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.

I played probably less than ten games of N2, really enjoyed it. Used to only buy it and play it at conventions (barring sales on miniaturemarket), as the local player base was small to non-existent. Painted a lot of Haqq, read and enjoyed the fluff/rules, had token sets and templates.

The next time I went to a Con, the game was in the midst of the N3 changeover, no solid rulebook (or few people had it), app wasn't updated, everything is run off the wiki (I think, don't quote me on any of this). Icestorm selling like hotcakes, lots of excitement. I played maybe a game, forgetting weapon range modifiers and random stats consistently. Game still seemed fun, but a bit of a hassle to play with the rules spread out across multiple books.

Fast forward to this year, same Con, couldn't be bothered to even look at new models. I've owned N3 for maybe six months, haven't bothered to read any of it, it just keeps getting pushed to the bottom of the pile, just below the Skorne IKRPG supplement and Heroes of the Solar System.

I definitely think you are on to something Alph. People who were highly connected to the game weren't likely to drop off with an edition change. But folks like me, casual players who liked browsing the forums and buying models, if not playing consistently, kind of got lost in the shuffle. Doubly so if the didn't buy Icestorm because they didn't play either faction.

People like clean games, with readily available books/materials that aren't going away soon, I think X-Wing proved that. Infinity hasn't felt clean or streamlined for me in a long time.

 gunslingerpro wrote:


People like clean games, with readily available books/materials that aren't going away soon, I think X-Wing proved that. Infinity hasn't felt clean or streamlined for me in a long time.

While I'll agree they could of planed the change over better. The above is one of the funniest thing I've seen posted on a Forum with the name DakkaDakka.

That is probably infinities biggest problem and something they need to fix is orders stuffing.......

In V2 the list that had alot of orders over the other list usually won and its still the case in V3.

Elite models in general dont perform well in their own list, they basically have to be taken with 10+ cheerleaders and then hope your cool guys dont die to a lucky crit....and even if they do then you just drown the other guy in cheap guys/orders spam until you get lucky.......Also the template weapons auto hitting makes the cheapo throw away guys and orders spam even more powerful as you can for sure get a hit on the other guy by sacrificing a guy.

I love the idea of only playing a 10 man team in infinity, but the rules have never really supported it as a viable option against competitive lists IMO. You better off always bringing 15-20+ guys.....until they fix this part of the game mechanics I dont think it will ever make a top tier game as its something thats been broke since the game launched.

Love the miniatures and like the game still but I doubt I would play a competitive game for the above reason as you simply have to play lists a certain way to do well and elites in general are overprinted for what they give compared to cheapo throw models that still supply an order.

They need to add a bonus for smaller # armies or give a penalty to bringing alot of troops to balance out the system.

Maybe they could do the following,

Have every Lt give you a certain number of bonus regular orders. Say a basic Lt might give you 3 orders a turn, an elite expensive one might give you 5. These orders go in their own pool and can be spent by any model in any combat group. If you lose your Lt and promote a new one, the new one only gives whatever the basic number of bonus orders are(say 3 in the above example).

I heard an idea mentioned on Mayacast that I really liked :

The larger the order pool, the fewer Command Tokens you get.

It went something like this :

1 - 10 orders: 4 CTs.
11 - 15 orders: 3 CTs.
16 - 20 orders: 2 CTs.

Etc.

Fluff wise, it can represent high command having their hands full sorting everyone out. It doesn't seem to be gamebreaking, but it gives large order pool players a little something to think about.

It also helps with the strategic use of CT, in that a multi-order list may not use it, and save them for co-ordinated orders, heals and whatnot, whereas an order-starved force can afford to spend one to somewhat stop the tide.

Noir wrote:

 gunslingerpro wrote:


People like clean games, with readily available books/materials that aren't going away soon, I think X-Wing proved that. Infinity hasn't felt clean or streamlined for me in a long time.

While I'll agree they could of planed the change over better. The above is one of the funniest thing I've seen posted on a Forum with the name DakkaDakka.

The irony is not lost on me . I just never played 40k, so this is the first real time I've felt it.

 Chillreaper wrote:
I heard an idea mentioned on Mayacast that I really liked :

The larger the order pool, the fewer Command Tokens you get.

It went something like this :

1 - 10 orders: 4 CTs.
11 - 15 orders: 3 CTs.
16 - 20 orders: 2 CTs.

Etc.

Fluff wise, it can represent high command having their hands full sorting everyone out. It doesn't seem to be gamebreaking, but it gives large order pool players a little something to think about.

If you did that, you'd need to increase the number of command tokens that people have as a baseline.

So it would be something like

1-10 orders: 6 CTs
11-15 orders: 5 CTs
16-20 orders: 4 CTs.

2 CTs is too few.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Chillreaper wrote:
I heard an idea mentioned on Mayacast that I really liked :

The larger the order pool, the fewer Command Tokens you get.

It went something like this :

1 - 10 orders: 4 CTs.
11 - 15 orders: 3 CTs.
16 - 20 orders: 2 CTs.

Etc.

Fluff wise, it can represent high command having their hands full sorting everyone out. It doesn't seem to be gamebreaking, but it gives large order pool players a little something to think about.

If you did that, you'd need to increase the number of command tokens that people have as a baseline.

So it would be something like

1-10 orders: 6 CTs
11-15 orders: 5 CTs
16-20 orders: 4 CTs.

2 CTs is too few.

That would be the point wouldn't it, to make it a choice between lots of Order or more CT.

Except I don't think 2 CTs would be an appropriate reduction. That's too few. Give smaller groups more CTs, don't give big ones less.

His point was to give the bigger order pools less option (less link creation, less coordinate order) not to give the smaller order pools more options.

I don't really see a reason for it, except large order pools do make the game longer. But, even then it still is normally under 2 hours.

They don't even need to touch the rule book, nor should they. With the ever changing ITS they could try it for a season if people complain enough and they think its a issue for the tournament scene. Likely for time reasons. But, I change the numbers to some thing more like...


12 units and lower 4CT
13-18 units 3CT
19-24 units 2CT
25+ units 1CT

Or a little large range.

Noir wrote:
I don't really see a reason for it, except large order pools do make the game longer. But, even then it still is normally under 2 hours.

They don't even need to touch the rule book, nor should they. With the ever changing ITS they could try it for a season if people complain enough and they think its a issue for the tournament scene. Likely for time reasons. But, I change the numbers to some thing more like...

I'm assuming ITS is the reason for the suggestion, as ITS has moved from the old single combat group with 10 good models to multiple combat troops with specialist spam. I personally don't play that way, but if you ask around it's definitely becoming a problem.

While it can be pointed out that they are spamming cheap units, not good units, with the lethality of this game a good model dies just the same as a cheapmodel to a rifle. You've got less chance to hit, but you've got more guns pointed their way to compensate for that, in addition to far more specialists.

Ah the order pool spam. I hate it so much, yes I do. Reminds me a lot of X-Wing. Large blobs of TIEs.

Anyhow, still love both games. I try and fix the order spam by hopefully taking out the Rambos and getting the blobs of cheerleaders to do something that lets me handle them.

I mostly play Vedic ALEPH and have occasionally brought 8 orders in a 300pt game/tourney. Yeah, I'm a masochist but I love the challenge.

I have to be honest that I've done spam lists, though they're centered around a large group of Kum riders. I wind up with about 10 regular orders, but loads of Irregular and Impetuous orders.

I wouldn't call it particularly competitive, but it's certainly fun.

And I play USA. Sure, I have 20 guys. But I don't really have anybody I can reliably Rambo with, unless someone is stupid and leaves everyone's back turned to Van Zant(who still falls over if he gets hit).

 Grey Templar wrote:
And I play USA. Sure, I have 20 guys. But I don't really have anybody I can reliably Rambo with, unless someone is stupid and leaves everyone's back turned to Van Zant(who still falls over if he gets hit).

USARF isn't complete at the moment. We've got some units that have been namedropped but didn't even have dossiers as of November.

I doubt a 2 wound heavy infantry is in the lineup though. That's what the Minuteman should/could have been, but it appears its not in the cards.

Unless they gave USA a tag, that would be cool.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I doubt a 2 wound heavy infantry is in the lineup though. That's what the Minuteman should/could have been, but it appears its not in the cards.

Unless they gave USA a tag, that would be cool.

Doubt we'll get a TAG, but remember that Blackjacks are the HEAVY Ranger Regiment.

Hmmm, you are correct.

Something with 2 wounds would be nice. Really Van Zant should have two wounds for his point cost and given how squishy he is.

 Grey Templar wrote:
And I play USA. Sure, I have 20 guys. But I don't really have anybody I can reliably Rambo with, unless someone is stupid and leaves everyone's back turned to Van Zant(who still falls over if he gets hit).

If this is the case, I'd prefer it to be the norm. There's little fun on the reactive side of Aleph Steel Phalanx or Nomad's tricks.

Yeah, Steel Phalanx isn't fun.

A lot of the problem you're seeing with order spam has to do with ITS. Use another system like YAMS where specialists aren't necessary. I find that in games of YAMS, I run much tighter lists - ~10-15 models as opposed to 18-20, mainly because the objectives can be accomplished by any model, not just specialists. More coverage = less orders to move to particular areas.

The downside to YAMS is exactly that Specialists aren't necessary. They are moved back to their base function - Engineers repair stuff, Forward Observers mark stuff, etc.

I prefer a system where regular units can do objectives at a penalty, which still gives Specialists a more distinct place, yet means you can still accomplish objectives, less reliably, if your specialists all get KO'd.

 -Loki- wrote:

I prefer a system where regular units can do objectives at a penalty, which still gives Specialists a more distinct place, yet means you can still accomplish objectives, less reliably, if your specialists all get KO'd.

That's 20x20 isn't it? Specialists get bonuses in certain scenarios (hackers in hacking scenarios, engineers in demolition scenarios) but everyone else can still do it at a -3 or something. Or the favoured specialists get a +3 or something.

 -Loki- wrote:
The downside to YAMS is exactly that Specialists aren't necessary. They are moved back to their base function - Engineers repair stuff, Forward Observers mark stuff, etc.

I prefer a system where regular units can do objectives at a penalty, which still gives Specialists a more distinct place, yet means you can still accomplish objectives, less reliably, if your specialists all get KO'd.

Agreed, I think that's the best balance. I'd like to see a YAMS-style system where there are specific missions that are easier to do with a specialist, or require certain types. For example, "Designate enemy building for demolition" could be done at range by a FO, within ZOC of a hacker (spotlight), or in B2B as an engineer (no penalty) or regular unit (-3). Something like that.

The funny thing is, with some armies (Haqq, but not Ariadna) I end up taking just as many specialists in YAMS as I would in ITS.

You guys have looked at YAMS2, right? :(

Shoot us a link, double-quick please!

I vaguely looked at YAMS2 a while ago, IIRC, and that's doubtful, since it was a very vague look, my main issue with it was the same as with YAMS: the missions were too random, and you would often end up with two simultaneous single player games.

Also, they were no missions based on ground control.

http://infinitytheforums.com/forum/topic/36550-yet-another-mission-system-yams-2nd-edition-alpha-testing

Relevant to this thread:
One of the pre-game cards lets you give all Specialists a +3 bonus on objective rolls,
Most of the points are now from joint public missions, several of which are mutually exclusive,
Two of the 17 missions involve dominating areas and a further six involve area denial, controlling an item or piece of scenery or having troops in a specific area at the end of the game.

YAMS is really close to the Malifaux mission system that I love so much. If only there was a randomly chosen and generic mission objective both players were going for alongside the YAMS specific objecitves, that'd be awesome. Being able to make your army list in Malifaux after general mission objectives and personal objectives have been chosen also increases the tactical appeal. Might even make Multiterrain of some use.

What kind of information blackout do the folks in the Human Sphere live in where they get to the mission destination only to then find out what they're supposed to do? At least ITS missions often come down to protecting your specialist.

Haven't played with them specifically, but the Strategy cards seem to be randomness for the sake of randomness. Rerolling initiative and +3mod to specialists seems pretty good. Advance Scouting has the potential to be less than useful.