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.

So I thought it would be nice to have a thread discussing, and dealing with, the facets of the game that most beginners will think is broken/overpowered. I thought about this thread as a melting-pot of opinions, that when combined, gives a good illustration of tactical reality in a way a rundown made by one guy can't, due to (unintentional) subjectivity. A list of subjects would include:

Snipers are OP
Going first is broken
AD (especially combat jump) is way too powerful
Are vanilla lists underpowered due to lack of linkteams?
TAGS are OP
The learning curve is too steep.
(to be continued, please post ideas)

When it's done, I might post it as an article after reformatting the thread.

OK how about TAGs are broken? Or maybe just one specifically for the Cutter? I'm sure a few people will have been stomped by a TAG the first time they played agasint one and weren't expecting it.
And maybe Nomad GML/ HD+/ Repeater spam lists are broken. I know that i was appalled the first time i played a GML list and found out i could be pretty much killed at will without any ARO!

I haven't played linkteams yet, and we don't think we'll ever go for them, just because I enjoy the skirmish part of the game so much.

My TAG has never done anything at all. So I guess it's just a matter of knowing how to handle them, Ironbovin was able to do so very intuitively.

I would posit that Ariadna is not broken, but very powerful. In a game where you are rewarded for being aggressive, I don't think that "having to move forward with an impetuous order" across the board is a disadvantage. 2nd Cameronians are stupidly powerful for 20 pts. The easy prevalence of camo markers can really put a damper on what you can do against that army.

I have only played a few games with my friends using proxy 28mm units, and have been getting absolutely wrecked, so if you wanted a straight beginners interpretation I could surely provide it.

Personally, the biggest "letting go" moment for me has had to have been to change they way I activate my minis. I'm used to squads all moving or shooting or doing stuff. Using one beatstick mini to move around the board and lay down the law has been liberating.

I've a few opinions.

bahzakhain wrote:

Going first is broken

Nope. Not when your opponent sets up well. Against a good opponent, it will cost you quite a few orders before you actually DO something if he deploys well. If they don't deploy well and rely on uncertian AROs, then yeah, It can appear that going first is powerful, but wait until you've spent half your orders to take out one of your opponents models and then realize you are horribly over-extended for their counterattack.

AD (especially combat jump) is way too powerful

Not if you see it coming. this is related to the "going first is broken" it's all in the deployment. If you deploy well, you can make AD very risky for your opponent. If he decides to go for it anyways, whelp, you get the chance to kill a model AND deprive him of an order.

Are vanilla lists underpowered due to lack of linkteams?

Nope. Vanilla lists can afford to pick the cream of the crop when it comes to units, and IMO make up for the lack of a link by taking a bit of everything that's the best across the faction. Why do you need to form a link team to make your units badasses when your WHOLE LIST can be badass?

Also sectorials are a more focused in nature, and struggle more than others against a certian kind of unit. My MRRF, for example, has problems dealing with Armor. The aquila guard with an HMG is good in it's own right, but is particularly effective against the MRRF. Not to mention TAGs. . .

All you have to do is glue it, and THEN run all the way across the open space to stick a demo charge on it!



Hope that broke the ice.

I'd like to note that while these things arn't OP on their own, when used in conjunction with other units and strategies, they can become more powerful. I.E. using a sniper to pick off the AROer that's covering the board edge. Once the ARO is down, THEN deploy the AD troops. It's not about one particular thing, it's about using them in conjunction with each other.

I don't think they're "beginner biases" as such - more like "gamers who got into gaming with GW and who have never experienced other games misconceptions".

I learned to play it with other guys who were also just getting into it - but we had a visiting 'coach' (veteran) showing us the game and explaining how it all worked very well.

Straight off the bat, he told us to take any preconceptions we had and bin them. Sure, it has aspects that remind me of other games - but that was the beauty of it. It was also soooo totally unlike GW's 'toys for tots' systems.

 chromedog wrote:
I don't think they're "beginner biases" as such - more like "gamers who got into gaming with GW and who have never experienced other games misconceptions".

I learned to play it with other guys who were also just getting into it - but we had a visiting 'coach' (veteran) showing us the game and explaining how it all worked very well.

Straight off the bat, he told us to take any preconceptions we had and bin them. Sure, it has aspects that remind me of other games - but that was the beauty of it. It was also soooo totally unlike GW's 'toys for tots' systems.

This is very true. The main misconception I brought with me from 40k was expecting good and bad units. While they technically exist - you wouldn't expect a Fusilier to go toe to toe with a Ninja, but it can be done with a little luck. But points costs are pretty good at evening out power scales.

It's something I was talking to my brother about. If I want to base my Tyranid army around Warriors and Carnifexes, I better not want to be competitive. If I want to make a Qapu Khalki list based around Sekban, considered sub par to Odalisques, I still absolutely can and be competitive.

The whole 'but will this be competitive' doubt that 40k creates when you make a list really isn't there in Infinity. If you know what you want your list to do, and build it appropriately, it's not going to be let down by 3/4 of the units you pick being outright terrible no matter what the list is.

bahzakhain wrote:

Snipers are OP
Going first is broken
AD (especially combat jump) is way too powerful
Are vanilla lists underpowered due to lack of linkteams?

Snipers- This is probably down to using too little terrain. I have recently tried running less terrain than previously just to give snipers a bit of a boost.

Going first- This can feel pretty strong in a deathmatch, playing scenarios really takes the edge off first turn rampages.

Ad- Is pretty binary, combat jump can steal a game but it can also go horribly wrong. Once you get to larger games where you might have invested in back field Tr remotes it seems to be less of an issue.

Vanilla- Having started out with corregidor I switched to vanilla nomads to open up my options, yes link teams are strong but they can also be quite unwieldy and vulnerable to templates.

Personally I think deployment is the key for starting out, in 40k you might make a poor list which sees you fighting an uphill battle but in infinity poor deployment can have you do nothing but roll armour saves in a game.

 bantha_beast wrote:

And maybe Nomad GML/ HD+/ Repeater spam lists are broken. I know that i was appalled the first time i played a GML list and found out i could be pretty much killed at will without any ARO!

I think maybe that's a bit too specific. I was talking about genral tricks that could steamroll over you when used well, not list build combo's that maybe one or two armies can pull off.

"going first is broken"

OK, in my first game I lost because I went first. I got within 16" of his lines, killed a few models, and then was partially out in the open with no orders left. His turn, two orders from his HMG guy saw my ghulam and halqa dead, and my hafza hiding in cover. Next, he races up the other flank with his Teutonic Knight and kills my LT very dead. At that point, I was three orders away from being surrounded, so I conceded defeat. Point is, when going second you don't have to spend orders gettig to your opponent, he has already covered that up for you.

Looks good guys, keep going!

For our first two games (the first one lasted all of 20 minutes, the second one about 15), I kept bunching my minis within 2 inches of each other "to provide support."

First game I was utterly incapable of discovering the Chasseur right in my midst, so I spent all of my order pool failing my discover rolls, and second game a good move up the board by a grey with two shotguns killed 7 of my minis first turn. I was unable to roll to hit the broadside of a barn.

It sounds a simple thing, but remembering facing of units. I had one game where an air-drop unit came down behind my guys. We'd never used one before, but I kind of had some idea that my opponent might have used something like that. Then, I looked at my units and.... they were all pressed up and facing the wall, like they'd done something naughty and been told to go stand there

The air drop unit raised his HMG and my team discovered the error of their ways the hard way. From that point forward, it was units covering each other as they move forward from different angles, thinking where you might get out-flanked. It's a really small but important mechanic, and I think really cool. After many years of mass-battle systems it made a nice change from just shovelling your units forward in a haphazard way and not having to think beyond that.

Since no one has reacted in a while, I consider that this thread is 'done', and am going to post this as an article in a few days.

Way too few Infinty articles by the way!!! And I do know that there are the tacitcas imported from the official forum, but they're no articles! When I first encountered Dakka, I first spent a few days looking at the articles before I singed up, so it might be good promotion for Infinity.

Frankly speaking I find certain thoughts to be false, even though the community on official forum would probably flip the table upon hearing my own. It's why I prefer to stay in the corner when things like this get brought up.

 Knight wrote:
Frankly speaking I find certain thoughts to be false, even though the community on official forum would probably flip the table upon hearing my own. It's why I prefer to stay in the corner when things like this get brought up.

I hear ya!

Just stay right here in the Comfy Confines!

Wait - dakka has articles?

I gotta admit, I've never read them.
I haven't read the tacticas on the official forums either. I prefer to use the "does the model look cool and can I use it?" method, rather than its statistical likelihood of ganking somone.

 chromedog wrote:
Wait - dakka has articles?

I gotta admit, I've never read them.
I haven't read the tacticas on the official forums either. I prefer to use the "does the model look cool and can I use it?" method, rather than its statistical likelihood of ganking somone.

I like statistics but they're not definite as in Warmachine. Infinity is still about synergy and certain models will have a room in a sectorial, but be very underwhelming in the general force.

Alpharius wrote:Just stay right here in the Comfy Confines!

Thank you sir. Wench, another pint!

I also don't like the statistics, if only because the dice gods seem to ignore them at the critical moment...

I do, however, like the tacitcas, as they really help me when all the different stats seem daunting to me, and it's nice to have (a few different) sources saying: this unit is good in this and this role. When I get more experience, I can always adjust my opinion.

@Knight: I'd like to see as many thoughts on it, so please tell why you think they're false! Especially because everyone is parrotting each other, and someone able to give arguments against some thoughts would be VERY welcome, otherwise everyone is just going to do what a few veterans say.

Snipers are OP

Snipers in this game are actually sadly quite weak, their range band are very limited and in most maps you will not be able to properly use their range band. This is combined with the fact that they have a low burst, meaning your shots are less likely to hit. Now the real "OP" weapon is the HMG, which has high burst, damage and an incredible range band. However even with the HMG incredible power it is still within counterable range. Remember HMG is an insane weapon but it is meant to be.

Going first is broken

This is completely true! If you setup terribly! Remember to have your units in cover and covering each others line of fire. Your goal is to setup in a way that would deny the opponent.

AD (especially combat jump) is way too powerful

Remember to have people looking at the potential landing zones your opponent might choose, remember as well that you get a free ARO if you have sight of him coming down. Often times AD is completely suicidal.

Are vanilla lists underpowered due to lack of linkteams?

Ironically Sectorials are also considered underpowered due to the lack of losing the option of taking every strong unit in the faction, a fair trade I would say

TAGS are OP

Tags are amazing, but you must remember that you have to pay a great deal for them. In addition strong weapons are common and they often do not get cover. Meaning the Damage 15 weapons such as Snipers, Mk12s and HMGs or Explosives and Armor Penetration ammunition such as Missiles and MULTI weaponry.

This is without even mentioning other fun things that take them out such as Adhesive Launchers, Hacking, and E/M

 chromedog wrote:
I don't think they're "beginner biases" as such - more like "gamers who got into gaming with GW and who have never experienced other games misconceptions".

I learned to play it with other guys who were also just getting into it - but we had a visiting 'coach' (veteran) showing us the game and explaining how it all worked very well.

Straight off the bat, he told us to take any preconceptions we had and bin them. Sure, it has aspects that remind me of other games - but that was the beauty of it. It was also soooo totally unlike GW's 'toys for tots' systems.

This.

I went back and played some of the new Kill Team the other day. I kept thinking about AROs and covering various areas of the board etc... and then I remembered that this was 40k, and my guy sticking slightly out of cover near open ground would just die and achieve nothing. I was unimpressed

（╯°□°）╯ ︵ ┻━┻

If you want the compact version

Would a beginner bias towards this game also be that the rules are (over)complicated and or hard to get a handle on? I wouldn't know, mostly curious.

This really seems like a game that plays kind of like a newish FPS that's been out a few months. Even if you do the single player (read the rulebook a time or two), when you first hit the multiplayer (unless you're just unreasonably seasoned and or good) you typically play horribly until you've got some experience and things have leveled out. Everyone knows all of the maps (tricks, facing AD deployment how to spot CH models efficiently, what traps not to fall into), and you'll be getting stomped repeatedly until you get to grips and find your footing. Suitably analogy?

I just wish there were people around here that played =/

I like to say that this game does not have a learning curve, but a learning WALL

Our first game together involved the 2 people playing and me next to them with a laptop re-reading the wiki for how to do stuff, and here is the kicker. The 2 were actively helping each others turn.

"Oh you know I think if this guy moves over here, my dude should not be able to see him and ya can probably kill this guy since I forgot to turn him towards this road"

and

"if he just stands out there in the center, when my turn comes I think I would be able to take him out pretty easy, you're not in cover from this side and its pretty easy to get to it"

Seriously: watch the introduction videos by CB themselves on youtube. After those, I found the game a breeze to learn. Much, much better than just reading the rules.

Pretty much Infinity is one of those rulesets that is a massive wall. Once you climb it, it all flows smoothly. It's all about getting a handle on the ARO and Face to Face systems. Once you get those, it's smooth sailing.

The orders mechanic instead of just every dude moving/shooting once is a biggie, too. At least to deal with it tactically. I've seen guys take months before they started properly accounting for one TAG soaking up 10 orders and leaving nothing alive instead of everyone move/shooting once.

Those introduction vids are really nice indeed. I watched them, took a look at the rules, thought: Oh, I know this, this was covered in the videos. Then move up to study on special rules.

Next two months: every time I try to write an army list I get to know the hard way that there are gaps in my rule knowledge.

Agreed, the videos are awesome. If tabletop mini game kickstarters put out such tight informative videos of their gameplay, said kickstarters would probably see a much greater return in pledges (if the rule in question are actually good).

But beginners may not have seen them, and lack of knowledge was the basis for my question as to whether the learning curve was a misconception that we should try to manage.

OK, added the part about the learning curve:
The ruleset is very different, and the layout and wording in the rule book is a bit strange, but the introduction videos are a great help and most rules are easy to learn once you get the basics down.
Also, there are reformatted versions of the rule book out there, and the quick start rules are helpful, too.

And I find that the book's layout is just horrible. The section headers and equipments and skill section is just one long wall of text.

After months of trying to reformat everything... I just said feth it and bought a tablet.

 Pacific wrote:
It sounds a simple thing, but remembering facing of units. I had one game where an air-drop unit came down behind my guys. We'd never used one before, but I kind of had some idea that my opponent might have used something like that. Then, I looked at my units and.... they were all pressed up and facing the wall, like they'd done something naughty and been told to go stand there

The air drop unit raised his HMG and my team discovered the error of their ways the hard way. From that point forward, it was units covering each other as they move forward from different angles, thinking where you might get out-flanked. It's a really small but important mechanic, and I think really cool. After many years of mass-battle systems it made a nice change from just shovelling your units forward in a haphazard way and not having to think beyond that.

This happened to me today. My brother used a new list based on Wu Ming. It was all going smoothly for me until he found a Muyib in a building with his HMG. He was just out of my LOS and the Muyib died. The Wu Ming rounded the building and shot my Barid Lt and Lasiq Sniper. Both in the back. I lost.