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.

 Killionaire wrote:
...or the Vortex's tiny gun...

Oh, thank goodness, it's not just me. That guy is a pain to put together, exacerbated by the combi which is sized more like an assault pistol.

A different paint scheme of the Hazmat, on the AG Facebook page. Prefer the orange but she still looks like a beaut (now waiting for a comment on 'ass-size creep', and zoomed in comparison shots of the miniature and the bottoms of 1st generation Infinity minis )

I've seen all the process and now I feel ashamed and humble.

If that is miniature painting, now I realise I've been wasting my time.

Art is for the artists... now I will go bck to my grey desk and focus on paperwork and accounts....

Okay Pacific, you asked for it.

You have seen the comis strip about the BS fiday? It is the first gen mini in the photo. The VIP is the most recent. Judge for yourself.

And for real news: Looks like we are getting a preview of the CA starter soon enough...


Angel is apparently painting a Grot tank too. Will we be getting vehicles in N3? Oh noes.

No, we won't. I was kidding. The CA preview is it for the month too. Next month, however, EEEENTHREEEE! Rejoice, for it is less than 1 month away. At least in Europe. :(

Nah, Angel has been reading weathering techniques from Mig Jimenez and is about to work on his rust and weathering with the Grot Tank.

Remind me what we are getting in this kit again?

3 Unicron Batroids, Umbra Legates tracker, Sygmaa Fraacta and I think a second Sygmaa unit.

3x Uni(d)ron Batroid, Umbra Legates, Maakrep Tracker, Sygma drop troop.

The Umbra is not a tracker. It's the leader model.

 -Loki- wrote:
3 Unicron Batroids

HAX. BORKEN. OP.

Thanks for the reminder guys.

Unicron, the Transformer the size of a small planet. Now available as a Combined Army unit. 401 Points, SWC 10. You're all doomed.

Pretty sure I wrote Unidron.

Which means my phone autocorrected Unidron to Unicron, which is kind of funny.

Sorry that this isn't really news but I wanted to share this image I saw on facebook. No idea how accurate or inaccurate it is and certainly seems intentionally inflammatory.



Is there really that much of a difference between US and EU terrain boards? If so do you think 3rd edition will come with terrain guidelines in the rulebook?

Alph if you think this is too off topic just say and I will delete the post and move it to the Infinity sub forum I asked here because I was asking if anyone knows if their will be terrain and layout guides in the new rule books but I understand if this is considered off topic.

It's not my call but I'd say that your post is on topic for this thread. I bet the replies won't be for long though.

While it would be nice to see some terrain density clarifications and 'rules' in N3, I wonder if this would just be better left to the players or TO to decide. If I was writing N3 I'd be stripping out unnecessaries rather than bulking else anything out.

Carlos came out on The Krug podcast with some info about terrain. CB will be setting terrain and buildings with class designations (A1-4, B1-3 etc).

N3 will have guidelines for how many of each class of building they suggest to use for a good game (in their vision).

These classes will also give Armor and Structure values, so that buildings will be able to be breached in non-standard (door) areas. You will not be able to shoot into or out of breaches though, so they will only provide new access points.


As to the post above: Seems like someone over the pond got bent out of shape over recent scuttlebutt about the differences in terrain setup between the continental metas. Meh.

I've been looking at that image on facebook off an on all afternoon (Infinity Australia?) and my thought is: why not both?

I was always under the impression that the terrain was meant to be a big player in the Infinity game, and that the "Euro Style" mentioned would be pretty lame, with large shooting paths.

I would prefer the midway point between the two styles presented in that image.

That's kind of a dumb post, with 'high density' vs 'low density' boards. Most of the most commonly complained about issues (bad or useless weapons, rambo rampages, lack of any value in close combat, overwhelming power of AD/Infiltration troopers) are magnified far moreso on sparser populated maps.

Meanwhile, maps with confined spaces greatly increase the value of maneuver and reactiveness in scenarios by limiting mobility, and decrease the overwhelming value of heavy weapons vs rifles.

We use something in between. I don't understand the side remarks, in my experience denser tables are heaven for warbands, hyper mobile units (climbing plus and super jump) and infiltrators.

Less dense tables create multiple lines for AD/HMG to run in and dominate. Theoretically you can take a unit and have an ARO shot but it's more likely a player will concentrate on creating multiple ARO in a specific area and hope he's prepared enough for any fast HMG/Spitfire rush.

Yeah, I'm not seeing how the bottom table density requires less thinking as suggested. Different thinking, sure, but not less.

The mention about the Sniper ARO being useless on the bottom table is outright absurd. That example has some very open lanes(I count at least 3 that even go directly from edge to edge) and plenty of places to set up a Sniper ARO, just no single dominating position for one.

The terms are "Spanish style" and "International style", not EU and USA. The "Spanish Style" is what you see at tournaments in Spain because, according to at least one Spanish player, they don't have enough terrain at the tournaments. Apparently, many Spaniards use pretty much the same density as in the International style when they can. Something readily verified by going through the terrain threads on the Spanish Infinity forum if you want. http://infinitytheforums.com/foro/index.php?/forum/25-arcolog%C3%ADas/ Poke around.

Here is one you could check out, http://infinitytheforums.com/foro/index.php?/topic/9438-myw-escenografia-y-otros-peanas-55mm/

Here are a huge number of International tables. http://infinitytheforums.com/forum/index.php?/topic/16451-post-your-tables/

Judge for yourself.

Trolls will be trolls.

 carlos13th wrote:
Sorry that this isn't really news but I wanted to share this image I saw on facebook. No idea how accurate or inaccurate it is and certainly seems intentionally inflammatory.



Is there really that much of a difference between US and EU terrain boards? If so do you think 3rd edition will come with terrain guidelines in the rulebook?

Alph if you think this is too off topic just say and I will delete the post and move it to the Infinity sub forum I asked here because I was asking if anyone knows if their will be terrain and layout guides in the new rule books but I understand if this is considered off topic.

Being from the US, I can say my meta is in no way that representative of it. Most of our boards for our games are midway . Had a good chuckle though.

 Killionaire wrote:
That's kind of a dumb post, with 'high density' vs 'low density' boards. Most of the most commonly complained about issues (bad or useless weapons, rambo rampages, lack of any value in close combat, overwhelming power of AD/Infiltration troopers) are magnified far moreso on sparser populated maps.

Meanwhile, maps with confined spaces greatly increase the value of maneuver and reactiveness in scenarios by limiting mobility, and decrease the overwhelming value of heavy weapons vs rifles.

Meanwhile denser boards still have bad weapon ranges, rambo rampages, but CC becomes a lot more powerful and AD units become almost useless.

On denser boards, long range weapons have their usefulness drastically reduced. Why take a sniper rifle if it's never going to get line of sight in its optimal band? And while HMG units might not be massive rambo threats, then you have things like Fidays and Speculo killers, template warbands, etc that can wipe out a combat group in a turn due to being able to play off better total cover angles. The units ramboing just swap from long ranged to close ranged.

CC units on a dense board suddenly have a much better chance to get into CC. Achilles on a more open board needs to still work for his CC kills. On a dense board he just waeves his way through and murders everything. AD units are starved for decent landing areas and end up walking on.

Infinity needs a balance. It needs fire lanes that run the length of the table, but also ways around them. It needs sniper perches, but also objectives with approaches they can't see. It needs cover, both total and partial, but not so much that certain weapons become useless. It needs multiple landing zones for AD units, but ways to watch them.

Guys come on, please don't take that terrain density image post seriously, it was obviously meant as a joke/piss take.

Although if it means anything my board is probably much closer to the second one (they always say the UK is closer to the US culturally than the rest of Europe, that could be why )

Its obvious troll but I rly hope for CB steping in and giving some suggestions or guide lines on how dense terrain should be.


This is shot taken on Poland Team Championship and we usualy play on more dense board.
Tbh you cannot go "desert" or "super-urban-jungle" all the time, or you break the balance and make some units OP or near useless.

There are guidelines for that:
http://infinitytheforums.com/forum/index.php?/topic/12744-infinity-terrain-density-quick-tips/

That type of 'joke' isn't something a company should EVER 'officially' get behind.

I find it more insulting than funny, and seeing as the USA is one of the biggest potential growth areas...the whole thing is rather shortsighted.

 Alpharius wrote:
That type of 'joke' isn't something a company should EVER 'officially' get behind.

Which is presumably why it's something that came from The Krug rather than CB...

Were was that from again? Edit Thanks IJW

Actually terrain density and how it should affect LOF was heavily discussed, as was how models should interact with terrain to get cover (also it did seem that US players used heavier terrain, but also harsher rules about claiming cover in their tournaments than the rest of players from other countries) but never saw it been critiqued, more as a fascinating exchange of experience and ideas about gameplay.

Honestly, CB is throwing everything but the kitchen sink to please the US, however they've always been more soft or rather reserved with their guidelines. They have their own view and most of their feedback appears to come from Spanish gameplay. We'll see what they plan to do with N3 and new ITS that supposedly also contains classified buildings.