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.

Free rules.. free army builder.. you can play the game from about £30 with a starter set.. I don't think for that kind of investment it can really be considering 'getting into' something, but more of a taste or a dabble?

 Pacific wrote:
Free rules.. free army builder.. you can play the game from about £30 with a starter set.. I don't think for that kind of investment it can really be considering 'getting into' something, but more of a taste or a dabble?

Well, I am kind of into dabbling at the moment...

That's what I thought last april - haven't played (or painted...) much else since

 Flashman wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
You made it until Page 249 before you checked this thread out?!?

Wow!

Yep And now I'm checking out the rules...

...Must not get into new game

Join us you know you want to!

 Flashman wrote:


Well, I am kind of into dabbling at the moment...

Don't do it. Infinity is not a game that you will dabble with. One of the best rulesets out there. Some truly great models. And an amazing company behind the wheel.

If you dip your toe in the waters, you might as well just jump in.

Does anyone else ever wish that Corvus Belli would introduce a variant of the ruleset focused around TAG combat? I keep looking at the newer TAGs with the exposed pilot arms, and then my mind goes to scenes of the landmates from Appleseed duking it out.

Given the flack they took from adding a requested 400pt game type, adding a TAG only mission would draw more 'CB is becoming GW' crying. I'm sure they'd rather avoid that for now.

Besides its a bit boring, especially if PanO and Nomads are not involved.

No, I'm talking about a separate format entirely, using the Infinity core rules, but with additional special rules, etc. to emphasize TAG on TAG combat, where infantry are simply a supporting element (so in that regard, a group of infantry would function as a squad similar to a link team but perhaps a bit more restricted in what they can do) and the focus is on groups of say 3-5 TAGs duking it out. People can cry "CB is becoming GW" but nobody is going to make you play "TAG format" games or purchase the 3-5 TAGs required to play it, because its not Infinity its... InfiniTAG or whatever the hell you want to call it, basically a different game.

Again - it would simply draw bad GW comparisons. 'CB are making rules to specifically sell their TAGs because they're not selling enough!'. It's best to leave it for the time being.

Not that I don't agree - a TAG focused game type would be oodles of fun.

Wow, I can't believe you're arguing against something like that simply because of the potential internet neckbeard nerdrage...

Drop AVA restrictions for TAGs, allow only TAG's and REMS, but each category must be set in different combat group, set up a high enough points level, enjoy.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Wow, I can't believe you're arguing against something like that simply because of the potential internet neckbeard nerdrage...

If you haven't seen it, yes, it was that bad.

I can't imagine why, most of the Infinity players around here probably have closer to 1000 pts of any given army, the only exception being the new guys, and even most of them probably have about 500 pts all counted.

chaos0xomega wrote:
I can't imagine why, most of the Infinity players around here probably have closer to 1000 pts of any given army, the only exception being the new guys, and even most of them probably have about 500 pts all counted.

The threads are still floating around the official boards if you want to loo. Some made the same argument you just did - it did not help. The biggest comparison was to GW since boosting game sizes means more sales.

2 teams per side, co-op, 400-pts each (so 800 v 800) = plenty of TAG love.

heck, you can take a TAG in a 200 point team without nerfing your chances.

If you mean "wouldnt it be great with lots of TAGs on the table"... this is simply a matter of scale... similar to "How cool would it be if we had two moons".

(it'd be perfectly normal)

 Antenociti wrote:
2 teams per side, co-op, 400-pts each (so 800 v 800) = plenty of TAG love.

heck, you can take a TAG in a 200 point team without nerfing your chances.

If you mean "wouldnt it be great with lots of TAGs on the table"... this is simply a matter of scale... similar to "How cool would it be if we had two moons".

(it'd be perfectly normal)

Now the real dream scenario is.. fielding a few Antenociti dropships in a game of Infinity. How many points do you think a Grendal would be?

Personally I would just use another system for those landmate vs landmate brawls (perhaps something crazy like Super System) but for sure I would be using the TAGs from Infinity. Particularly the Geckos!

With Ariadna being my favourite faction, I would not be amazed by a TAG-only game mode.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Drop AVA restrictions for TAGs, allow only TAG's and REMS, but each category must be set in different combat group, set up a high enough points level, enjoy.

Yes right, there is absolutely nothing to stop you playing with the AVA/pts (even orders) and doing it yourself.

I think most of the rage on the forums was to do with when that guy from Battle Foam intimated that larger figure counts were coming to a future version of Infinity? He had heard no such thing, but it was a justification for the bags being sold at a certain size (and presumably to help sales).

And, there is no danger at all of CB becoming 'more like GW' while they are a private company, and about 2% the size of GW.

 Siygess wrote:
Now the real dream scenario is.. fielding a few Antenociti dropships in a game of Infinity. How many points do you think a Grendal would be?

..or how many TAGs can it fit in its cargo-pod...?

 Antenociti wrote:

 Siygess wrote:
Now the real dream scenario is.. fielding a few Antenociti dropships in a game of Infinity. How many points do you think a Grendal would be?

..or how many TAGs can it fit in its cargo-pod...?

Squee!

I can see it now. Here is my 300pt army. 1 Grendal. Oh, and the four Gecko's waiting to jump out of the cargo pod doors

Antenociti - any chance of a heads up as to when we might be able to be putting said Geckos in said dropships?

Wow they just keep coming out with this cool stuff. I might have to buy some TAGs! I still have a lot of unpainted Infinity stuff, though.

Also, I'm not really a fan of the odd looking base extender thats glued onto the larger base for some of these models. Why not just put it on a base large enough to accomodate the entire model in the first place?

chaos0xomega wrote:
No, I'm talking about a separate format entirely, using the Infinity core rules, but with additional special rules, etc. to emphasize TAG on TAG combat, where infantry are simply a supporting element (so in that regard, a group of infantry would function as a squad similar to a link team but perhaps a bit more restricted in what they can do) and the focus is on groups of say 3-5 TAGs duking it out.

The fan community has already taken a few stabs at this- I did so myself actually. One of the great things about Infinity is that much fan-created material is actually read by CB, like YAMS was. If we do a good job developing our own TAG format, it might be considered as a format for ITS in the future. At the very least it could be a fun thing that lots of Infinity players around the globe will try out (and improve).

My effort was called "Iron Fists" and is on the CB forums (might have been lost in the migration to the new forum software though). It was quite some time ago (pre-Paradiso), so it could definitely use a revisit. It was basically exactly what you're calling out: squads of 3-5 TAGs with some supporting infantry. I did limit non-TAG SWC to avoid having TAGs just face a gigantic swarm of cheap panzerfausts and their accompanying sizeable order pools.

I'll take another run at it soon, if you're interested. I like your idea of limiting the infantry's actions. Hmmm.

As a side-note, TAG combat is just one of the fan-created alternative formats out there. The "Infinity Hunger Games" format was big a little while ago for small-numbers combat. Here in Washington State we've turned that into an Aristeia! format, which we use with custom arenas. There's the many "zombie invasion" scenarios that get played at cons, as well as other fun variant missions. And on a more-tangential line there's also a road-game under development that will use Aragotos and Kum bikers, which I'm hoping to get playtested this winter.

So there are plenty of alternative formats out there: we just need to try them out extensively ourselves and see how they work, -then- send them CB's way and see if they would consider making them official. And if not, whatever: we can still enjoy them at our regular gaming nights. It's the exact opposite of GW's blind-deaf-dumb-corporate-juggernaut model. ¡Viva el Corvus Belli!

 Flashman wrote:

 Pacific wrote:
Free rules.. free army builder.. you can play the game from about £30 with a starter set.. I don't think for that kind of investment it can really be considering 'getting into' something, but more of a taste or a dabble?

Well, I am kind of into dabbling at the moment...

Oh, just grow a pair and jump in headfirst. Here is a fan re-edit of the rules... much easier to understand: http://www.file-upload.net/download-8494633/Unofficial-Infinity-re-edit-with-bookmarks-v2.3.zip.html

On the 400 point tournament issue. It is just another way to play the game, like Paradiso (about which many people complained too), and that is what CB is really doing-- not trying to inflate TAG sales. Rather than re-write and power creep and all that, they are proposing alternate ways to enjoy the game as it is now. More choices. This is a bad thing?

Have you seen the TAGS they have already released, recently? Those models sell themselves. (Angel's painting helps, mind you) (well, maybe not the Maghariba Guard, but that is a different issue-- 75 mm base) And this new Gecko? Pre-order it. Seriously.

I just hope they hurry up with the Tikbalang.

Really, I've seen more than one 400pt 10-order no TAG list pop up already (the HI links, they hurts us! ).
And making infinity an even moderately expensive game to play would take a lot more than just upping the pts limit by 33%.

(Okay, depending on how insane your customers are - I **might** be considering ordering that one single box I need to have all my PanO remotes to AVA right now... but that's not something the ruleset is really encouraging - that's just me being an idiot )

Yeah, linkable HI squads are seeing more action than TAGs in my experience.

 Bolognesus wrote:
(Okay, depending on how insane your customers are - I **might** be considering ordering that one single box I need to have all my PanO remotes to AVA right now... but that's not something the ruleset is really encouraging - that's just me being an idiot )

It's interesting/telling that Infinity collectors don't magnetize a lot, even with the remotes. Partly that's because metals are more of a pain to magnetize, but it's also because remotes are generally the only set that one will want lots of redundant options for.

If a TAG-centric scenario/format got popular you might see more conversions of the big guys. I'm guessing that 4-Gecko lists will also bring that about a bit more. 2-O-Yoroi lists have already brought about some of the few serious TAG conversions that I've seen around (except removing the landmate arms, which hardly counts).

...Meh. I actually use two 8pt repeater bots and two TR/360 bots at the same time regularly; sometimes with a missile bot in for good measure. The armbots don't really take to magnetizing and I hate potentially losing fiddly bits on models I like to have a few of anyway.

Really, I wouldn't have saved much with magnetizing - but I save myself a lot of grief not doing it.

Oh and those fethers are enough of a *(*^^*& to assemble without gakking around with fiddly little magnets. three armbots at the same time was enough to make me howl in agony. (srsly, that dwarf gyrocopter a few years back? easier than those.)

 Savnock wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
No, I'm talking about a separate format entirely, using the Infinity core rules, but with additional special rules, etc. to emphasize TAG on TAG combat, where infantry are simply a supporting element (so in that regard, a group of infantry would function as a squad similar to a link team but perhaps a bit more restricted in what they can do) and the focus is on groups of say 3-5 TAGs duking it out.

The fan community has already taken a few stabs at this- I did so myself actually. One of the great things about Infinity is that much fan-created material is actually read by CB, like YAMS was. If we do a good job developing our own TAG format, it might be considered as a format for ITS in the future. At the very least it could be a fun thing that lots of Infinity players around the globe will try out (and improve).

My effort was called "Iron Fists" and is on the CB forums (might have been lost in the migration to the new forum software though). It was quite some time ago (pre-Paradiso), so it could definitely use a revisit. It was basically exactly what you're calling out: squads of 3-5 TAGs with some supporting infantry. I did limit non-TAG SWC to avoid having TAGs just face a gigantic swarm of cheap panzerfausts and their accompanying sizeable order pools.

I'll take another run at it soon, if you're interested. I like your idea of limiting the infantry's actions. Hmmm.

As a side-note, TAG combat is just one of the fan-created alternative formats out there. The "Infinity Hunger Games" format was big a little while ago for small-numbers combat. Here in Washington State we've turned that into an Aristeia! format, which we use with custom arenas. There's the many "zombie invasion" scenarios that get played at cons, as well as other fun variant missions. And on a more-tangential line there's also a road-game under development that will use Aragotos and Kum bikers, which I'm hoping to get playtested this winter.

So there are plenty of alternative formats out there: we just need to try them out extensively ourselves and see how they work, -then- send them CB's way and see if they would consider making them official. And if not, whatever: we can still enjoy them at our regular gaming nights. It's the exact opposite of GW's blind-deaf-dumb-corporate-juggernaut model. ¡Viva el Corvus Belli!

I'll have to have a look around for it, if you do decide to take a stab at updating it, I'd love to collaborate with you, I have tons of ideas and concepts, the problem is I rarely have the time or motivation to actually put them to paper and iron-out all the details.

 Micky wrote:
Yeah, linkable HI squads are seeing more action than TAGs in my experience.

This is what I enjoy about the 400pt idea. There's some stuff in the game you just can't use well because they're so expensive, like the higher end HI links. Personally I want to try a 4 model Asawira link. Complaining about the power of such a link is a bit much - you're not going against that list with 300pts after all. You can bring your own nastiness.