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.

Actually that's a good point CC - wonder if this one will have a 'true' English language version, re-written by someone with English as their first language?

Not saying 2nd edition/Paradiso aren't good, but there are bits when you can tell it was written by someone who doesn't have English as a first language, where it doesn't flow as well as it might. Although, there are words used in places that I'm sure 90% of the English-speaking world don't know

 Baiyuan wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Chemical Cutthroat wrote:
@I-bounty-hunt-the-elderly Can I just say that your name is probably the third best I've seen? That is just excellent.

Now I'm curious for No.1 and 2.

I will guess:
- Chemical Cutthroat
- UNCLEBADTOUCH

?

 Pacific wrote:
Actually that's a good point CC - wonder if this one will have a 'true' English language version, re-written by someone with English as their first language?

Not saying 2nd edition/Paradiso aren't good, but there are bits when you can tell it was written by someone who doesn't have English as a first language, where it doesn't flow as well as it might. Although, there are words used in places that I'm sure 90% of the English-speaking world don't know

 Baiyuan wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Chemical Cutthroat wrote:
@I-bounty-hunt-the-elderly Can I just say that your name is probably the third best I've seen? That is just excellent.

Now I'm curious for No.1 and 2.

I will guess:
- Chemical Cutthroat
- UNCLEBADTOUCH

?

Oh comeon. I'm not that vain.

I don't know if the other two are appropro to Dakka. So I shall make ya'll suffer in silence.

Also @Kan - I'm not saying you have the internet on you at all times, but I'm saying we can look up the rules, print them out, or copy them if we want to. I tend to print out troop and weapon profiles, along with complicated rules, just to have them on me in addition to the rulebooks I lug around all the time. In truth, I don't really need to lug around the books, but I like to have them around because I always have people asking questions about the game, or asking to look through the books. So its a good way to get others involved in the game.

Then you tell em' the rules are free online and they look at you like you're a crazyperson.

And hey, a lot of us have terrible places we work for where we can abuse the **** out of a laserprinter to punch out some PDFs. Sooooo just saying!

((And if anyone wants to abuse my laserprinter let me know. They don't pay me enough.))

Using the rulebooks themselves during gaming is a bit awkward - I like the "Re-Edit" rules PDF for that, and I hope that the crew that did them is on board for 3rd edition - or, even better, not even necessary because the Official Version is fine and doesn't need them!

 Alpharius wrote:
What would you have liked to have seen instead?

An actual new edition, not a replacement for the core book. What's the difference? I own the 1st edition book and more minis than many of the people I see playing at my local store, but I've never played a game. I finally have a group willing to try it and a new edition would be great as it would be a new start, but wait... it's not because there are two other books needed for "complete" rules.

So this is a revised book meant to replace the core to the extent that it doesn't invalidate auxillery books. Pile all the rules and make the rules clearer and I'd accept a new edition.

A new players buy in for 3rd edition is near identical to 2nd because the new core book doesn't want to step on the toes of two other books. Great for those already drinking the Koolaid, but really a one step forward, one step back for getting new players.

I don't cRe what the Nottingham robbers do, I'm using the word edition to mean something significantly different than the thing before it. See D&D 3.5 versus 4e.

Iain.

 Chemical Cutthroat wrote:
I think the thing is that Fireteams and those later rules aren't 'core' rules. They are considered advanced rules not necessary for gameplay.

Yet at the same time, you can lament the lack of everything being in one place, but it is in one place, the internet, for free. So that is cool.

I turn my cell phone off at the games store as apparently the roof is made of vampiric adamantium and is impervious to cell signals and my cell phone drains its battery within an hour or two trying. Also, if I wanted the rules off the internet, I'd just skip the book and get them off the internet. I do that with other games that have PDFs but I like having a hard book to look through as well. Are fire teams and link teams the same thing or different btw?

Regarding cellphone/internet stuffs...

Also @Kan - I'm not saying you have the internet on you at all times, but I'm saying we can look up the rules, print them out, or copy them if we want to. I tend to print out troop and weapon profiles, along with complicated rules, just to have them on me in addition to the rulebooks I lug around all the time. In truth, I don't really need to lug around the books, but I like to have them around because I always have people asking questions about the game, or asking to look through the books. So its a good way to get others involved in the game.

I'm right there with you on preferring having the books on me. I just don't see it a big deal to carry around three books for gaming. I guess my years of hauling RPG books to friend's houses has made me numb to it.

And Fireteams and Link Teams are the same thing. I don't know why they have two different names for the same thing. It gets confusing for sure.

 Chemical Cutthroat wrote:
And Fireteams and Link Teams are the same thing. I don't know why they have two different names for the same thing. It gets confusing for sure.

From what I understand, "Fireteam" is the term used to overarching describe the process as a whole.

"Linked Team" is a specific (and most common) type of "Fireteam" that you form in a sectorial list. Other rules such as Haris, Enomotaechos, etc are all other types of Fireteams that act similar to, but aren't synonymous with Linked Teams.

At least, that's the way I understood it.

I'm hoping 3rdEd will just have more concrete wording on all this.

Chairman Aeon wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
What would you have liked to have seen instead?

An actual new edition, not a replacement for the core book. What's the difference? I own the 1st edition book and more minis than many of the people I see playing at my local store, but I've never played a game. I finally have a group willing to try it and a new edition would be great as it would be a new start, but wait... it's not because there are two other books needed for "complete" rules.

So this is a revised book meant to replace the core to the extent that it doesn't invalidate auxillery books. Pile all the rules and make the rules clearer and I'd accept a new edition.

A new players buy in for 3rd edition is near identical to 2nd because the new core book doesn't want to step on the toes of two other books. Great for those already drinking the Koolaid, but really a one step forward, one step back for getting new players.

I don't cRe what the Nottingham robbers do, I'm using the word edition to mean something significantly different than the thing before it. See D&D 3.5 versus 4e.

Iain.

The rules will be as always free, so a new player can if they want print them all, or buy the new rulebook and print the additions from the pdf, I feel its unfair to assume as a fact what 3rd edition is and isn't, before it is out.

 Chemical Cutthroat wrote:

And Fireteams and Link Teams are the same thing. I don't know why they have two different names for the same thing. It gets confusing for sure.

My current limited knowledge of Infinity is from equal parts reading this thread, a few conversations with players, and watching the BOW intro videos. IIRC link teams don't "cost" anything extra, right? You just gain them when using certain units as a backdoor way of adding functionality to grunts to counter the utility of rambos, correct? If so, I'd ask those opposed to including those rules in the core book when was the last time they used those units that had the rule without using the rule? If the answer is never or really long ago then and you don't need "permission" to use the rule like certain 40k ones then it is in fact a core rule that just happened to be made up after the core book was. What possible opposition could there be to including a rule that seemingly almost everyone uses when they can (again... correct me if I'm missing something like an extra points cost or SWC or something to use it)? My guess is that MORE units will likely end up getting the rule if they're in fact reevaluating the units and stats for the new edition (which is something that they should do and I agree with every 5+ years).

 Absolutionis wrote:

 Chemical Cutthroat wrote:
And Fireteams and Link Teams are the same thing. I don't know why they have two different names for the same thing. It gets confusing for sure.

From what I understand, "Fireteam" is the term used to overarching describe the process as a whole.

"Linked Team" is a specific (and most common) type of "Fireteam" that you form in a sectorial list. Other rules such as Haris, Enomotaechos, etc are all other types of Fireteams that act similar to, but aren't synonymous with Linked Teams.

At least, that's the way I understood it.

I'm hoping 3rdEd will just have more concrete wording on all this.

Yeah... that is a much better answer.

I'm just used to them being interchangable. But that makes a helluva lot more sense.

 warboss wrote:

 Chemical Cutthroat wrote:

And Fireteams and Link Teams are the same thing. I don't know why they have two different names for the same thing. It gets confusing for sure.

My current limited knowledge of Infinity is from equal parts reading this thread, a few conversations with players, and watching the BOW intro videos. IIRC link teams don't "cost" anything extra, right? You just gain them when using certain units as a backdoor way of adding functionality to grunts to counter the utility of rambos, correct? If so, I'd ask those opposed to including those rules in the core book when was the last time they used those units that had the rule without using the rule? If the answer is never or really long ago then and you don't need "permission" to use the rule like certain 40k ones then it is in fact a core rule that just happened to be made up after the core book was. What possible opposition could there be to including a rule that seemingly almost everyone uses when they can (again... correct me if I'm missing something like an extra points cost or SWC or something to use it)? My guess is that MORE units will likely end up getting the rule if they're in fact reevaluating the units and stats for the new edition (which is something that they should do and I agree with every 5+ years).

The sacrifice to gain access to Link Teams is going sectorial, which severely depletes the options the main list offers, Tohaa and Haris leaders are an exception to this since they are allowed on the main list, but they pay for this and they are limited to the lowest level of link team, just 3 models.

 warboss wrote:

 Chemical Cutthroat wrote:

And Fireteams and Link Teams are the same thing. I don't know why they have two different names for the same thing. It gets confusing for sure.

My current limited knowledge of Infinity is from equal parts reading this thread, a few conversations with players, and watching the BOW intro videos. IIRC link teams don't "cost" anything extra, right? You just gain them when using certain units as a backdoor way of adding functionality to grunts to counter the utility of rambos, correct? If so, I'd ask those opposed to including those rules in the core book when was the last time they used those units that had the rule without using the rule? If the answer is never or really long ago then and you don't need "permission" to use the rule like certain 40k ones then it is in fact a core rule that just happened to be made up after the core book was. What possible opposition could there be to including a rule that seemingly almost everyone uses when they can (again... correct me if I'm missing something like an extra points cost or SWC or something to use it)? My guess is that MORE units will likely end up getting the rule if they're in fact reevaluating the units and stats for the new edition (which is something that they should do and I agree with every 5+ years).

Link Teams are only available to Sectorials, Tohaa, and a couple units with special rules that allow small Link Teams.

Link Teams are used to make a large, mobile, dangerous squad. You don't have to pay any extra for it.

It has good points, and bad points.

But I still think it makes sense not to include those in the core rules if they're trying to keep the levels of play distinct. When I started, Link Teams didn't exist. Now they do. I can easily get online and learn about them, buy the Human Sphere book, or print out the rules and use them.

It isn't about money at all, which is great, it is just about convenience. Yeah, it is a minor inconvenience, but I can't imagine people skipping over the game because all of their free rules weren't in the same place.

 Chemical Cutthroat wrote:
It isn't about money at all, which is great, it is just about convenience. Yeah, it is a minor inconvenience, but I can't imagine people skipping over the game because all of their free rules weren't in the same place.

That's what the Infinity Wiki is for.

I've taught people the game almost entirely by the wiki alone.

I'm glad that there is no mention of civilian-area fighting/3rd player gamesmastering in the new rules (although, that last one wasn't very likely).

Entirely selfishly, means I can post my own special rules for those things (was holding out and waiting for news of what this release will be).

 Chemical Cutthroat wrote:

 Pacific wrote:


I will guess:
- Chemical Cutthroat
- UNCLEBADTOUCH
?

Oh comeon. I'm not that vain.
I don't know if the other two are appropro to Dakka. So I shall make ya'll suffer in silence.

I should have put a winking emoticon after that first one, ofc I was joking

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
The rules will be as always free, so a new player can if they want print them all, or buy the new rulebook and print the additions from the pdf,...

The problem isn't cost, it's footing. That and I still need two other books to have a complete set of rules.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
... I feel its unfair to assume as a fact what 3rd edition is and isn't, before it is out.

And I am judge the words of the company's spokesman. He literally said replace. It was a very graphic demonstration as to what the new core book is supposed to do.

Now if they take rules from the other two books and use them in the new core, then I will agree it's a new edition. Of course that along with inevitable stat line rejigging will relegate the two other books next to the 1st core and art book... something they say isn't going to happen.

The company line that they are going to rewrite the book for clarity, rejig some stuff, add some models but not step on the toes of Human Sphere and Paridiso sounds crazy.

But as you say, the proof will be in the pudding.

Iain.

@ Warboss: Same thing, but the Haris fireteam, the Enomotarchos (sp?) and the Tohaa triads are slightly different. Use airplane mode on your phone The Aleph Toolbox app (android) has the wiki built in, but currently it seems to have screen re-size problems on my Nexus 7. I print the army list though.

I too am fine with the separation of the books, but I used to play AD&D 1st ed. There were 6 or so books you could use on a regular basis there. So YMMV considerably from mine. Keeping the books separated means more room for background and artwork too.

However, I would like to see a unified ruleset PDF, regular and printer friendly, for download, rather than the scattered, and confusing to newbies, stuff now available. Same for the Army lists.


Edit to add: the Basic rule book will contain all the basic rules for the game, including all the 'new' basic rules, or so I heard. Human Sphere and Paradiso are, shall we say, advanced rules, or supplements, and not needed to play Infinity. But they do expand it nicely. There may also be a desire to keep prices in line*. Rolling all three books into one would make a beast of a book, and a pricy one too.

*Remember that CB held prices steady for like 4-5 years (2007/8-2012) despite rising metal and energy costs, before increasing prices for the minis in Sept 2012 (right about when I bought my first minis), and increasing prices on a few specific minis again last summer.

Chairman Aeon wrote:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
The rules will be as always free, so a new player can if they want print them all, or buy the new rulebook and print the additions from the pdf,...

The problem isn't cost, it's footing. That and I still need two other books to have a complete set of rules.

The rules are free online, downloadable as PDFs.

I believe this is going to be the case going forward as well.

@Chairman Aeon - You don't need the other two books for a complete set of rules. Those rules are also available online.

The only thing that is book exclusive are the scenarios for Paradisio, and the Spec Ops stuff.

 warboss wrote:

 Chemical Cutthroat wrote:

And Fireteams and Link Teams are the same thing. I don't know why they have two different names for the same thing. It gets confusing for sure.

My current limited knowledge of Infinity is from equal parts reading this thread, a few conversations with players, and watching the BOW intro videos. IIRC link teams don't "cost" anything extra, right? You just gain them when using certain units as a backdoor way of adding functionality to grunts to counter the utility of rambos, correct? If so, I'd ask those opposed to including those rules in the core book when was the last time they used those units that had the rule without using the rule? If the answer is never or really long ago then and you don't need "permission" to use the rule like certain 40k ones then it is in fact a core rule that just happened to be made up after the core book was. What possible opposition could there be to including a rule that seemingly almost everyone uses when they can (again... correct me if I'm missing something like an extra points cost or SWC or something to use it)? My guess is that MORE units will likely end up getting the rule if they're in fact reevaluating the units and stats for the new edition (which is something that they should do and I agree with every 5+ years).

You don't need to pay points or SWC to use fireteams. Fireteams are probably the main characteristic of sectorial armies. If you download the army lists PDF files, or if you use the Infinity Army, you'll see that you can choose between using sectorial lists or generic lists. Sectorial armies are themed, the units they can use are more restricted than the main list, but in return the Availability of each unit is larger, and some of them can make fireteams. After Fireteams rules were released, in Campaign Paradiso a few different fireteams were introduced. Haris rule that some minis might have (this one needs points to be invested), Tohaa linked team (a racial rule that generic Tohaa armies can use) and Enomotarchos (sp?), a particular kind of fireteam of 4 minis that Steel Phalanx sectorial army (of ALEPH) can use.

Sectorial armies were introduced, along with fireteam rules, in Human Sphere. Since Bostria says that both Human Sphere and Campaign Paradiso books are going to be still valid, and knowing that the main rulebook only covers generic army lists, fireteams rules aren't strictly a necessity. Then, having all the rules together in one book is the most useful scenario, but in a context where you are going to be using only vanilla lists, then you don't really need some other rules (such as fireteams).

So today, with my Ariadnean minis I could make an army composed only of Kazak miniatures, using the vanilla list. But then, when the Kazak sectorial army is released (we are expecting it in the next book, known as Acheron Falls), I will probably be able to field the same army, the same miniatures with the same costs, but also use fireteams with some of that minis.

In summary:

1) I'm sad it's not a new edition and we are all starting at the same place,

2) It's not a new edition because you can use 2e books unadulterated,

3) I hope the official PDFs improve substantially or proper ebook versions are made available.

Point three would be interesting if the videos were interfered into the rule book.

Iain.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also doesn't this mean that HS and Paridiso could be redone if viewed more as metaplot books rather than straight rules expansion?

Iain.

We've already been told that Human Sphere and Paradiso are not changing - they're compatible with 3rd Edition...

Thanks for the clarification on the fire teams being only for sectorials for the most part. That does make their inclusion in the core rules less likely but I'd still think that such an important mechanic should be in the core rules and (from the sound of it) expanded.

 Alpharius wrote:
We've already been told that Human Sphere and Paradiso are not changing - they're compatible with 3rd Edition...

I didn't say they were, just speculated they could be in the future to clean stuff up. CB seems to view the other books as much as narrative as rules expansions. When Warmachine got a new edition they updated the time line and their previous metaplot books became redundant. The models stats were rolled into faction books and new metaplot books started from the new point. CB doesn't seem to be taking this route.

Iain.

Chairman Aeon wrote:
In summary:

1) I'm sad it's not a new edition and we are all starting at the same place,

2) It's not a new edition because you can use 2e books unadulterated,

3) I hope the official PDFs improve substantially or proper ebook versions are made available.

Point three would be interesting if the videos were interfered into the rule book.

Iain.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also doesn't this mean that HS and Paridiso could be redone if viewed more as metaplot books rather than straight rules expansion?

Iain.

in short
1) how do you know that? inside information?

2) What sort of conclusion IS that?

3) what does "proper ebook" mean?

Chairman Aeon wrote:
In summary:

1) I'm sad it's not a new edition and we are all starting at the same place,

A new edition doesn't have to revolutionise the game. A new edition can simply fix rules niggles, improve wording, and streamline some cumbersone rules. Which it seems 3rd edition will do.

This is a good way to do a new edition when there's so little wrong with the previous, like second edition Infinity.

Chairman Aeon wrote:
2) It's not a new edition because you can use 2e books unadulterated,

Does this mean 5th edition 40k was not a real new edition as 4th edition Apocalypse worked fine with it?

This is dumb reasoning.

Chairman Aeon wrote:
3) I hope the official PDFs improve substantially or proper ebook versions are made available.

I wouldn't mind well designed ebooks, or even interactive ebooks like GW did with their iBooks. But I'd certainly expect to pay for them. I wouldn't want them to replace the free PDFs at all.

As for improving the PDFs 'substantially', well, they're exactly the same as the rules sections in the rulebook. Because they're just those pages as PDFs. If the rulebook is 'substantially better' (which this edition sounds like it might be about), then your PDFs will be as well.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:


3) what does "proper ebook" mean?

Not sure what he meant, but to me a proper eBook is a 1-to-1 copy of the dead tree in an electronic format. All the art, all the background, etc.

But more than that, it also needs to be properly optimized for use on devices like tablets (the current PDFs are atrocious for this). It needs bookmarks and preferably even in-text links so that if a rule is referenced, it can be clicked on to go right to it.

This would be a version that I outright pay for. I would love for CB to do something like that.

Keep a free bare-bones one around (but at least give it full bookmarks), but I'd love an eBook version of the dead tree copy. I read for enjoyment on my tablet more these days, so having a copy of the core book with background and art would be great.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:


in short
1) how do you know that? inside information?

2) What sort of conclusion IS that?

3) what does "proper ebook" mean?

1) Yes, I have inside information. I'm the only one who truly knows how I feel.

2) If I can replace one cog with another and not replace any other touching cogs, it's not a different cog. It may look a bit different but it's functionally the same cog. In gaming previous edition material is usually not 100% compatible. But you know...

3) Rich media, not PDF. PDFs are great for print and large screens, not so much phones and small tablets. Instructional videos embedded in rules could be really useful especially for beginners.

Iain.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 -Loki- wrote:
Does this mean 5th edition 40k was not a real new edition as 4th edition Apocalypse worked fine with it?

This is dumb reasoning.

As far as I'm concerned if you can use the old codexes then no it isn't. See D&D 3 versus 3.5 and 4th.

Iain.

Well Iain, it looks as if you're bound to be disappointed then.

Updated *core* rules, updated *core* fluff, lots of new artwork, and some new units for all the vanilla armies too - Tohaa and Aleph included (albeit only on the website). And all non-fluff will be available free on the website and official wiki.

Not sure what there is to complain about?

Chairman Aeon wrote:
As far as I'm concerned if you can use the old codexes then no it isn't. See D&D 3 versus 3.5 and 4th.

Iain.

Then it seems your personal idea of a new edition clashes with what a lot of the industry uses. So I guess you'll just have to live with being permanently disappointed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Micky wrote:
Updated *core* rules, updated *core* fluff, lots of new artwork, and some new units for all the vanilla armies too - Tohaa and Aleph included (albeit only on the website). And all non-fluff will be available free on the website and official wiki.

Not sure what there is to complain about?

That it's still spread over multiple books.

Given the fact that they're clarifying and updating rules, it's just really odd that they'd forgo giving the rules in Human Sphere the same treatment. I can understand if Paradiso was written with 3rd in mind, as they've been working on 3rd for a while. But Human Sphere? The book specifically done to update 2nd edition with link teams and sectorial lists? The book that's only 1 year newer than 2nd edition?

Leaving Human Sphere out of the rules revision is just really strange. We'll have to wait and see obviously, but it just doesn't make sense that they'd give the core rules a revision, but leave the expansion out of it. Add to that they've been talking about playing with some weapon attributes - shotguns to make them more appealing and weapon range bands, as well as adjusting some points costs on units. There's weapons in the Human Sphere book too. And units. There's weapons and units in Paradiso as well.

It just feels like the potential for a huge mess if they're going to play with weapon attributes, unit points costs and rules revisions but leave out 2/3 of the current books from said revision. Not to mention if you're someone that likes using the books, you'll still need to have all 3 books on the table to cross reference units, weapons and rules.