Sectorials and rules within them.
And netlists absolutely are a thing. They tend to 'refresh' more often, since
Also keep in mind that Kanluwen's level of negativity and explaining things in the worst possible light is on the level of art. It is almost as impressive as how bad GW manages to be at balancing games.
Then explain it better. I'm done trying to push CB in their best light. They make fairly good models, but their rules are just frigging awful and defended by people as "complex" and "in-depth" when in reality it's just poorly translated/written bloat.
Red Harvest wrote: Sigh. CB has not as of yet told us what we want to know about the campaign, except its start date.
If you're interested, pick a faction you like, and play for fun. Oh, and save yourself the grief and avoid the inevitable grievance-mongering that will arise on the official forums.
This is it from CB pro tempore:
On September 2, the 11th season of ITS will begin, and with this, the online narrative campaign will begin in collaboration with On Tabletop (formerly Beast of War) will be Asteroid Blues.
The operations under Aïda Swanson command have violated the defenses of the Abyss Jump Portal. The independent colony of Novyy Bangkok has become a base for launching undercover units into the Human Sphere.
Hunh? I had no idea Beasts of War changed the name. Meh.
They did because YouTube demonotized them, also removing them from suggested videos, and when they finally got a reason it was because of their name.
THAT'S why they changed!? Youtube can be super awful! Wow!
Infinity might not be balanced perfectly, but which faction you choose isn't winning you the game. There are no netlists because everything is situational and what's good depends on the mission (which you should know before making a list).
Not even remotely true. Certain factions are basically an almost guaranteed win, especially in light of their Sectorials and rules within them.
And netlists absolutely are a thing. They tend to 'refresh' more often, since
Also keep in mind that Kanluwen's level of negativity and explaining things in the worst possible light is on the level of art. It is almost as impressive as how bad GW manages to be at balancing games.
Then explain it better. I'm done trying to push CB in their best light. They make fairly good models, but their rules are just frigging awful and defended by people as "complex" and "in-depth" when in reality it's just poorly translated/written bloat.
Depends on how you approach the game and with whom you play. Every game is a dumpster fire filled with netlists and arrogant arseholes when it comes to the hyper competitive scene.
Red Harvest wrote: Balance between factions holds up pretty well, even though balance within a faction can swing a bit. There are units that really are not worth fielding.
Any suggestions on what those would be for Ariadna, 0-12, and Combined Army? Those are the things i'm currently looking at buying models for.
There are very few truly unusable units in the game. Even units the "internet consensus" say are "bad", are still perfectly playable. Since everything can kill everything in this game, you will never run into a situation where a unit cannot do *anything*.
Having said that, there are definitely units, and profiles within units, that are better than others but, that is true of every game. The infinity tactics section of 1d4chan is actually a solid starting point when first looking into factions.
You can run into a situation where your units can't do anything, such as having a pain train rammed down your throat or a Maruts/Avatar. You can very easily buy, build and paint an entire list that has absolutely no chance of ever winning outside of dumb luck.
I do not understand why so many in the Infinity community try to sell people on the BS that "anything is playable" because its not. I got duped by that tag line.
For anyone new, the game isn't all that cheap. You will quickly learn you have to cherry pick a list out of boxes. And that can get expensive. Its way harder to fully learn than 40k/AOS but no more or less fun. The competitive scene is basically the same as 40k/AOS.
Player to player I've found the Infinity community to be more friendly than the GW communities. The ITS scene is probably more friendly too.
Infinity is a fine game but its far from perfect and has many of the same issues GW games have.
Man... everyone's really selling me on the game. :-p I kid. but I definitely appreciate the diverse and candid opinions. I'm going to learn the game by playing exclusively with my wife, and watching batreps for a bit. Depending on confidence we'll see from there. I just can't pass up a game that finally seems to convey such cool, dynamic firefights.
NewTruthNeomaxim wrote: Man... everyone's really selling me on the game. :-p I kid. but I definitely appreciate the diverse and candid opinions. I'm going to learn the game by playing exclusively with my wife, and watching batreps for a bit. Depending on confidence we'll see from there. I just can't pass up a game that finally seems to convey such cool, dynamic firefights.
Just you and your wife, the game will be fun. As for dynamic firefights being done right? It really honestly does not do it any better than anybody else. They game has so many rules that people can exploit that it just becomes a game of probability just like 40k. So the dynamic part is on you to feel that it is dynamic.
But if you go into it intending to have fun with a spouse then you will have fun. If you go into the greater community, expect to get wrecked and have to rethink how you play the game. If you can find a local group of cool people then it remains fun anyways. Basic tabletop experience honestly.
BrotherGecko wrote: You can run into a situation where your units can't do anything, such as having a pain train rammed down your throat or a Maruts/Avatar.
On the flips side, crits means you always have a chance. We've all played that game where a BS10 Vol manages to that hail mary extreme range shot that frees up your specialist to their their thing. There is always a chance.
On the other hand I still wake up sweating from my old WHFB games where my massive unit of dwarves got stuck in combat with chaos knights that were literally impossible to wound.
NewTruthNeomaxim wrote: Man... everyone's really selling me on the game. :-p I kid. but I definitely appreciate the diverse and candid opinions. I'm going to learn the game by playing exclusively with my wife, and watching batreps for a bit. Depending on confidence we'll see from there. I just can't pass up a game that finally seems to convey such cool, dynamic firefights.
Just you and your wife, the game will be fun. As for dynamic firefights being done right? It really honestly does not do it any better than anybody else. They game has so many rules that people can exploit that it just becomes a game of probability just like 40k. So the dynamic part is on you to feel that it is dynamic.
But if you go into it intending to have fun with a spouse then you will have fun. If you go into the greater community, expect to get wrecked and have to rethink how you play the game. If you can find a local group of cool people then it remains fun anyways. Basic tabletop experience honestly.
It certainly has it's problems, especially over-complexity that CB hopefully dealing with in N4.
I find that the play experience is engaging and exciting, with game design delivering the intended experience (before they started piling on extra stuff). Limited orders and swingy dice mechanics make you feel constantly under resourced and at risk in your turn and the reactive turn (which makes a difference) is basically a series of choosing between bad options (in an exciting, sometimes it works and my decisions matter. kind of way).
Edit: not going to comment on Warhammer. I don't play anymore and not the place to argue about GW.
BrotherGecko wrote: You can run into a situation where your units can't do anything, such as having a pain train rammed down your throat or a Maruts/Avatar. You can very easily buy, build and paint an entire list that has absolutely no chance of ever winning outside of dumb luck.
I do not understand why so many in the Infinity community try to sell people on the BS that "anything is playable" because its not. I got duped by that tag line.
For anyone new, the game isn't all that cheap. You will quickly learn you have to cherry pick a list out of boxes. And that can get expensive. Its way harder to fully learn than 40k/AOS but no more or less fun. The competitive scene is basically the same as 40k/AOS.
Player to player I've found the Infinity community to be more friendly than the GW communities. The ITS scene is probably more friendly too.
Infinity is a fine game but its far from perfect and has many of the same issues GW games have.
Your unit was not useless at the start of the game. Due to bad deployment, poor luck and/or being outplayed, your unit found itself in a bad match up against an enemy unit. That happens. Learn from your mistakes and try again.
What people mean when they say is anything is playable is not "build a list full of random models and you can still win!" That is 100% not true. Not for infinity and - certainly - not true for any other wargame. What people mean when they say that is that if there is a unit you really like - be it because of its fluff, or it has an awesome model or the idea of it just strikes your fancy - then you can freely run it. With Infinity, you can totally add a random model or two to an otherwise well rounded list and still find success on the game table (and have a lot of fun too). The game does not overly punish you for taking a couple of less competitive models, at least compared to other games because the power level difference between the "top tier" and the "mediocre" is way more shallow than it is in other games.
That is just my experience with the game. Maybe you play in a much more cut throat environment? If you do, your experience will probably be different. Then again, cut throat environments skew how every game is played (casual 40k compared to cut throat competitive 40k are basically different games).
NewTruthNeomaxim wrote: Man... everyone's really selling me on the game. :-p I kid. but I definitely appreciate the diverse and candid opinions. I'm going to learn the game by playing exclusively with my wife, and watching batreps for a bit. Depending on confidence we'll see from there. I just can't pass up a game that finally seems to convey such cool, dynamic firefights.
Just you and your wife, the game will be fun. As for dynamic firefights being done right? It really honestly does not do it any better than anybody else. They game has so many rules that people can exploit that it just becomes a game of probability just like 40k. So the dynamic part is on you to feel that it is dynamic.
But if you go into it intending to have fun with a spouse then you will have fun. If you go into the greater community, expect to get wrecked and have to rethink how you play the game. If you can find a local group of cool people then it remains fun anyways. Basic tabletop experience honestly.
It certainly has it's problems, especially over-complexity that CB hopefully dealing with in N4.
I find that the play experience is engaging and exciting, with game design delivering the intended experience (before they started piling on extra stuff). Limited orders and swingy dice mechanics make you feel constantly under resourced and at risk in your turn and the reactive turn (which makes a difference) is basically a series of choosing between bad options (in an exciting, sometimes it works and my decisions matter. kind of way).
Edit: not going to comment on Warhammer. I don't play anymore and not the place to argue about GW.
Exactly! The game offers far more interesting decision points during both players turns than most other games out there (which basically turn you into an audience member during your opponent's turn).
So since the only person who could potentially power-game me initially is my wife, and vice-versa, I ended up having both of us just buy the models that we loved most. I'm sure its grossly suboptimal, but who cares... :-p I did learn enough about list building to learn about SWC costs, and make sure we had plenty of 0 swc options and could make legal lists.
We had about $400 in store credit burning a whole in our pockets, but the store's inventory was also super incomplete so here's what we picked so we'd have plenty of options, even at 300pts.
Ariadna:
USAriadna Pack Box (comes with terrain and probably 150pts of assorted stuff and werewolves!)
Box of two Tankhunters (because I loved the silly man-portable autocannon)
One Veteran Kazak w/hmg
One pack of two SAS
One Blackjack w/Sniper Rifle
One Foxtrot Ranger Sniper
One generic Ariadna starter (so generic Line Kazaks, etc...)
Wife picked Nomads...
One Gecko Squad of two
Two Gecko Pilots
Taskmaster Bakunin SWAST Team w/Koalas???
One box of Riot Grrls
One Moron Masai Hunter
One box of Reverend Moiras
One Reverend Healer
One Reverend Custodier
So how did we do, purely winging it?
Also, we're wondering how big wysiwyg in this game, as even looking online it seems like loads of profiles don't even have matching models?
Also, we're wondering how big wysiwyg in this game, as even looking online it seems like loads of profiles don't even have matching models?
According to the ITS (tournament, mostly) rules:
Each figure must represent faithfully the unit it stands for, including its equipment and weapon options. Should the appropriate miniature not be available on the Infinity range, you can use a different Corvus Belli miniature as a stand-in, but you must inform your opponent unequivocally of what that figure represents.
Under no circumstances can miniatures from other brands or manufacturers be used as proxies. The use of other Corvus Belli miniatures is allowed; however, players must inform their adversary which trooper is being represented. The figure must use the same size base as the trooper being represented.
Use of converted figures is allowed, and in fact encouraged, as long as most or all the figure is composed of parts from Corvus Belli miniatures and the figure accurately represents the unit and weapon option it stands for. The figure must use the same size base as the trooper being represented.
But if you're just playing with your wife, Hell, you could play Infinity using bottle caps if you wanted. You'd have a better gaming experience if those bottle caps were mounted on the proper base sizes, though.
Sorry man! I'll move this over. Still super grateful for the help with starting out at a time where edition flux seems to be beginning to complicate the matter!
@ NewTrushNeomaxim - PMed a long response to your purchases that I hope you find useful, lwelcome to the game!
As to 4, there's an official thread in the actual forums asking for input, and I put in my 2 cents which is basically just asking for a little cleanup and no major changes. If you want to be heard, that's the place to do it.
We still have 0 idea what CB is planning tho, they had another seminar last week and it just ended with the same blank black field that just said "N4 in 2020"
Kanluwen wrote: November releases:
- Beyond Wildfire;
- Hulang;
- Pavel Aleksei McMannus;
- Kiel-saan with Mk12;
- A mercenary company 300 pts pack;
- Vallejo Model Color O-12 Pack;
- Vallejo Model Color Shasvastii Pack
Interplanetario saw some renders(Libertos Freedom Fighter general release, Kiel-Saan, Helot Militia)--but they're hosted on the Infinity forums and you can't tag those over really easily.
Do we know in more detail which colours will be included in either set, or were the sets simply announced without going into detail? The Vallejo site doesn't list it yet.
Oh and I just read a little closer, and the quoted post says November releases. Yikes. Had hoped that the set would drop closer to the release of Wildfire.
Wild Bill should have been kept in their stupid arena eSports nonsense. Bad enough we have the Derpsperados and Rosie "I KNOW BRIDGES CUZ I'M A RIVETER" nonsense.
Also, lol---still no Blackjack capability for fireteams while Ratniks can. What a crock.
LunarSol wrote: There’s a bunch of little points changes in army. Unfortunately Muttawiah are still 20 points for some reason.
This is a bit ambiguous. Unfortunately because 20 points is too little or too much. Mutts are something I now refuse to take. I just don't enjoy playing them.
Truthfully, there isn't really going to be a whole lot of hullabaloo because CB keeps doing crap like this.
Other than the needless spite, I'm not sure what hullabaloo you'd expect beyond a new tournament packet, a new edition and massive faction expansion via a cooperative board game. Some months you just have to settle for getting a box of puppet bots I guess.
Super love the new Wild Bill profile. My friend uses him all of the time in Aristeia! I cannot wait to see how he will integrate Wild Bill into his lists. Having said that, Wild Bill seems like a fairly fragile unit who really needs to be supported to find success. Still, he will be deadly given the opportunity and opening.
Love the new TAG rules. I really want to see someone run 4 Geckos and a bunch of cheerleaders I do not play Nomads but I think a 3 Gecko list would be much more well rounded but my inner child still wants to see 4 Geckos running around
Very happy that the Medium Infantry and AD Combat Jump rule changes were maintained this season. I feel like those two changes should just become standard for the game.
Monkeysloth wrote: I doubt we'll really start to hear about N4 until closer to Gencon next year.
I'm surprised we didn't have anything drop about the non-N4 news during Interplanetario as they generally save something for the home turf.
They did post a video on Defiance that's quite long but I haven't had time to watch it yet.
I imagine N4 will drop at GenCon next year, with the whole reveal coming long before then.
I got into Infinity around June before N3 came out. I'm assuming CB will have a similar schedule (except releasing the full rules at Gencon instead of two months later) so I'd be surprised if we new much before summer.
Where the heck is the Asteroid Blues PDF? I feel like it should have been released last week. Now it is Monday, official start of the campaign and nothing to be seen... :(
I fully agree that the PDF with all the background should have at least been provided BEFORE you sign up for the campaign. Now I'm registered as Nomads and the Nomads on-station are, of course, Tunguska which is of course the one sectorial I don't play. So, all my Corregidor guys are Cosmica employees? I guess?
I fully agree that the PDF with all the background should have at least been provided BEFORE you sign up for the campaign. Now I'm registered as Nomads and the Nomads on-station are, of course, Tunguska which is of course the one sectorial I don't play. So, all my Corregidor guys are Cosmica employees? I guess?
Exciting!!!
But yeah, why was this site not live a week ago? Super weird. Something must have happened on their end.
From Reddit Someone played Defiance and posted about it:
And talked to part of the development team.
Its a fun game, to me (new to Infinity and haven't played Aristeia) it feels like a hypervitaminated Zombicide. The rules are a lot like Aristeia's, easy to follow and based on the dice symbols. There are a lot of "additional effects" to everything, so it adds flavour to the characters and enemies. IA feels kinda easy to predict but very dangerous, each troop has differences/preferences, scenarios affect some of their behaviour, evil forces can be haded to a player to make things way harder. There is no ARO, except simultaneous hand to hand combat.
Characters evolve by acquiring perks-equipment, but can also pile wounds that have very negative effects on the campaign.
We played the demo and it took around an hour 30min.
Kickstarter date: end of October. Will have unlockable things, but probably not a lot of those will be minis.
Basic box: around 90-100€ - 15 minis
Deluxe box: around 220-240€ - 50 minis (some of them are represented with cardboard in the basic box).
Next heroes to be added: Haqqislam Healer, Aleph (can't remember if he said the role of the Aleph)..
Good luck to them with those prices if they wanna target at boardgamers,lol
It's an okay price for metal minis, but when today with CMON ks you get like +100 minis for 100$, and most boardgamers arent super crazy about mini assembly and painting them, I don't really see many of them wanting to go for deluxe version...
Well, I wish them good luck never the less, but won't be backing this. For 230$ I can get Aeon Trespass and Oathsworn(probably some more if I want oathsworn minis)
I'm glad they are going with metal minis. I was really disappointed with the Aristeia plastic models - I wish they had offered metal versions of them outside of the collector's edition (which only covered the core set). So, I'm all for it.
I doubt board gamers will be though - metal minis you can't just throw in a box. Even if they were single, solid pieces of metal, the weight of those guys moving around would cause real damage to each other. And 50 metal minis are expensive... and heavy (which means shipping will be even more expensive).
And I'm still waiting for Operation Wildfire to arrive. It's been delayed by weeks in the US. Seems like every time I pre-order an Infinity product, I end up getting it a month after everybody else does. Does make me hesitant to invest in a kickstarter with an even more nebulous release date.
I want to be all onboard with Defiance. It will really depend on the price and the minis. I generally really like most Infinity minis, so if it is 50 minis that I really like, I'll take that over 100 minis where I really only like a dozen or so - as long as it doesn't translate to $500 + $100 in shipping.
Regarding Wildfire here in the US...we're going to see more issues like this in all likelihood. Warstore's distribution side of things was a big deal and Corvus Belli was yanking them around for awhile prior to Warstore going under.
There's been a lot of delays this year regarding stuff in the US, and post-event delays likely make it worse.
Monkeysloth wrote: From Reddit Someone played Defiance and posted about it:
And talked to part of the development team.
Its a fun game, to me (new to Infinity and haven't played Aristeia) it feels like a hypervitaminated Zombicide. The rules are a lot like Aristeia's, easy to follow and based on the dice symbols. There are a lot of "additional effects" to everything, so it adds flavour to the characters and enemies. IA feels kinda easy to predict but very dangerous, each troop has differences/preferences, scenarios affect some of their behaviour, evil forces can be haded to a player to make things way harder. There is no ARO, except simultaneous hand to hand combat.
Characters evolve by acquiring perks-equipment, but can also pile wounds that have very negative effects on the campaign.
We played the demo and it took around an hour 30min.
Kickstarter date: end of October. Will have unlockable things, but probably not a lot of those will be minis.
Basic box: around 90-100€ - 15 minis
Deluxe box: around 220-240€ - 50 minis (some of them are represented with cardboard in the basic box).
Next heroes to be added: Haqqislam Healer, Aleph (can't remember if he said the role of the Aleph)..
I cannot help but feel like this is the game that needs cheap plastic models, way more than Aristeia. This game is tapping into the board game market and that market does not want to assemble minis or worry about them breaking in the box. This is a game that they will bust out once a week (at best) and have fun with. The models are not going to be lavishly painted by most board gamers. That is why so many companies are switching to colored plastics - that way the enemies and allies all have different colors. To me, this feels like CB is not really committing to the idea of the Board Game market and instead is just catering to us, the enfranchised playerbase (who want highly detailed metal models (because the models will be pulling double duty in the board game and the wargame)).
Kanluwen wrote: Regarding Wildfire here in the US...we're going to see more issues like this in all likelihood. Warstore's distribution side of things was a big deal and Corvus Belli was yanking them around for awhile prior to Warstore going under.
There's been a lot of delays this year regarding stuff in the US, and post-event delays likely make it worse.
Yeah CB was really messing with the Warstore before they closed up shop. Super sad.
I feel like defiance needs plastic too but I think the compromise is the cardboard cutouts but the base version should have been 100% cardboard and like $60. Then have a $40 add on pack for the 15 metal. Being a mix of the two isn't going to really appeal to anyone.
Hypervitaminated?
ya, don't think English is the Reddit posters first language and that's probably something that doesn't translate over from Spanish or learned elsewhere.
I feel like Defiance is less its own game and more a test ground for new ways to do mass army updates. Its feeling less like Aristeia!! and more like Speed Freekz.
As long as it plays well I'm fine with that. I can't really get people to play infinity anymore due to the shear volume of rules that have to be learned.
LunarSol wrote: I feel like Defiance is less its own game and more a test ground for new ways to do mass army updates. Its feeling less like Aristeia!! and more like Speed Freekz.
That is an interesting take. Definitely the opposite from what I think most people were thinking this was going to be. Looking at the game from that perspective actually seems super reasonable.
Monkeysloth wrote: I feel like defiance needs plastic too but I think the compromise is the cardboard cutouts but the base version should have been 100% cardboard and like $60. Then have a $40 add on pack for the 15 metal. Being a mix of the two isn't going to really appeal to anyone.
Hypervitaminated?
ya, don't think English is the Reddit posters first language and that's probably something that doesn't translate over from Spanish or learned elsewhere.
Yeah, I'm guessing it is his version of "on steroids" but I like HYPERVITAMINTED way more!
How was CB jerking around the WarStore? (And yes, it was a very sad, and undeserved end for Neil at al. Now that I know what was going on, I suspect those goings-on had something to do with my complaints about the place, BITD.)
Kanluwen wrote: My brother's copy of Wildfire came today...and oh boy, of all the things to be missing from the box it's the 84 page booklet.
Don't care enough to really deal with their "missing parts" but seriously? How hard was it to avoid misplacing THAT?
Do care enough. You might just get a whole new box, if CB doesn't have a few extra booklets lying around. I've had 2 missing bits over the years. It's never been a hassle to get replacements.
remind a middle-aged man with a fading memory, when does the Defiance KS start?
Don't care enough to really deal with their "missing parts" but seriously? How hard was it to avoid misplacing THAT?
Do care enough. You might just get a whole new box, if CB doesn't have a few extra booklets lying around. I've had 2 missing bits over the years. It's never been a hassle to get replacements.
remind a middle-aged man with a fading memory, when does the Defiance KS start?
Unannounced, expected in the fall. The Reddit post said the end of October.
LunarSol wrote: Is there a thread summarizing what happened to Neil? I was sad to hear them go.
The Warstore had a warehouse/distribution center in Reno. In late 2015/early 2016,the Warstore expanded their business in Reno by moving their warehouse to a new site and, more importantly, opening a physical retail store. The store was quite popular locally but was definitely not cheap to set up or maintain (as stores are known to be). It was a big investment on the Warstore's side, and one that looked like it was going to pay off if it the store was given the time to establish itself locally. From what I understand the Warstore was also expanding and improving the physical retail store they had back east as well.
So right as a lot of money was being sunk into the business' expansion into physical retail stores, the embezzlement was discovered. Neil was forced to abruptly end all expansion. The warehouse and the retail store in Reno were closed. The company kind of limped on for a few more years but it never really recovered from the dual financial hit of the expansion and the embezzlement.
I am sure there were other issues going on behind the scenes as well, especially with the increased competition with other online retailers.
He looks pretty cool (and human) for an alien faction sectorial. For a quick inception web search that led me from the engine back 30 pages into this thread, he's apparently a kiel saan something or other. It would make a good rpg character figure given the quintuple weapons modelled on him! From a size comparison pic on brueckenkopf, they seem pretty large (terminator+).
Goldstein is a pretty solid miss for me. CB used to be pretty dialed in for AD trooper poses but over the last year or so has really been missing the mark. I can't decide if Goldstein is doing a goofy flying karate kick, striking a salsa dance pose in the air or trying very hard to look cool before he inevitably breaks his ankles.
Betatrooper looks like how CSUs should look.
Hulang looks legit. I've been waffling at doing IA but he might tip the balance for me. Hulang would look awesome in a Coalition States color scheme.
Shas are still making me regret going all in on Onyx Contact. They look consistently great (barring the flappy face humanoid one).
I just cannot get excited about 0-12 as a faction. Those new Shasvastii are looking pretty good though.
Still, everything is a pass for me. Has been for a while. The uncertainty of what N4 may bring has dampened my enthusiasm for adding minis to my already too large collection of the unpainted.
Kanluwen wrote: Official forums. Apparently Bostria was talking about it? I don't really keep up too much these days, but saw the mention.
Thanks, found the post, relayed here for convenience:
Bostria is in the BoW/OTT Weekender.
Mostly Defiance related (they've been recording for the launch week) but a little tidbit or two about N4.
First: Still D20 based, no Aristeia!/Defiance dice
Second: N4 will first launch as Infinity: Code One, this is a simplified version of the game (think Operation: Thingthing levels of complexity) launched as a full fledged system with organised play support and a dedicated mode in Army Builder, this will be supplemented with "Full" N4 much in the way Icestorm was released as a lead in to N3.
Not all units will be available in C1 but all factions will be playable at launch, and new packaging for models will indicate if they are C1 compliant.
The idea is to have a more accessible, and fully supported, level of Infinity that can be played as a full tournament game, to complement the advanced game. It is very much aimed at people that don't have the time or capacity to learn a large complex game like N3 but still using that identifiable core of Orders, AROs, and F2F rolls.
I thought it was less the "complex" rules that put people off the game and more the God awful fiddly models.
I mean they seem to have mostly got rid of the tiny fiddly bits by GW'ing the models scale wise, but now they seem to be cutting the models in bizarre ways I guess to hinder them being recast.
The Japanese heavy from there original box that was cut length ways was fething awful to put together nothing actually fit I had to use a vice to get the main halfs together so the other bits would fit.
Every other set I bought since that has a model cut that way tends to be a massive ball ache that does not fit together without way too much work. I have a pile of stuff I have just put to one side because there not worth the work to build/fix.
I did hear about the N4 having "simplified" rules in it, and thought it's not going to work because players will still have to make the jump to "full" rules if they want to play with others.
But if this is really going to be a real, fully supported game mode, with it's own balance and statlines, I might be much more interested, even if gluing the godawful metal models will drive me to drinking. I hope for something around N1 complexity honestly.
Alpharius wrote: CB is going to fully support 2 different versions on Infinity?
A Basic and Advanced set?
Hard to believe they’ll be able to pull this off, but hey, stranger things have happened...
I can't comment on their corporate level of support both digitally online and regarding physical stock in stores but I'm looking forward to the two different versions potentially. I got really excited about N3 but the complexity of the rules and the nomenclature use turned me off even though I liked the mechanics in general from watching Icestorm learn to play videos upon its release. I don't consider myself a simpleton and I'm sure I could get it with concerted effort but I just didn't feel like putting in the time and effort with no local scene to speak of for the game (meaning that I'd have to likely teach everyone else the same rules and nomenclature over and over).
If I were a betting man, I would say that Corvus Belli is basically making a format that is similar to Standard in Magic and Hyperspace in X-Wing.
There are something like 15,000 cards in Magic's history. That is way too many cards for any new player to sort through. So to make the game simpler, the designers created the Standard format, which only allows cards from the last two years worth of sets. The limited card pool makes it much easier for new players to evaluate cards and create competitive decks compared to Legacy (where all sets are legal) or Modern (where all sets from the last 15 years are legal).
Hyperspace for X-Wing - in theory - takes a similar tactic. There are more than 60+ ships now-a-days and hundreds of pilot and upgrade cards. This makes for a very complex game that very much favors the enfranchised players who own all of the ships. To combat the disparity between enfranchised and new players, FFG created the Hyperspace format. FFG hand selected a small number of ships, pilots and upgrade cards that would form the core of each faction, and the format overall. Any new ships released during a Hyperspace season are automatically added to the format. This means the number of ships, pilots and upgrade cards new players have to buy and/or be cognoscente of is much reduced compared to the Extended format (where everything is legal).
I pretty much see Code One emulating these formats for Infinity. Each faction will only have a small subset of units available to it. Those units will be focused on providing the "core experience" of that faction and drilling down into what makes each faction unique and interesting. The profiles selected for each unit will enforce the "core experience" while also being simple and easy to use. Most profiles will be pretty basic, with a lot of the weird and complex skills and equipment simply removed (either directly by not being present on the selected profiles or by way of complex units not being added to Code One). I imagine skills and equipment with a lot of choices (like hacking) will be simplified so the units will only have access to a select number of programs. Instead of a unit coming with a hacking device that comes pre-loaded with a bunch of programs, the profile will simply list the programs it has access to.
So basically Code One is simpler than N4 mostly by the fact that each faction will be composed of a small number of hand selected units whose profiles are curated with an eye towards simplicity and fun.
Yeah, I'd not be surprised by that. I suspect they'd probably just limit it by Sectorial (and probably require Sectorial) but a limited format makes sense.
I felt CB needed an answer to the way GW took 40k with 8th edition and I'm glad they finally are. I like Infinity but sometimes I just want to throw dice with a friend and while 40k is more than sufficient I'd be happy for Infinity to be a part of that.
Also may Zhayedan will have their day in a simpler rule set lol.
My hope is it's a more simplified over all ruleset but I think Red_five is correct. Since CB started getting rid of sectorials I've always felt they should have a limited format vs everything they've ever made.
I think this would have prevented JSA-gate as the new stuff in limited is merc but you still have this other way where they can be played in both.
Kanluwen wrote:Apparently there's "a new way to play" coming called "Code One".
"Simplified rules! Different point values! It will have a unique ITS!".
We might finally see if GW could have done it with AoS.
Players might just not bother though.
SeanDrake wrote:I thought it was less the "complex" rules that put people off the game and more the God awful fiddly models.
I mean they seem to have mostly got rid of the tiny fiddly bits by GW'ing the models scale wise, but now they seem to be cutting the models in bizarre ways I guess to hinder them being recast.
The Japanese heavy from there original box that was cut length ways was fething awful to put together nothing actually fit I had to use a vice to get the main halfs together so the other bits would fit.
Every other set I bought since that has a model cut that way tends to be a massive ball ache that does not fit together without way too much work. I have a pile of stuff I have just put to one side because there not worth the work to build/fix.
The old stuff maybe, but the new stuff goes together really well. Not sure how tat went wrong for you, I only have new OSS though.
The complex rules are enough to give me pause before a game. I could play other games that are fun and engaging but don't involve finding the bit of a rule we need to figure out how something works.
BrotherGecko wrote:I felt CB needed an answer to the way GW took 40k with 8th edition and I'm glad they finally are. I like Infinity but sometimes I just want to throw dice with a friend and while 40k is more than sufficient I'd be happy for Infinity to be a part of that.
Making the parts of playing a game that isn't actually playing (like learning and continuing to know how it works) as easy as possible would help.
If you just want to throw dice and have a laugh I would look at Gaslands, it's good fun and a ridiculously affordable extra game.
BrotherGecko wrote: I felt CB needed an answer to the way GW took 40k with 8th edition and I'm glad they finally are. I like Infinity but sometimes I just want to throw dice with a friend and while 40k is more than sufficient I'd be happy for Infinity to be a part of that.
Also may Zhayedan will have their day in a simpler rule set lol.
Ash at GMG had some quick play style rules for Infinity (I think he has them on FB page) which worked pretty well. Basically limited the number of Impetuous and camo troops and the like. It seemed pretty decent, but them not being offical meant getting other players on board was pretty hard.
I've glued, or tried gluing, the contents of Icestorm and Red Veil. In most cases, I've had arms and gun-arms misalign (Zanshi, Ghulam, Fusilier), and some parts not really fitting together (lady fusilier leg peg and hole were not informed they should fit together). That doesn't include the miniscule connector points in some cases. Looking back, I've had much fewer problems fitting 1st edition models than these new ones.
Just wait till you build Wildfire!
Most well fit models, EVER!
/sarcasm
The O-12 side of things has huuuuuuuuuge problems. The big guy has significant gaps around the head area, the Gangbuster has gaps around the arm holding the shotgun, etc.
I find Infinity models need wire cutters to clip off some port tabs, but for metal they go together well. I often use greenstuff to help metals stick but rarely need to with the Infinity stuff. I think the only thing recently I've had problems with is the Puppetactica bunny. Her waist just sockets into the hips a little too smoothly to hold without something.
Kanluwen wrote: Just wait till you build Wildfire!
Most well fit models, EVER!
/sarcasm
The O-12 side of things has huuuuuuuuuge problems. The big guy has significant gaps around the head area, the Gangbuster has gaps around the arm holding the shotgun, etc.
My Gamma went together really well. No gaps at all. My friend's Gamma has a gap that will need to be filled with green stuff, sadly.
.Mikes. wrote: It's an Ariadnan Ratnik. Think Blackjack, but crap.
Thanks. I didn't recognize it without the goofy looking hammer I assume was cropped off. I like that overall asthetic but can't comment on the rules as I mainly follow this thread/infinity/CB for gratuitous miniature pron.
If they don't have a concept, it's not going to happen.
Because it's the same sort of problem: If no one in the design team can figure out what to do with it, or how to do it justice, you have to admit it's dead. I sure as heck wasn't happy when it was announced, but I don't think 
