Switch Theme:

The Infinity News and Rumors Thread  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in gr
Thermo-Optical Spekter





Greece

Not in the rulebooks but ITS is considered part of the game.
   
Made in ie
Regular Dakkanaut




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.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/08/07 15:58:32


 
   
Made in gb
Multispectral Hsien





Gosport, UK

Painted September releases:





   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




Portland

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.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
 ImAGeek wrote:
Painted September releases:





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.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/08/07 15:44:03


 
   
Made in us
Stalwart Veteran Guard Sergeant






 LunarSol wrote:

and if you have a single combat group your opponent can reduce your order pool on the first turn with a command token.


Wait, you can use tokens to reduce limited insertion order pools now? Yikes.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Cannibal wrote:
 LunarSol wrote:

and if you have a single combat group your opponent can reduce your order pool on the first turn with a command token.


Wait, you can use tokens to reduce limited insertion order pools now? Yikes.


CAN'T CAN'T. I left out a very important contraction there.
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





Riverside, CA USA

 jake wrote:

**snip**
Spoiler:

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

~Kalamadea (aka ember)
My image gallery 
   
Made in pl
Regular Dakkanaut




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.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





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.
   
Made in us
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor






Right behind you.

 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.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Kanluwen wrote:
 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.
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





Riverside, CA USA

Cronch wrote:
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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Kanluwen wrote:

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.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/08/07 22:03:14


~Kalamadea (aka ember)
My image gallery 
   
Made in pl
Regular Dakkanaut




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.
   
Made in us
[DCM]
[***]






Svalarheima, MA

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.

Roll on N4 - fingers crossed!!!

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





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.
   
Made in pl
Regular Dakkanaut




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.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





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.
   
Made in us
Nasty Nob





SoCal

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.

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





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.
   
Made in us
The Conquerer






Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios

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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/08/08 01:10:50


Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines

Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.

MURICA!!! IN SPESS!!! 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





 Grey Templar wrote:
 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 AP HMG, 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.
   
Made in us
The Conquerer






Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios

 Monkeysloth wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
 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 AP HMG, 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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/08/08 01:30:44


Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines

Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.

MURICA!!! IN SPESS!!! 
   
Made in us
Rogue Inquisitor with Xenos Bodyguards





Eastern edge

Oh that Mowang is just what I have been waiting for. the other minis are also awesome looking.

"Your mumblings are awakening the sleeping Dragon, be wary when meddling the affairs of Dragons, for thou art tasty and go good with either ketchup or chocolate. "
Dragons fear nothing, if it acts up, we breath magic fire that turns them into marshmallow peeps. We leaguers only cry rivets!



 
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User




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.
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




Portland

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).
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





 Grey Templar wrote:
 Monkeysloth wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
 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 AP HMG, 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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/08/09 00:03:48


 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




Portland

 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.
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





 jake wrote:
 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?
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




Portland

 Monkeysloth wrote:
 jake wrote:
 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?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/08/09 03:24:42


 
   
 
Forum Index » News & Rumors
Go to: