Switch Theme:

The 2020 Infinity News and Rumors thread -- N4, C1 and everything else  [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 us
Regular Dakkanaut





 Monkeysloth wrote:
The biggest hurdle for infinity's weapons are the range bands. It's a cool system but It think would be better severed with maybe only 10 different ranges that a weapon is assigned instead of trying to make each weapon have a slightly unique range.


Just about all of the range increments are multiples of 8. The issue is that they combine the range bands on some guns when the +/- modifer is the same. That is 100% an issue I think needs to be resolved.

I think the thing that CB should do is to list all of the range bands for each weapon:

0-8
8-16
16-24
24-32
32-48
48-96 (only a handful of weapons shoot past 48", so just lump them all together with this range band).



   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut





Melbourne, Australia

 LunarSol wrote:
There really aren't that many weapons in the game.



The galaxy is littered with the single-planet graveyards of civilisations which made the economically sensible decision not to explore space. 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





 .Mikes. wrote:
 LunarSol wrote:
There really aren't that many weapons in the game.




Jokes aside there are not that many weapons. 167 total but way more than half that list are just the same weapons (or nearly identical weapons) with different ammo or different firing modes for individual weapons. If you culled the list down, I am sure it would be like 50 unique weapons.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Monkeysloth wrote:
The biggest hurdle for infinity's weapons are the range bands. It's a cool system but It think would be better severed with maybe only 10 different ranges that a weapon is assigned instead of trying to make each weapon have a slightly unique range.


Most of them are more or less the same (rifle/pistol/shotgun/sniper/etc). There's a few quirky ones I'd be fine consolidating, but I'm not sure which ones you're specifically concerned about?

Like most things in Infinity, I personally find the weapons to be something that feels enormously overwhelming in the book and even in Army to a degree, but when you compile your list down to the things that are actually on your models, its honestly way simpler than it appears when you get the info dump. 40k looks about the same when you look at the weapon tables they publish (and those are on a per faction basis). Copying the subset of profiles available to a unit to the profile page makes it feel a lot simpler than it is. Similarly, I find Infinity far far less intimidating when I stop trying to look at all of it and just pay attention to what's on the table.
   
Made in us
Combat Jumping Ragik






Beyond the Beltway

Separating weapons into types, Pistol, Rifle, Combi-rifle, etc and using ammo as a sub-type would make the number of listed weapons less, and may help, at least for the important in game things, like just knowing range bands. You really need to just know those. CB may well do this. We'll see.

The good news is that the rules will be all in one book this time. No mention of the size of the book. Or if it will be separated into a BRB and a background book like for N3.

I don't recall hearing Bostria mention how detailed the rules in the new battle box will be. I hope they are more than the quick start rules that CB currently includes in the battle boxes. An actual preview of Code One. All the material that needs to go to the printer will need to be ready within the next 2 weeks or so, to be done in time.

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





The new Battle Box should just contain all the code one rules in print. No reason not too.
   
Made in us
Myrmidon Officer





NC

If the rumoured Code One rules are basically going to be a Operation box rules plus, that may very well be the case. They probably won't list every unit in the game, however.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





The probably wont, as they've said ARMY will have a code one version. But It would be good code one stats for all the starter boxes they're going to mark as "essential" as that would be a page for faction. Much like they do in the operation boxs now for the factions in them. Just add a few more pages of that to have a real starter rules that you can just pick up a box for each faction and play. That's what Infinity is really missing as all of that are in two player boxes only.
   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut





Melbourne, Australia

 Red_Five wrote:


Jokes aside there are not that many weapons. 167 total but way more than half that list are just the same weapons (or nearly identical weapons) with different ammo or different firing modes for individual weapons. If you culled the list down, I am sure it would be like 50 unique weapons.


I will never put the jokes asaide - NEVER!

But jokes aside, the number of weapons adn ammo types is something I don't think CB should cullin N4. At least not to a large extent. The variable range bands and having the right tool for the job is part of the granularity that makes Infinity what it is as much as the ARO system.

Hacking though, burn that **** down.

The galaxy is littered with the single-planet graveyards of civilisations which made the economically sensible decision not to explore space. 
   
Made in us
Combat Jumping Ragik






Beyond the Beltway

But, but "Muh Nomads! The L33T H4XX0R2!"

I am prepared to stand idly by while hacking dies in a hole. I can live with myself afterwards.

In the current ruleset, magic spellcasting hacking is listed under 'advanced rules' so I'm pretty certain most hacking will be absent from Code One. Bostria did mention hacking as something that will be addressed, so we have that sliver of hope.

Re-watched the LVO video. Code One *arrives* with the Battle Box, but now I doubt that it will contain the complete ruleset. That will probably be a download, so the CB can save on printing. The box will probably have just Quick Starter stuff. No mention of a Code One book.

I added a screenshot of the calendar of releases/events to the OP. and I'll add it here too


This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/30 08:33:03


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 .Mikes. wrote:

But jokes aside, the number of weapons adn ammo types is something I don't think CB should cullin N4. At least not to a large extent. The variable range bands and having the right tool for the job is part of the granularity that makes Infinity what it is as much as the ARO system.

Hacking though, burn that **** down.


Range bands are what make mobility matter in the game. It keeps things from turning into a static firefight and make positioning really fun and dynamic.

Honestly, hacking isn't that complicated. It's just another weapon in most instances. The most complicated part is just that programs are listed in a single table with a column saying which devices they work on rather than having each device come with a list of its available programs. There's also a few too many options (similar to the different levels of Martial Arts) that could be culled, but the actual interaction of hacking is basically the same as a gun.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





 .Mikes. wrote:
 Red_Five wrote:


Jokes aside there are not that many weapons. 167 total but way more than half that list are just the same weapons (or nearly identical weapons) with different ammo or different firing modes for individual weapons. If you culled the list down, I am sure it would be like 50 unique weapons.


I will never put the jokes asaide - NEVER!

But jokes aside, the number of weapons adn ammo types is something I don't think CB should cullin N4. At least not to a large extent. The variable range bands and having the right tool for the job is part of the granularity that makes Infinity what it is as much as the ARO system.

Hacking though, burn that **** down.


I do not want to see the weapon list culled much, if at all.

Hacking can be pretty silly. It is my least favorite part of the game. I get why it exists and I use it often but... I would prefer if it were streamlined and simplified quite a bit.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/30 16:30:37


 
   
Made in pl
Dakka Veteran




Hacking has been completely window-dressing since 1st edition, and expanding it didn't improve it, it just ensured it's even more unappealing. The problem is, as usual with hacking in an otherwise shooty-shooty game, that you either make the whole mission about hacking, or it's always better to just bring another gun.It's not like magic in fantasy (despite similiarities in having separate section and rules devoted to it) because hacking very rarely interacts with the physical world of the tabletop, whereas spells can do physical damage, or give strong buffs/debuffs to most if not all units on the board instead of very select few.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





They should make hacking interact with the terrain more. I should be able to hack a vending machine and have it shoot out canned drinks at enemies. Hack security cameras to give me line of sight around corners. Hack doors to shut on people, crushing them. In Infinity, hacking is the least fun, least cool part of the rules by a country mile. Hacking should be less about buffs and more about surprising your opponent with some out of the box thinking. In my opinion, of course.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Cronch wrote:
Hacking has been completely window-dressing since 1st edition, and expanding it didn't improve it, it just ensured it's even more unappealing. The problem is, as usual with hacking in an otherwise shooty-shooty game, that you either make the whole mission about hacking, or it's always better to just bring another gun.It's not like magic in fantasy (despite similiarities in having separate section and rules devoted to it) because hacking very rarely interacts with the physical world of the tabletop, whereas spells can do physical damage, or give strong buffs/debuffs to most if not all units on the board instead of very select few.


There's a few strong buffs available in hacking (shock/ignore cover for remotes being the big one) but I agree there could be more emphasis here.

Hacking as an offensive ability is rather dependent on repeaters. The ability to create areas of the board where a hackable model can't really act without at best risking a reset is really powerful. The game needs control elements or else there's no design space beyond charging more points for PanO Ballistic Skill. They mostly just need to clean up some redundant programs and reorganize the programs a bit to give the different devices more defined roles and likely combine some of the redundant ones. I think a lot could be done by combining them down to 2 or 3 different program lists and differentiating them with either upgrade programs or making some of the effects skills instead of them all being a generic hacker (Killer Hacker, for example, could be a skill that lets you ignore Firewall Mods and add Shock or something.

Regardless, I'm sure whatever is changing is set at this point. Curious to see what they come up with.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





Cronch wrote:
Hacking has been completely window-dressing since 1st edition, and expanding it didn't improve it, it just ensured it's even more unappealing. The problem is, as usual with hacking in an otherwise shooty-shooty game, that you either make the whole mission about hacking, or it's always better to just bring another gun.It's not like magic in fantasy (despite similiarities in having separate section and rules devoted to it) because hacking very rarely interacts with the physical world of the tabletop, whereas spells can do physical damage, or give strong buffs/debuffs to most if not all units on the board instead of very select few.


It is all window dressing until you are running a list full of Unidron Batroids inside a building and a hacker on the outside of the building threatens to attack you when you dare to move any of your Unidrons.
   
Made in us
[DCM]
[***]







I'd be happy if it were near impossible to neuter T.A.G.s via hacking...
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Alpharius wrote:
I'd be happy if it were near impossible to neuter T.A.G.s via hacking...


Really kind of defeats the purpose of hacking, doesn't it?

The extra order really goes a long way towards making TAGs worth taking now. I think with a wide adoption of tactical window to put a general limit on order pools they're actually getting to be in a pretty good place, particularly with a specialist piloting them.
   
Made in us
[DCM]
[***]







Maybe just done down the 'eject' hacking 'power'?

(Unless they already have?)
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Eject is such a fun power though. One of the things that often seems to sell people on the idea of the game. It's honestly not even very good in most cases, but definitely something to be cautious of. I can certainly see toning it down though. Kind of depends on other attempts to improve TAGs. Personally, I find Immobilized-2 to be a far far greater concern.
   
Made in pl
Dakka Veteran




It it? I find all abilities that take away from other player's agency to be bad design. No one likes stunlocks.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Cronch wrote:
It it? I find all abilities that take away from other player's agency to be bad design. No one likes stunlocks.


Everything takes away player agency in any game. Killing your models takes away the agency to use that model, no? In many ways, hacking is a lot kinder than killing, as there is often far more counterplay (like just walking back in your TAG when the opportunity presents itself). It's far from a stunlock.

One of the things I really appreciate about Infinity is that there's never a real lock. If something is in an exposed position; be that a tag in a hacking area or a model in a sniper's lane; it might be stuck but you as a player are not. Sending an order monkey in to clear a repeater or having a drop troop fill a nest with grenades to free up a pinned model is what makes the game feel like the tactical firefight so many other games fail to capture.
   
Made in us
[DCM]
[***]







You do make good points - I'm just a big T.A.G. fan and hacking, to me, seems to have really limited them too much.

I'm OK with that particular pendulum swinging in the other direction a bit, hopefully.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Alpharius wrote:
You do make good points - I'm just a big T.A.G. fan and hacking, to me, seems to have really limited them too much.

I'm OK with that particular pendulum swinging in the other direction a bit, hopefully.


TAGs have always been in need of some serious love. I'm all for it. Hacking is a part of that (though personally, I'm vastly more terrified of E/M), but ultimately what has made them bad is more of a fundamental game economy problem that needs to be resolved. No matter how good their stats are; the chunk of orders you lose for taking one is too great. Having them generate an extra order does more to fix them than anything I've seen in the game. Limiting the number of items you can take to 15 is the other big thing they need, IMO. A cap on how many cheap orders you can meaningfully take creates a nice buffer. Given that you can hit that cap for most factions with half your points or less; it means you're essentially working with a 150 point budget of "upgrades". You can spread that out among your 15 or dump half of it in a TAG (which gives you a bonus order) but its not putting you behind the way it currently does. Giving them a tool to complete missions is also pretty critical, and the 3 combined I think fixes most of the problems with TAGs that made trying to fix them with points not a real solution. In many ways, I'd prefer them to be absolutely terrifying to deal with in a firefight but weak to hacking as sort of RPS. Regardless, I'm definitely not opposed to things that make them better; Sally's my girl.
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




 LunarSol wrote:
Cronch wrote:
It it? I find all abilities that take away from other player's agency to be bad design. No one likes stunlocks.


Everything takes away player agency in any game. Killing your models takes away the agency to use that model, no? In many ways, hacking is a lot kinder than killing, as there is often far more counterplay (like just walking back in your TAG when the opportunity presents itself). It's far from a stunlock.

One of the things I really appreciate about Infinity is that there's never a real lock. If something is in an exposed position; be that a tag in a hacking area or a model in a sniper's lane; it might be stuck but you as a player are not. Sending an order monkey in to clear a repeater or having a drop troop fill a nest with grenades to free up a pinned model is what makes the game feel like the tactical firefight so many other games fail to capture.

Killing the models is expected in a game though. Having them do nothing is much more irritating. Just like with adhesive ammo, which has one way to fix it, and if your army lost it's engineer, too bad.
It's also one of the many ways in which tags are so much worse than basic infantry- not only do they cost around 1/3rd of your points, but they also need at least an engineer to babysit them, and ideally also a hacker, eating into the points even further, while their high ARM is easily ignored by over-abundance of AP ammo and of course the crits just plain ignoring armor. Without those issues resolved, tags will never be worth it.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





Cronch wrote:
 LunarSol wrote:
Cronch wrote:
It it? I find all abilities that take away from other player's agency to be bad design. No one likes stunlocks.


Everything takes away player agency in any game. Killing your models takes away the agency to use that model, no? In many ways, hacking is a lot kinder than killing, as there is often far more counterplay (like just walking back in your TAG when the opportunity presents itself). It's far from a stunlock.

One of the things I really appreciate about Infinity is that there's never a real lock. If something is in an exposed position; be that a tag in a hacking area or a model in a sniper's lane; it might be stuck but you as a player are not. Sending an order monkey in to clear a repeater or having a drop troop fill a nest with grenades to free up a pinned model is what makes the game feel like the tactical firefight so many other games fail to capture.

Killing the models is expected in a game though. Having them do nothing is much more irritating. Just like with adhesive ammo, which has one way to fix it, and if your army lost it's engineer, too bad.
It's also one of the many ways in which tags are so much worse than basic infantry- not only do they cost around 1/3rd of your points, but they also need at least an engineer to babysit them, and ideally also a hacker, eating into the points even further, while their high ARM is easily ignored by over-abundance of AP ammo and of course the crits just plain ignoring armor. Without those issues resolved, tags will never be worth it.


At the same time, it is not like Engineers and Hackers are not useful in other ways for most missions.

Tags are high risk, high reward models.

Before this latest ITS change, I always found running two HI units as being way more effective than one Tag. You get an extra order and an extra body, even if you still want to have the Hacker/Engineer babysitters. Now, I feel like there is way more reason to run a Tag, even if it is still much riskier than two HI units.

I wonder if giving them 2 extra orders would make Tags more equitable?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/31 17:30:24


 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
[***]







The biggest crime is that one of the coolest models in the history of miniature gaming doesn't see the table enough because of these damn rules!!!

And yes, maybe T.A.G.s generating 2 orders would be a good fix - combined with the aforementioned toning down of hacking, of course!
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Alpharius wrote:
The biggest crime is that one of the coolest models in the history of miniature gaming doesn't see the table enough because of these damn rules!!!

And yes, maybe T.A.G.s generating 2 orders would be a good fix - combined with the aforementioned toning down of hacking, of course!


The currently do generate 2 orders. Do you mean 3?
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





BoW and Customeeple had a ruleset for infinity where you could play a death match arena (with respawns) with infinity. BoW's version had Tags as the main players while Customeeple's was using stock infantry. Both had upgrades you could pick up like in Unreal Tournament and was quite fun. I managed to snag a set of the tokens before everything was quietly removed from Customeeple's website. Don't think CB was too happy with it but it was a damn fun way to play the game with lots of friends.

Still have the PDF in Spanish for it and you can download the BOW version here (They're fairly similar) https://www.beastsofwar.com/downloads/Infinity-Boot-Camp-TAG-Deathmatch.pdf

It you really want to have fun with your tags this is a good way.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





That's actually how I learned to play the game...
   
 
Forum Index » News & Rumors
Go to: