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.

I had my first few games of YAMS last night and it was amazing. Such a breath of fresh air from ITS, which was singlehandedly killing my enjoyment of an otherwise exceptionally attractive game system.

Is anyone playing YAMS locally? It seems to blend the most entertaining aspects of 40k 7th ed with the superior Infinity game engine in a way that is more balanced among factions and actually encourages you to engage your opponent.

What is YAMS and what is ITS?

 Tamwulf wrote:
What is YAMS and what is ITS?

They are both mission sets.

YAMS - yet another mission system. Semi random fan made scenario generator with few crucial differences to ITS (easier to complete objectives, everyone can cap the objective (as opposed to specialists only in ITS), games tend to be more oriented towards killing your opponent).

ITS - Infinity tournament system. Official scenarios used at infinity tournaments.

I don't like YAMS, played it until CB published ITS.

+1 for ITS. Im playing Infinity specifically because I dont like 7th.

Im only a newb but Ive seen people play both and like the look of YAMS better than ITS due to the lack of needing all the specialists in your army list. I hate the idea of having to field FO, Doc, Engineer, Hacker etc just incase I get a specific mission.

Dropbear Victim wrote:
Im only a newb but Ive seen people play both and like the look of YAMS better than ITS due to the lack of needing all the specialists in your army list. I hate the idea of having to field FO, Doc, Engineer, Hacker etc just incase I get a specific mission.

Right...plus as a tournament format it has a bunch of problems.

For example, in ITS tournaments, because the nature of the game is essentially nonconfrontational, you don't win the tournament by beating difficult opponents. In fact, around here they don't use a Swiss pairing system, they use a random pairing system. Therefore, you win the tournament by being paired randomly with bad opponents, who you can avoid confronting. Boring.

My main problem with ITS, and why I really have no interest in using it in casual games either, is that it punishes engaging your opponent's models while rewarding completely nonsensical behavior. I need test run? OK, I'll just run my remote into the open so you can shoot it. Oh, you won't shoot it? I guess I'll just drive it off a fething building. There are multiple ITS objectives that require that your friendly units take damage. Telemetry is even silly...lasering the HVT I understand why but am I bothering to laser a target when it may be easier to shoot it?Simultaneously, if I beat my opponent *too hard* then he goes into retreat,runs off the table, and I lose by default for *reasons*.

I don't play tactical miniatures games to roll dice just to see how many times my model can press a fething button. I can press buttons in real life, for free, with all of the subtle nuances of real life button pressing, from the comfort of my own home.

My problem with ITS is that it favors spamming cheap orders and some lists have much higher access to reliable specialists
Simply put, a 20 order list will beat a 10 order list in ITS (objective points wise) if both players have the same skill
Orders are simply too good in ITS

I should also add that while some YAMS missions are fairly easy, some are actually very difficult. For example, killing 2 guys in close combat in a game that favors shooting is harder than a lot of ITS classifieds.

Yeah, never liked the nonsensical stuff in ITS. Great game with terrible mission. It was more fun to make up your own stuff. Never tried yams, though.

The problem with ITS... Is anyone aware of the boardgame classifications of American Style and European Style games? (or Ameri-Trash and Euro-snoot style, but I find those terms needlessly inflammatory.) Infinity is very much an American Style game, but the ITS system is European Style ( and Nuggz described this very well in his post, albeit a bit sarcastically), and the way it is formatted does not blend well with the Game itself, IMHO. The ITS scenarios are still too N2 based, and need revision for N3.

If you dislike ITS, there is YAMs, but there are other mission systems as well, like 20x20 and one called Code Zero, but all the links I have are broken (of course). There is also this http://infinitytheforums.com/forum/topic/30550-tripod-mission-format-season-1/

The interesting stuff is out there, you just need to look for it, or create your own.

Edit just to clarify something. I do not find the tournament format problematic. The notion of determining the winner based on objective points gained rather than game victories is fine. I dislike the scenarios themselves. I would like to see them redesigned from the ground up.

I played YAMS for several years. Just for learning the rules, it's great for random games.

Then ITS came to be and people jumped on it like like an STD on your willy. With its over-reliance on specialists and specialists that are too good getting bumped off the list anyway. Anyone else remember TAG Lts winning games as specialists? Yup, now Lts ARE SPECIFICALLY NOT SPECIALISTS as a result. (the list of what is and isn't a specialist will usually change - it had between 2013 and 2015 anyway).

ITS is only A way to play the game, not (as some of the "true believers" seem to think) THE ONLY way to do it. I'm not a fan of it, but I don't play tourneys anyway, and cbf'd if my ranking tanks as a result.

ITS is also only 3 years old. CB were perfectly fine to let people use YAMS for tourneys prior to this. Or TaOS, or any other system. And the "classified objective" card system they use for ITS to me at least harkens back to YAMS objective cards.

YAMS is a good system, and if you and your group prefer it, and don't play in official tournaments, then just play it over ITS.

Personally, I just wish there was something that rewarded using the correct specialist for objectives. Say, base WIP for the correct specialist, WIP -3 for any other specialist, WIP -6 for a standard unit. Would still allow a standard unit to accomplish an objective, but reflects the expertise in such things for specialists, and especially a specialist with the correct training.

 chromedog wrote:
Anyone else remember TAG Lts winning games as specialists? Yup, now Lts ARE SPECIFICALLY NOT SPECIALISTS as a result. (the list of what is and isn't a specialist will usually change - it had between 2013 and 2015 anyway).

ITS is also only 3 years old. CB were perfectly fine to let people use YAMS for tourneys prior to this. Or TaOS, or any other system. And the "classified objective" card system they use for ITS to me at least harkens back to YAMS objective cards.

Matches decided by who gets the first turn, people doing alpha strikes all the time, Void operator abuse, game dominated by heavy link teams, TAG and PanO actually being decent and Yu Jing tears were delicious. It was a silly time for N2. I find cards and HVT to pay certain shout out to YAMS. Wish they'd drop these two elements it in the designing stage and went with something else. People could always continue to play YAMS, if it turned out to be badly thought out.

 -Loki- wrote:
YAMS is a good system, and if you and your group prefer it, and don't play in official tournaments, then just play it over ITS.

Personally, I just wish there was something that rewarded using the correct specialist for objectives. Say, base WIP for the correct specialist, WIP -3 for any other specialist, WIP -6 for a standard unit. Would still allow a standard unit to accomplish an objective, but reflects the expertise in such things for specialists, and especially a specialist with the correct training.

I forget what mission it is but one already work kind of like that. CB like to test things out a little and if it works adding more to the game. I think ITS16 has a good chance of see more of that.

 chromedog wrote:
ITS is only A way to play the game, not (as some of the "true believers" seem to think) THE ONLY way to do it.

Including Corvus Belli, annoyingly. The Army 5 web app only does ITS-compliant lists; want to add mercenaries to your army list? Go and get a pen and paper, you horrible person. It also flags errors under an "ITS" icon. having too high a SWC total, or not having a Lieutenant aren't "ITS" errors, they're errors no matter what game you're playing.

Some of the YAMS objectives are a little easier now (since hostile Civvies don't actively attack you any more; I once had an Invincible suffer a Wound due to being punched in the face by a Civvy he was trying to interrogate!)

I actually quite like a lot of the scenarios from the Paradiso campaign - clearly the precursors to the ITS missions, but not quite so generic; it feels like you've got a military force trying to complete a mission, not a load of guys trying to win a crystal from Richard O'Brien. The two official scenarios published for 1st edition were also worth a try; the "hack the mysterious building" one was always good for a laugh, especially with four players.

For reference, here's the link to my YAMS cards: http://wargamingtrader.com/yams

Development on YAMS version 2 has now started and there should be an alpha release for people to start testing within the next couple of months.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
For example, in ITS tournaments, because the nature of the game is essentially nonconfrontational, you don't win the tournament by beating difficult opponents. In fact, around here they don't use a Swiss pairing system, they use a random pairing system. Therefore, you win the tournament by being paired randomly with bad opponents, who you can avoid confronting. Boring.

To be fair, someone ignoring how an ITS event is supposed to be run isn't directly a fault with ITS. :(

Please don't take that as a dig at your other points, just this specific one.

Can't stand ITS. YAMS isn't perfect but I've never not enjoyed a game because of it.

Last local league was ITS, I did partake but didn't bother taking specialists. Somehow came 5th out of 8 (there was one mission with quadrants, but the rest were ones I had to fail).

Noir wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:
YAMS is a good system, and if you and your group prefer it, and don't play in official tournaments, then just play it over ITS.

Personally, I just wish there was something that rewarded using the correct specialist for objectives. Say, base WIP for the correct specialist, WIP -3 for any other specialist, WIP -6 for a standard unit. Would still allow a standard unit to accomplish an objective, but reflects the expertise in such things for specialists, and especially a specialist with the correct training.

I forget what mission it is but one already work kind of like that. CB like to test things out a little and if it works adding more to the game. I think ITS16 has a good chance of see more of that.

I know. I meant that I'd prefer to see it bleed into YAMS. I like Specialists being the guys that go do objectives, but feel that the ITS method is too strict. If you don't want to take specialists, you should still have a chance to take the objective.

You may be in luck.

the ITS missions are also rather short. 3 turns is fine if you've got to squeeze three or four games into a day, but it does leave me twiddling my thumbs somewhat when my game finishes when there's still an hour and a half to go of the club night. YAMS games tended to fill the time nicely, especially when played down the length of a 6' x 4' table

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
especially when played down the length of a 6' x 4' table

This is another aspect of N3 I'm not too fond of. Everything in the rulebook is fixated on a 4x4 board, yet there's weapons with ranges that exceed it. The sniper rifle has an 8' range! Games played the length of a 6x4 gives more room for long range weapons to flex their muscle, and with enough terrain, still plenty of opportunity to close the gap. Also lets the faster units like bikes really show their speed off, meeting the enemy long before everyone is in instadeath range.

A few scenarios on a 6x4 longways, even how to convert the missions to it, would have been nice.

I'm still learning the game, but my biggest problem with ITS is not the system or the missions (have so far not played any which rewards non-confrontation), but with the classified deck.

Random card? The game encourages you to build a list for a mission, and I love that. Then enter a random card. Which means that regardless of what mission I play I will have to add varying specialists if I want to have a choice of completing them (and Secure the HVT is probably the card with most issues, btw).

I'd rather the system had you selecting a card which could not be completed by a specialist which receives a bonus from the mission being played.

What I DO like with ITS is that it encourages you to bring those mission-specialists, because that's one way to actually make list building for a specific mission and opponent matter.

Loki: While nice, it's outside of ITS' format. Sure, a mission appendix for 3+ players would be nice to see in Acheron's Fall or HSN3, but likely not in ITS.

 Mahtamori wrote:
Then enter a random card. Which means that regardless of what mission I play I will have to add varying specialists if I want to have a choice of completing them (and Secure the HVT is probably the card with most issues, btw).

I'd rather the system had you selecting a card which could not be completed by a specialist which receives a bonus from the mission being played.

I would love it if you created your 'squad' or 'strike force' with the idea of replacements. For example of the event was a 250 point max, your list would actually be created from 350 points. However after you get your mission, you would then finalize the list down to 250 points.

Granted the points will need tweaking because you want there to not be enough to take one of everything, and make someone have to make choices about what to include in the list. Having choices and not being able to field answers to every situation is fine. However allowing slight adjustments to be made to swap out a non-essential personnel or adjust a strategy would be great.

Then again I'm used to playing WoW TCG and Magic tournaments so I love having a side deck. After the first round, I love being able to swap out cards to adjust strategy based on what I'm guessing I'm facing or the game.

Most Infinity events are two-lists (from the same faction / sectorial) with the scenarios known in advance
you pick your list for any given game after you know:
the opponent's faction / sectorial
the table setup
the scenario
the classified objectives

3 Turns is fine, it's actually a lot of time for Infinity, but I don't like a hard arbitrary turn limit in general.

I do like severe turn limiting systems in the rules, things that force a player to go for it or lose, but to just stop after a certain turn never seemed satisfying to me.

I think someone was working on NMS or narrative mission system with elements similar to YAMS, but with extra uses for specialists. I haven't checked up on it lately.

It shouldn't be too hard to add on additional specialist rules for YAMS though.

 Vertrucio wrote:
3 Turns is fine, it's actually a lot of time for Infinity...

Not for me, it's not. After getting the scenery set up and going to the chippy, we've usually got three and a half hours for a game at our club. Having a game end in less than half that time is ... less than ideal.

I've got a few ideas for nore narrative scenarios - Celestial Guard defending a Party mandarin from a Kempetai-led terrorist attack or Shasvastii infiltration, for example, or a scenario involving a Warcor actually doing the job he's paid for, rather than just supplying flash pulse stupidity. Using a selection of board tiles from Sedition Wars, Space Crusade and the like makes for some good boarding scenarios too - especially if you have a control room where hackers can turn the gravity and lights on and off ...

How many orders are you bringing/how quickly are your order pools dying? We find that 3 turns is just about right for a 3 hour gaming night.

Same. After 3 turns its not uncommon for both forces to be heavily brutalised.

In my game last night when the game ended after three turns I had three models left and my opponent two. I rather like the ITS missions so far for their puzzle solving nature instead of just straight killing. It does bug me with the Morat Aggression Force however where most all their Specalists are stuck on their light infantry line troopers. Gone back to my Military Orders for now where I can have Knights who are bad arsed And capable of getting the job done.