Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

N2 was just N1 with the FAQs added into the main rulebook, I was actually kinda miffed when I first bought the revised/2nd Ed rulebook because so little had changed in it and at the time the books were something like $60+ because there was no real US distribution or MSRP for the game and the US economy was awful so exchange rate sucked. N3 was a bigger change, but still not all that different. I'd be totally OK with a N4 that was basically just a revised N3 in the same was as N1->N2, but there is no rumors for it being on the horizon.

As for ITS, all the missions are already written to be playable at 200 points, they even specifically scale some of them as Low Tier/Mid Tier/High Tier, which literally just means 200/300/400 points. 300 became popular based on the community and CB makes 300 point armypacks because that is the size of game that is most popular, but we've done quite a few 200 point tournaments that were very fun

A new edition would likely be released around Gen Con to maximize sales and hype, so if it were to come it would be a year from now.

Yeah, sorry to cause alarm, I was just saying that I hope the next edition (when it comes in however many more years) decides to pare things way down and possibly rework to either be a simpler game with an assumption at larger game sizes, or goes back to being the small squad skirmish game it used to be.

Just so long as it drops the needless bloat and streamlines the game in to something a bit more user friendly.

Because if they don't stem the bloat and learn a bit of self-control then we're just going to keep reaching the same place we did back in 2nd Edition where the game either needs to forcibly reboot or get crushed under its own weight.

 Ronin_eX wrote:
Yeah, sorry to cause alarm, I was just saying that I hope the next edition (when it comes in however many more years) decides to pare things way down and possibly rework to either be a simpler game with an assumption at larger game sizes, or goes back to being the small squad skirmish game it used to be.

Just so long as it drops the needless bloat and streamlines the game in to something a bit more user friendly.

Because if they don't stem the bloat and learn a bit of self-control then we're just going to keep reaching the same place we did back in 2nd Edition where the game either needs to forcibly reboot or get crushed under its own weight.

Coming from 40k, Infinity is a breath of fresh air. I would not want to pair the complexity or rules depth down much. Stream line wording to make it easier to understand? Definitely. Make a better index? For sure. Go full 8th edition? No, no thank you.

 Kalamadea wrote:
As for ITS, all the missions are already written to be playable at 200 points, they even specifically scale some of them as Low Tier/Mid Tier/High Tier, which literally just means 200/300/400 points. 300 became popular based on the community and CB makes 300 point armypacks because that is the size of game that is most popular, but we've done quite a few 200 point tournaments that were very fun

Also, they've declared many times that since Human Sphere N2 they begun to develop the math of the game around 300 size game. So every meaningful unit has a cost around 30 points so 10 men are 300 pts.

Anyway... here in this thread you, the dakka forum, have mentioned two different separate interesting subjects: a hypothetical N4 and stat cards. Those statements kept my gears grinding today.

IMHO Stats Cards, today, for INFINITY N3 with the existing Army6 app... I would find them NOT necessary.

WARNING ///// HUGE HYPOTHETICAL POST ///// WARNING

However, for an hypothetical fourth edition of this game. I would definitely sign into it.
In my opinion, Infinity requires so much from the player in terms of memory. We are forced to play being aware of so much stuff. Look at other game; I've been playing X-Wing lately, super casual games, never been in a tournament BUT when you look at the display, the players have everything in cards in front of them. Because those cards have every single rule written in front of them they do not have to fething REMEMBER every single thing their miniatures do.

So, the problem with INFINITY nowadays is actually not only about rules, it's about product design.
Cards: weapon cards, unit cards, equipment cards, special skills cards are a constant help for the player, who can interact with them. You can flip them, tap them discard them, put tokens over them.
Imagine the potential of a hypothetical N4 with 3x3 boards and cards being used as in X-Wing. Dice with symbols, cards and less things to remember.

I think that system can be translated into a new format, keeping the spirit, getting rid of the superfluous stuff (TONS of it), and still be INFINITY. Maybe not so fluff acurate, but at least getting rid of the cube. Have you realised that since N1 every single unit profile has included the "Cube" and the situations where that label has been meaningful have happened like almost never?

I love the miniatures. I've had enough N3 already. Gimme a easy balanced game to keep on playing with these Morats you have nowadays and I'll be a happy old man.

I've been really happy with N3. It's a solid system that's fairly streamlined (it could do without nested special rules). It's not a very good system for physical media though. The rules are very reference table driven, which means they're a nightmare to lookup manually, but pretty easily compile down into a pretty digestible size on a per model basis.

I don't think cards really work for it, simply because there are so many options when you get down to the different equipment sets. I think it would just feel like an overwhelming number of cards, not to mention layout issues with stuff like hackers and the like.

Army is pretty good overall, but would work a lot better in app form without an online connection. If you've got a tablet, MayaNet is probably the single most accessible way to turn your list into a simple set of options. The game really clicked for me when I started using it as its not only a great tool, but one that showed me how the game was organized so I could better understand Army and even the rulebook.

I will say, the biggest barrier wall is just getting started. I think playing solely with the premade 300 point stuff and Operation+Beyond armies is a great way to learn the game. Really, its just a game that's easier to learn on the table, and all the army building stuff is far easier to understand once you've played. If you just sit down and play with what you've got, its easier to see how all the complexity narrows down to what you actually put on the table. I found it to be a game that is much easier to learn once you've seen how it works.

I too much prefer 3'x3' boards. Just lower all weapon range bands so snipers are balanced. The past few times I have played I've gone with the smaller board but haven't bothered shrinking ranges and it's not the most fun unless you like never having to move anything to hit anything.

I think 3x3 might get a little cramped and make it hard to find places to hide. I do think its a good idea to shrink the board a bit when you play smaller point games though. At 6 man starter box size you really notice how little ARO action happens if you play with the same kind of setup you would for a 300 point game.

I should have added that I tend to play at 200pts as with 300 most people I played with had 13-16 orders on average.

 Monkeysloth wrote:
I should have added that I tend to play at 200pts as with 300 most people I played with had 13-16 orders on average.

Yeah, 200 points smaller tables make a lot of sense. 3x3 works well if you just assume each player loses 6" worth of deployment zone.

The game you guys are describing already exists: MERCS 2.0

Give it a try, the rules PDF and stat cards are now free online (in the link I just gave) and the faction boxes include everything all 10 models for the faction for $40 You can find them cheaper online, or get the MERCS: Recon boardgame which is pretty seriously underrated and fun in it's own right. Or Mantic's Deadzone is also a great Infinity-lite type game

Just please don't try to turn Infinity into MERCS or X-Wing or Deadzone. I own those too and they are fine games, but they are decidedly NOT Infinity. I'd be all for an alternate game that was like you describe much like Battletech and Alpha Strike, but if Infinity went down to X-Wing levels of complexity I'd lose interest very quickly.

There is that big black N for next November. Just saying.

Also, if anyone hasn't I do recommend the ast Mayacast episide where they talk about opportunities, not to simplify the game, but to streamline the rules and their delivery, Well worth a listen, and I agreed with all the suggestions.

 Kalamadea wrote:
The game you guys are describing already exists: MERCS 2.0

Give it a try, the rules PDF and stat cards are now free online (in the link I just gave) and the faction boxes include everything all 10 models for the faction for $40 You can find them cheaper online, or get the MERCS: Recon boardgame which is pretty seriously underrated and fun in it's own right. Or Mantic's Deadzone is also a great Infinity-lite type game

Just please don't try to turn Infinity into MERCS or X-Wing or Deadzone. I own those too and they are fine games, but they are decidedly NOT Infinity. I'd be all for an alternate game that was like you describe much like Battletech and Alpha Strike, but if Infinity went down to X-Wing levels of complexity I'd lose interest very quickly.

X-Wing is the last thing Infinity should become. I love X-Wing but I loathe how bloated and messy that system is, especially with desirable cards locked behind the purchase of miniatures (for factions you may or may not even play).

 LunarSol wrote:
I've been really happy with N3. It's a solid system that's fairly streamlined (it could do without nested special rules). It's not a very good system for physical media though. The rules are very reference table driven, which means they're a nightmare to lookup manually, but pretty easily compile down into a pretty digestible size on a per model basis.

I don't think cards really work for it, simply because there are so many options when you get down to the different equipment sets. I think it would just feel like an overwhelming number of cards, not to mention layout issues with stuff like hackers and the like.

I disagree. Look at the stuff GW's done for "warscroll cards" or "datacards".

If they can manage to fit the rules for an entire unit and its weapons on bit that's a bit larger than an index card(the most recent Nighthaunt/Stormcast iteration of the warscroll cards)? Infinity can do it easily as well.

They'd just have to be faction specific.

 .Mikes. wrote:
There is that big black N for next November. Just saying.

Also, if anyone hasn't I do recommend the ast Mayacast episide where they talk about opportunities, not to simplify the game, but to streamline the rules and their delivery, Well worth a listen, and I agreed with all the suggestions.

Yeah, in general, it isn't the core rules that are the issue, but the extraneous stuff added by excessive leveled rules, nested rules, slightly altered weapon profiles, and otherwise bloated bits.

Do we really need near half a dozen levels of AD? What do we gain from 5 levels of MA where only ~2 are used? Do we need a host of close combat skills sitting outside the MA heading that do similar things? Why Marksman and Fatality? Why do hacking devices bloat up with so many useless programs when only a handful are used? Why does MA contain Stealth and Courage? Why does Berzerk contain Assault? Why does Veteran contain... *he just trails off*

Then we have unit profiles! So many units with profiles that will never see table play due to bad internal balancing. So many older vanilla profiles that basically read like an exhaustive equipment list instead of just having a few representative profiles. This has led to a lot of overlap with newer units and basically started forcing CB in to rotating active lists as if they were Magic the bloody Gathering.

Again, the core is solid (I think the order pool system could use another pass, but I digress) but then they have just added so much cruft over time that it becomes harder and harder to engage with the game. The more they add, the more weird edge cases and internal balance problems we get. It also creates a weird sort of improvement creep and unit churn where new profiles are either dead on arrival or the new meta depending on whether the rules they introduce are gold or chaff. The same goes for sectorials, since there are only so many sub-factions you can have in an army before they start drastically overlapping.

Infinity could do with a lot less bloat in the special rules and equipment department. It is this solid core with a lot of calcified layers of crunch added to it over its long life and the game could use some paring down back to the basics.

Some new rules and additions are great, but some times it feels like they're either splitting hairs or making new mechanics for their own sake where an old mechanic would have done just fine. It also feels like too many new units are created just to be poster-children for special rules that get used once or twice and then never heard from again. The game needs a second pass with a look toward paring down special rules and using what it has at its core more effectively. Ideally, a hypothetical new edition would be able to fit ALL of the rules in the core book, including stuff like sectorial rules like linking.

I think moving toward the living format was a good choice on their part, but to me there is little difference between having to flip through my book a dozen times each game or having to go to the wiki a dozen times. Infinity is just becoming too expansive for its own good and CB's only response seems to be mothballing armies or painfully splitting things off, neither of which seems like it will work out well in the long term (especially not when it seems like they are almost doing it on a whim). I sincerely hope they find a better way forward in the future and I think the first step is taking an honest look at all the built-up rules artifacts Infinity has gathered and taking a knife to the bits that don't improve the game. I don't want them to pare down until it's Tic-Tac-Toe, but I also don't think the special rules section needs to make War and Peace look dainty in comparison.

 Ronin_eX wrote:

 .Mikes. wrote:
There is that big black N for next November. Just saying.

Also, if anyone hasn't I do recommend the ast Mayacast episide where they talk about opportunities, not to simplify the game, but to streamline the rules and their delivery, Well worth a listen, and I agreed with all the suggestions.

Yeah, in general, it isn't the core rules that are the issue, but the extraneous stuff added by excessive leveled rules, nested rules, slightly altered weapon profiles, and otherwise bloated bits.

Do we really need near half a dozen levels of AD? What do we gain from 5 levels of MA where only ~2 are used? ........

You basically listed everything that was talked about int he cast

 Ronin_eX wrote:


Do we really need near half a dozen levels of AD? What do we gain from 5 levels of MA where only ~2 are used? Do we need a host of close combat skills sitting outside the MA heading that do similar things? Why Marksman and Fatality? Why do hacking devices bloat up with so many useless programs when only a handful are used? Why does MA contain Stealth and Courage? Why does Berzerk contain Assault? Why does Veteran contain... *he just trails off*
.

Alternatively, what is having any of this costing you? You're not required to remember all of this stuff. Its extremely easy to look up. And reducing the game's rules by even 50% won't mean that you never have to look things up. It will just mean that theres way less options and variety.

Infinity has always been a complex and granular game. Since day 1. It sounds like what we really need isn't simplification of rules but more ways to organize, display and access information. New options that are tailored to different preferences.

The real reason for all the options that are only slightly different isn't to give people more gameplay granularity but for CB to continue to get existing customers to buy new stuff. I think if you saw people using a wider array of options you could make that argument but everything just falls to which version of x is the best that's all we'll use.

CB has hit one of the issues plaguing Privateer. They've been around so long that their catalog is huge but at the same time if they don't introduce new stuff with new rules they won't be able to keep up the growth they've been seeing. It's the big plauge of any wargame really.

Unless they go full MtG and have a restricted play for ITS with only specfic armies for each faction approved each year I don't know how they solve those two problems as eventually the rules will get to the point where even the people that have no issues with it now will have trouble playing them and if they don't introduce new rules then people that have their stuff don't really have a reason to buy the newer stuff that's better.

MtG can get away with what they do because it's been engraned in the game from the start and it doesn't cost a lot to buy into the newest release cycle. A wargame would have a big issue with doing the same as lots of people don't want to drop $100+ just to play in a tourney season plus the hobby time assoicated with getting a new army ready to play. So I guess what they're doing is the lesser of two evils. Still would be nice if they had a way of doing it without feeling cluttered.

 .Mikes. wrote:

 Ronin_eX wrote:

 .Mikes. wrote:
There is that big black N for next November. Just saying.

Also, if anyone hasn't I do recommend the ast Mayacast episide where they talk about opportunities, not to simplify the game, but to streamline the rules and their delivery, Well worth a listen, and I agreed with all the suggestions.

Yeah, in general, it isn't the core rules that are the issue, but the extraneous stuff added by excessive leveled rules, nested rules, slightly altered weapon profiles, and otherwise bloated bits.

Do we really need near half a dozen levels of AD? What do we gain from 5 levels of MA where only ~2 are used? ........

You basically listed everything that was talked about int he cast

I have a feeling it is probably a more common complaint among us long-term, playing-since-release, Infinity grogs than one might otherwise think. I may have to give the podcast a listen if only so I can here a different voice go on my rant!

 Monkeysloth wrote:
The real reason for all the options that are only slightly different isn't to give people more gameplay granularity but for CB to continue to get existing customers to buy new stuff. I think if you saw people using a wider array of options you could make that argument but everything just falls to which version of x is the best that's all we'll use.

CB has hit one of the issues plaguing Privateer. They've been around so long that their catalog is huge but at the same time if they don't introduce new stuff with new rules they won't be able to keep up the growth they've been seeing. It's the big plauge of any wargame really.

This is what entire show is about.

How about a link then?
Looked though almost 2 years worth of their episodes and didn't see anything that had the description of what is being discussed.

Found it: https://mayacast.com/2018/08/17/mayacast-episode-194-reduce-reuse-recycle/

Monkeysloth wrote:I too much prefer 3'x3' boards. Just lower all weapon range bands so snipers are balanced. The past few times I have played I've gone with the smaller board but haven't bothered shrinking ranges and it's not the most fun unless you like never having to move anything to hit anything.

I disagree. The rangeband mechanic is core to the game and a great source of complexity that does not require more fething rules.
A 3x3 would throw out a lot of the granularity.
I want snipers to outrange HMGs, still have space for medium range bands and have rifles and shotguns operate in a noticeably different way.

jake wrote:

 Ronin_eX wrote:


Do we really need near half a dozen levels of AD? What do we gain from 5 levels of MA where only ~2 are used? Do we need a host of close combat skills sitting outside the MA heading that do similar things? Why Marksman and Fatality? Why do hacking devices bloat up with so many useless programs when only a handful are used? Why does MA contain Stealth and Courage? Why does Berzerk contain Assault? Why does Veteran contain... *he just trails off*
.

Alternatively, what is having any of this costing you? You're not required to remember all of this stuff. Its extremely easy to look up. And reducing the game's rules by even 50% won't mean that you never have to look things up. It will just mean that theres way less options and variety.

Infinity has always been a complex and granular game. Since day 1. It sounds like what we really need isn't simplification of rules but more ways to organize, display and access information. New options that are tailored to different preferences.

We are required to remember most of it. The issue isn't with options and variety, it's with options that are not different enough to actually give variety.
More options don't make a game better, decisions do. Am I taking firepower or a specialist? Burst or damage?
Not; this slight variant or that, but that serve pretty much the same purpose?

 Monkeysloth wrote:
The real reason for all the options that are only slightly different isn't to give people more gameplay granularity but for CB to continue to get existing customers to buy new stuff. I think if you saw people using a wider array of options you could make that argument but everything just falls to which version of x is the best that's all we'll use.

Uhmmmm... I disagree with this statement. I mean... if this was the CB mindset is a wrong approach to their market, absolutely.

Keeping your focus on a existing community of players is just aiming for a shrinking model year after year. Making a complex game already more complex with the release of expansions is just going to make the playerbase shrink. Smaller and smaller super hardcore player ghetto. A bunch of guys who know the game deeply, even more than its creators (wich is not so difficult nowadays, am I right?).

Rules density, badly organized, poorly streamlined are absolute barriers to the introduction of new players. As soon as your game is not recruiting new players, it is going to decrease.
How is CB going to compete against titans of this industry like GW or FF when they are sticking to a dying community of hardcore fans? When will the next edition of 40K or XWing blast them away from the hot spot of the wargaming business?

I love Infinity, I really like the miniatures and I do not really want it to fade away. I want people playing, I want it to be popular because it's my thing, really.
For achieving those objectives we need an updated streamlined rules and get rid of all those superfluous layers of complexity.

Seems like theres alot of infinity fatigue here.
It is ok to step away and play something else for a while.

However, We like the game because it is complex and presents many tactical options.
The interaction between a zillion rules is what makes it interesting. That doesn't happen in every game though & if I'm going into a game with a profile I don't use often I make sure to reread whatever exotic rule applies.
Yes there is rules bloat, but everything is organized on the wiki pretty well. I have not yet been utterly stumped by a rules question.

If its overly litigious for your tastes take a break for a while, or try playing at a smaller/simpler level for a while. 200 pt lists on a 3x3 table are pretty damned simple because you just can't take too many complicated units. It is a dirtier more up close way to play.

That said certain units really NEED to be played on a 4x4 table at 300 pts. Snipers, TAGs, infiltrators, & AD units need space to stretch their legs. Those are the units that make it fun.

Outside of CB's issues with nested rules I don't find the game legitimately anymore complex rules wise or memory wise than 8th edition 40k. Hell, I don't think 8th edition is even half as streamlined as it ought to be or people feel it is. There is probably 20+ iterations of the same rules effect with a completely different name. That is pretty damn frustrating when your opponent has to explain a rule only for you to realize its just another -1/+1. At least in Infinity, effects and rules apply equally across all armies. The complexity of infinity mostly comes from application of rules both by you and your opponent.

In no way do I want Infinity to even attempt to become like 40k's advanced game of put down models, roll dice, pick up models, put models away and do that until one side has no more models. Or be a test to see who can win on the first turn.

If you are playing Infinity it is because you don't want to play those other games. I highly doubt CB believes it will be GW any time soon. And they do seem to be taking some pointers from GW, which is not to make better rules but just be better at social media.

 BrotherGecko wrote:
And they do seem to be taking some pointers from GW, which is not to make better rules but just be better at social media.

?!
Excuse me... I might not be totally aware of what has GW did lately in social media. Can you help me?
No irony on my words, really. I usually not give much attention to GW most of the time.

As far as I know CB has uploaded stuff for free since 2005, apart from the rules, the army and campaigns and stuff.
What is GW doing these days? free downloadable candy?

Nice teasers, professional replays on FB, live twitch games (specialist games included), interviews with the designers, two official webcomics, official podcasts, free painting tutorials on YT.

Various degree of success and execution but the sheer number of internet content they're producing is really neat and keeps things interesting.

Listened to the Mayacast episode and they have lots of great points. Not everything we've been discussing here is covered but it seams like there's a large chunk of players who dislike the lack of consistency between terminology, rule stacking, using rules just for fluff as well as organizational things. The goal was how to keep Infinity complex yet elegant. They really covered a lot of just why when I can get people to play it feels like we spend more time looking up rules in a 3 hour game then actually playing and that's why no one really wants to play the game anymore in my group.

DarkBlack wrote:

Monkeysloth wrote:I too much prefer 3'x3' boards. Just lower all weapon range bands so snipers are balanced. The past few times I have played I've gone with the smaller board but haven't bothered shrinking ranges and it's not the most fun unless you like never having to move anything to hit anything.

I disagree. The rangeband mechanic is core to the game and a great source of complexity that does not require more fething rules.
A 3x3 would throw out a lot of the granularity.
I want snipers to outrange HMGs, still have space for medium range bands and have rifles and shotguns operate in a noticeably different way.

Sorry, that comment from me was part of a smaller discussion on how I prefer to play. I don't want to take away your variety of range bands but when I play I tend to prefer smaller boards and find if you don't reduce all the range bands it's not quite as fun. So the next time I play I'd want to do that probably. So just home brew stuff.

BobbaFett wrote:

 Monkeysloth wrote:
The real reason for all the options that are only slightly different isn't to give people more gameplay granularity but for CB to continue to get existing customers to buy new stuff. I think if you saw people using a wider array of options you could make that argument but everything just falls to which version of x is the best that's all we'll use.

Uhmmmm... I disagree with this statement. I mean... if this was the CB mindset is a wrong approach to their market, absolutely.

Keeping your focus on a existing community of players is just aiming for a shrinking model year after year. Making a complex game already more complex with the release of expansions is just going to make the playerbase shrink. Smaller and smaller super hardcore player ghetto. A bunch of guys who know the game deeply, even more than its creators (wich is not so difficult nowadays, am I right?).

I'm just looking at things from a business perspective. How do you bring in new players and keep the existing ones spending money. Is it pretty cynical, yes, but it really feels like what CB does as it's pretty much what anyone in the hobby at their size ends up having to do. Look at all the new Close Combat stuff that have been added over the past year (like guard) that are 90% what MA is but only 3-4 figures have and none of them are really CC figures either. So rules that rarely come into play that are very similar to common rules but not the same thing that no one is ever going to remember that you have to stop and look up if for some reason they do trigger.

 Monkeysloth wrote:
Listened to the Mayacast episode and they have lots of great points. Not everything we've been discussing here is covered but it seams like there's a large chunk of players who dislike the lack of consistency between terminology, rule stacking, using rules just for fluff as well as organizational things. The goal was how to keep Infinity complex yet elegant. They really covered a lot of just why when I can get people to play it feels like we spend more time looking up rules in a 3 hour game then actually playing and that's why no one really wants to play the game anymore in my group.

DarkBlack wrote:

Monkeysloth wrote:I too much prefer 3'x3' boards. Just lower all weapon range bands so snipers are balanced. The past few times I have played I've gone with the smaller board but haven't bothered shrinking ranges and it's not the most fun unless you like never having to move anything to hit anything.

I disagree. The rangeband mechanic is core to the game and a great source of complexity that does not require more fething rules.
A 3x3 would throw out a lot of the granularity.
I want snipers to outrange HMGs, still have space for medium range bands and have rifles and shotguns operate in a noticeably different way.

Sorry, that comment from me was part of a smaller discussion on how I prefer to play. I don't want to take away your variety of range bands but when I play I tend to prefer smaller boards and find if you don't reduce all the range bands it's not quite as fun. So the next time I play I'd want to do that probably. So just home brew stuff.

BobbaFett wrote:

 Monkeysloth wrote:
The real reason for all the options that are only slightly different isn't to give people more gameplay granularity but for CB to continue to get existing customers to buy new stuff. I think if you saw people using a wider array of options you could make that argument but everything just falls to which version of x is the best that's all we'll use.

Uhmmmm... I disagree with this statement. I mean... if this was the CB mindset is a wrong approach to their market, absolutely.

Keeping your focus on a existing community of players is just aiming for a shrinking model year after year. Making a complex game already more complex with the release of expansions is just going to make the playerbase shrink. Smaller and smaller super hardcore player ghetto. A bunch of guys who know the game deeply, even more than its creators (wich is not so difficult nowadays, am I right?).

I'm just looking at things from a business perspective. How do you bring in new players and keep the existing ones spending money. Is it pretty cynical, yes, but it really feels like what CB does as it's pretty much what anyone in the hobby at their size ends up having to do. Look at all the new Close Combat stuff that have been added over the past year (like guard) that are 90% what MA is but only 3-4 figures have and none of them are really CC figures either. So rules that rarely come into play that are very similar to common rules but not the same thing that no one is ever going to remember that you have to stop and look up if for some reason they do trigger.

Infinity has always been a game with skills invented to service only 1-2 profiles.
MSV3, martial arts level 5, impersonation, neurocinetics, holoprojector lvl 3.
This isn't a bad thing. Those rules rarely come up, but they're out there for all to see. It's not some special piece of equipment buried in an single character's profile within an army book somewhere.

The News and/or Rumors? Yeah, I'm That Guy today.