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.

Well JohnHwangDD you're in luck. Infinity Quickstarter rules are here, if you want to see them: http://assets.infinitythegame.net/downloads/qsr/en/v1.0/qsr.pdf

Everything else is on this page: http://infinitythegame.com/archive.php

Perhaps that is a possible answer too, divide up the ruleset into levels, Quickstarter, Basic/Casual, Expert... and not like in the N3 book where advanced is simply the addition of hacking and terrain rules.

Thanks, I downloaded the quickstart introduction, though and I was surprised that they boiled the rules down to 7 pages (pp 7-13). I was a bit surprised that there doesn't seem to be anything to distinguish one model from another - for that, I guess I need to jump into the ocean?

Rules-wise, my preference is for one set of relatively basic rules, and a handful of universal special rules. To me, there is no obvious reason why there would need to be 5 levels of Martial Arts on top of the CC stat, for example. Nor 4 pages of Camoflague. To me, that suggests the designer and editor don't know what their game is supposed to be, so they're just throwing stuff out there without any filtering or plan.

I'll keep an eye out for Red Veil, though. That might be the right level of detail and content.

 Red Harvest wrote:
Companies can overcome the rules bloat problem by diversifying their offerings rather than constantly bolting more onto an existing offering. I think CB is aware of this, hence the shameless market research segment of the GenCon presentation.

I certainly would not want to see CB scrap everything. I want to see them keep the game manageable for casual/occasional players like me. Tha means remaining true to Infinity as a skirmish game about shooting. Keep the core mechanics of the game. Those work very well. Keep a good representation of weapons, and ammunition, and simply place the rest, all the marginal stuff, into the "optional for home play" category along with Mercenaries. Really do something about hacking. Pare it down considerably. The skills, the fireteam rules, and the equipment, not sure what can be done with those.

The army builder does help, moreso, I think, than unit cards would, and certainly more than writing things down. Why would I do that? Everything is written down already, in the books, in the PDFs, on the wiki... convenient access to the rules, this is not the problem. Routinely pausing the game to look things up, or double check things, and thus breaking the flow of the game, the immersion if you will, this is the problem. The mass of rules, and more importantly, their interactions, this creates the complications-- not complexity but complication-- that slow the game. Too many ingredients, like too many cooks, can spoil the soup.

Committing everything to memory is not difficult, if you have the time to do it. Reinforcing the memories through constant play, also easy if you do play constantly. Hence my use of the term "lifestyle game". But this keeps the player base small, no? I'd like to see the player base grow.

diversification can help, especially a smaller more simplistic game that uses the same miniatures as the parent system but operates as a 'gateway drug'. They are trying to do this with the boxed sets and fumbling along but not quite there yet. For example, make a game in the infinity universe, that focuses on street gangs fighting each other in the ghettos of one or another planet in Infinity universe. Come out with some cool cyberpunk minis that can double as minis in the parent game, but keep the new game to 6-10 miniatures a game, using a very streamlined combat system, that cuts out the advanced weaponry, special rules, mods, and hacking in Infinity. Make it as easy as x-wing was in wave 1-2 and that would fly off the shelf. IMO doing a fantasy game would be a huge mistake. They should learn from GW, do smaller games that act as a gateway drug but contain miniatures you can use in the parent game. They are kind of doing this with their RPG stuff but that is sort of the opposite direction complexity wise.

As for 3.5, like you said, they need to find intelligent ways to cut out the 'complications' all the little moments that you need to reach for the rulebook. IMO though if you are playing a game you should know the effective range bands for your weapons or have a reference printed, so its not so much that there are weapons to choose from or hacking programs to choose from, it's the odd stuff that makes you reach for the rulebook like interactions between weird coordinated orders, this or that fireteam, and ARO's or something. Variety is not a bad thing if the variations don't introduce mechanics that mess with the basic game.

One thing that helps with simplifying the rules is what units you take and what faction you play. I play Haqqislam and they don't have much access to a lot of things like hacking plus or TO camo. Sure there's four pages of camo but I only have one unit that has anything other than basic camo. Only two with MSV ...etc.

Knowing your units will go a long way towards pairing down the complexity.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Thanks, I downloaded the quickstart introduction, though and I was surprised that they boiled the rules down to 7 pages (pp 7-13). I was a bit surprised that there doesn't seem to be anything to distinguish one model from another - for that, I guess I need to jump into the ocean?

Models can be pretty different from each other, but it is usually a combination of small things rather than being a unique playing experience. For instance, the difference between a Fusilier and an Orc Troop is pretty much just the stat line. The Nisses have visors which reduce the effectiveness of camo, and give a -3 to BS attacks against them, as well as having a sniper rifle option. The Akalis Sikh Commandos have slightly better stats than Fusiliers, but their big thing is that they can combat jump into battle.

Rules-wise, my preference is for one set of relatively basic rules, and a handful of universal special rules. To me, there is no obvious reason why there would need to be 5 levels of Martial Arts on top of the CC stat, for example. Nor 4 pages of Camoflague. To me, that suggests the designer and editor don't know what their game is supposed to be, so they're just throwing stuff out there without any filtering or plan.

It's not nearly as complicated as it seems. The five levels of Martial Arts are just a bunch of modifiers in a table you can select from. The camo entries have a lot of redundancy, due to the rulebook's verbose reference book like qualities. The Ice Storm rulebook (and I assume the quickplay one) boils camo down to a page and a half, and is frankly, easier to understand.

Infinity has a simple core system that has additional systems of complexity added on top - but situational in nature. The hacking rules are very complex, but if you don't bring any hackers into the game, you can ignore it (as Ice Storm/Red Veil do). Camo is a system which is dependent on there being units with camo on the table. No template weapons? No templates. Some systems seem to be ignored completely (I've never seen a YouTube battle report which featured the advanced rules for special terrain and structures, and only one which had a retreat). You could grab a bunch of basic models with combi rifles (fusiliers, alguaciles) with no special skills and only five or six common skills and have a full, exciting game of Infinity based just on the tactical options provided by the layout of terrain and scenario goals.

I think Ice Storm (and probably Red Veil) do a good job of creating an Infinity Lite version which has the more common gameplay options. Going from that to the full experience is a bit of a jump though, so I think there should be a few more levels to climb up into it. Maybe an Infinity L2-L4 before you get to Infinity L5.

The Quickstart ignores *ALL* of that complexity. NO Martial Arts. NO Camo. NO Hacking. NO Templates. NO Special Rules. It's just the basic statline for models and weapons.

Ice Storm and/or Red Veil might be better, but I haven't seen either, so I can't say. I just know that the Quickstart isn't really "playable" due to them throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
The Quickstart ignores *ALL* of that complexity. NO Martial Arts. NO Camo. NO Hacking. NO Templates. NO Special Rules. It's just the basic statline for models and weapons.

Ice Storm and/or Red Veil might be better, but I haven't seen either, so I can't say. I just know that the Quickstart isn't really "playable" due to them throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Can't speak for Red Veil, but I have Ice Storm. Red Veil is probably very similar to Ice Storm, but I think it has more weapon profiles.

Ice Storm has 5 missions, the first is three grunts per side with no special abilities. The second adds heavy infantry (ORC trooper, Mobile Brigada) along with lieutenant rules and rolling for initiative/deployment. Mission 3 has TO Camo plus discover skill and Infiltration for the Spektas, and airborne deployment for the Akalis. Mission 4 introduces silhouette templates (though everyone is S2), adds a new action (change facing), and has mimetism and multispectral visor L1 and L2. it also introduces the first non-combi rifle weapon profile with the sniper rifle for the Nisses and Grenzers. The final mission adds a Father-Knight and a Reverend Healer, will rules for unconscious/dead, doctor, and kinematika. The 5th mission also includes a neutral 3rd party unit (well, a token if you missed the preorder) who sits in the center of the board shooting at both players when possible.

By the 5th mission, I was able to follow battle reports on YouTube for the most part, with hacking being the major omission. I'm reading the rulebook now, and I'm fairly sure that I didn't need to read all of it. There's like 50 weapon profiles, but the relevant information on those are printed out with Infinity's web based army builder. There's a dozen types of ammo, but only four or five of them ever seem to come up in battle reports. There's a ton of special skills, but again, the majority of them just don't come up that often. I'd say a good 70%-80% of Infinity's rules don't show up in an average YouTube match. It's all special case stuff that requires specific models.

Quickstart gets you through the first mission of 3 generic grunts with basic weapons.

If 70-80% don't show up, then that's over 100 pages that should be removed from the rules in favor of a streamlined game with fewer, more flavorful exceptions.

Any single Youtube battle report isn't the game, though.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
If 70-80% don't show up, then that's over 100 pages that should be removed from the rules in favor of a streamlined game with fewer, more flavorful exceptions.

I think it is just the approach that CB takes with their rulebooks. I don't think Infinity's special cases are any more or less complicated than something like Warmachine or even Age of Sigmar. It may even be easier because special abilities are standardized across the game (also means that point values are more predictablel). It's just that the special rules are in the rulebook rather than on unit cards or warscrolls.

There's only about 50 pages of actual rules in the game, with just about everything else in the book being reference. There's a lot of rules you can encounter, but only a small subset of them will be applicable to any one game. Like I don't think you can encounter the Antipode special skill outside of a single unit in Ariadna - so ignore that skill until you need to know it. Just read basic rules and combat, skim over the common skills, and only look up the special skills and weapons when you see them in a unit's profile. I'm only reading the whole rulebook because nobody told this to me when I first started, and now I'm almost done.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
If 70-80% don't show up, then that's over 100 pages that should be removed from the rules in favor of a streamlined game with fewer, more flavorful exceptions.

To be fair though, that doesn't mean those 70-80% aren't being used. They're just not being used by those people.

My friend doesn't use linked teams, but I do. To him, he might see those rules as superfluous knowledge for him, as long as I know them. He doesn't use Viral ammo because his armies don't use it, but mine do. He doesn't use Parachutist, but I do. Army and playstyle dictates what rules you use, not everyone will use everything.

Guys, I have no dog in this hunt, but I'm simply saying that it seems to me that there is a *LOT* of room to streamline things. I'm pretty sure "Viral ammo" could be the Faction-specific name for a game-wide USR, just as "Parachutist" could be the Unit-specific name for a different game-wide USR.

But hey, I could be wrong here, and each of those special snowflake variations is integral to N3. I mean, I doubt it, what with a bunch of them not existing in N1 or N2, and those editions being fine and all. But I suppose N3 complexity could be necessary to how the game works. In which case, it's just not the game for me, and we can all move on.

There's very few faction specific things, and everything is essentially a 'USR'. There's nothing like 'Viral Ammo (rolls 3 saves just because). Viral ammo is viral ammo. All of the rules are the same for every faction.

The fact is, ammo types all do different things. We're not yet at the point where there's two ammo types that do the same thing. Viral Ammo requires you roll 2 saves, and so does Double Action. However Viral rolls against BTS while Double Action rolls against ARM which makes them suited for different tatgets. Viral also moves you to Dead instantly when failing a save, while Double Action doesn't.

I'm not saying they can't streamline things. However Infinity is, and always was, a very complex game. While it's had more complexity added, it was never a simple game, and they've never said they wanted it to be a simple game.

OK, fair enough.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Guys, I have no dog in this hunt, but I'm simply saying that it seems to me that there is a *LOT* of room to streamline things. I'm pretty sure "Viral ammo" could be the Faction-specific name for a game-wide USR, just as "Parachutist" could be the Unit-specific name for a different game-wide USR.

But hey, I could be wrong here, and each of those special snowflake variations is integral to N3. I mean, I doubt it, what with a bunch of them not existing in N1 or N2, and those editions being fine and all. But I suppose N3 complexity could be necessary to how the game works. In which case, it's just not the game for me, and we can all move on.

It might not be...
If your looking for fast and furious gameplay Infinity isn't for you probally. There's a bit if referencing, troops with little changes or perks that barely make them different from other troops but that tiny difference can be a game changer. I see Infinity as more of an RPG Tactical game than as a wargame or even skirmish. It moves veru slow until you know the rules and plays way different than other games. But its the 5 levels of martial arts type thing that makes it fun.

I'm sure Carlos and company know how to make a good game.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Guys, I have no dog in this hunt, but I'm simply saying that it seems to me that there is a *LOT* of room to streamline things.

Depends on what you mean by streamlining. If you mean less complicated - Infinity isn't a very complicated game, despite initial impressions. All the stat checks work the same, criticals work the same, all the armor saves work the same, all the AROs work the same, all the face-to-face rolls work the same. Almost all the special abilities in the game work with these basic mechanics. More than other miniature games I have experience with, Infinity is made up of LEGO-like pieces that it uses to build a game out of. No matter what shape the pieces may come in, the pegs attach to the holes in the same way.

If by streamlining you mean less "clutter", I understand that. I think maybe 80(?) different weapon profiles might be a bit excessive. But I think it adds variety rather than complexity. For instance, the only difference between a rifle and a combi rifle is that the combi rifle adds +3 at short range. That doesn't affect the game very much. It just means you need to have the weapon profiles available to reference (the army builder software will even add them to your army list). Compare that to something like Warmachine where a new unit can make or break a combo, changing the entire meta with each new figure released and requires each player to be familiar with every troop, ability, and combo in the game to be even moderately successful.

I'm still new at Infinity, so I'm far from an expert. But in my experience, the learning curve starts off steep, but it evens out quickly and becomes almost flat. Because new weapons and skills are built on the same existing building blocks, new ones aren't difficult to learn or use. The game is just built around a variety that doesn't greatly increase complexity, and because of this, the makers have gone nuts on the variety. It's still clutter, but I guess it gives you the option of how much clutter you want to let into your games. Infinity gives you enough to be a hoarder if you want to be.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Guys, I have no dog in this hunt, but I'm simply saying that it seems to me that there is a *LOT* of room to streamline things.

If by streamlining you mean less "clutter", I understand that. I think maybe 80(?) different weapon profiles might be a bit excessive.

OP claimed 154, but wasn't absolutely sure... I guess he lost count somewhere along the way.

But really, does it matter? 150? 160? 180? From a system complexity standpoint, 250 is the same as 150. So it wouldn't be infeasible for each sculpt to literally be its own special snowflake in the rules, with it's own unique weapon and a special rules package that might vary slightly from the other poses.

Anyhow, thanks for the information, it was helpful, thanks!

The game is basically built on the +/-3 modifier lego block since all modifiers scale in 3s. It's a low dice game like WM/H but the roll mods are more significant in altering game probability since you apply mods to each die rather than to a single summed dice roll. Also because you can stack mods as high as +/-12, you can mod both sides of a face to face and each die has the potential to win a roll; manipulating the mods is a core tactic.

In the example of the combi rifle vs rifle, it's true having only a +3 difference by itself is not significant. But when you stack it with other to hit modifiers it becomes significant.

As for the clutter, yeah there are a lot of rules but I think it appeals to certain players. I do believe the complexity of the game is derived from using the knot of rules to maneuver for favorable rolls as efficiently as possible while preventing your opponent from doing the same.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Guys, I have no dog in this hunt, but I'm simply saying that it seems to me that there is a *LOT* of room to streamline things.

If by streamlining you mean less "clutter", I understand that. I think maybe 80(?) different weapon profiles might be a bit excessive.

OP claimed 154, but wasn't absolutely sure... I guess he lost count somewhere along the way.

But really, does it matter? 150? 160? 180? From a system complexity standpoint, 250 is the same as 150. So it wouldn't be infeasible for each sculpt to literally be its own special snowflake in the rules, with it's own unique weapon and a special rules package that might vary slightly from the other poses.

Anyhow, thanks for the information, it was helpful, thanks!

There are 153 but that counts weapons with multiple ammo types/firing modes as multiple weapons. But that's not how weapons work in Infinity anyway, they're generally shared between large numbers of different units across multiple factions. Off the top of my head, there are maybe half a dozen weapons that are specific to one unit - Vorpal CCWs, Jammers, SymbioBugs, Uragans/Katyushas and Ojotniks. 'Universal' weapons like Rifles/Combi Rifles, HMGs, Sniper Rifles, shotguns etc. are universal - used by all factions in some form or another.

Plus there aren't actually that many classes of weapon - Rifles/Combi Rifles already make up 14 of those 153 items by swapping out ammo types. Roughly speaking, there are about 16 classes (Pistols, Grenades, Grenade Launchers, Rifles, HMGs etc. etc.) each with the standard spread of ammo types, plus about 20 more unique weapons that aren't just 'this is a Rifle that has armour piercing ammo).

I think the perceived complexity comes from real complexity - specifically the ARO mechanic, which increases the complexity of rules interactions far beyond a linear doubling of the situations where you might have two skills interact.

For example, holoprojectors are a bit complicated for newer players. Two models, one with holoechoes out of cover, another with no holoechoes out of cover.

In the holoecho model's reactive turn, holoechoes are pretty easy to play - your opponent shoots them and they disappear. If you reveal, they disappear.


In the holoecho model's active turn, AROing against them is fairly complicated. They can be represented by models. But they're markers, so you can hold ARO against them. The holoecho model declares Move - what can the opponent do? In reality, pick one and shoot, or delay ARO.

Last night, I had a very knowledgeable veteran player say that a second possibility is to pick one and shoot and, if you're correct, you avoid the Surprise Shot modifier. I can't find any support for this in the rules...maybe it's from a previous edition? He's been playing for years (myself just a year), both at a more or less weekly pace, so we SHOULD know all of the rules.

Basically, in 40k USRs are convoluted in that one confers many in some cases, but in Infinity, each of these USRs (to use the 40k vernacular) can have over a page devoted to it, and critical information can be buried in the text.




Not that I'm complaining - I love this game.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Last night, I had a very knowledgeable veteran player say that a second possibility is to pick one and shoot and, if you're correct, you avoid the Surprise Shot modifier. I can't find any support for this in the rules...maybe it's from a previous edition? He's been playing for years (myself just a year), both at a more or less weekly pace, so we SHOULD know all of the rules.

Apparently it was mis-explained on a Beasts of War video, presumably Bostria was thinking of a different version that got playtested.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
I think the perceived complexity comes from real complexity -

Not that I'm complaining - I love this game.

Oh, I agree there is real complexity.

For me, one of the key points of streamlining is to increase the likelihood that the game is played correctly, without any mistakes. The more complex the game, the more opportunities to make an error of some sort. Now, that isn't to say you can't have a good time or get a good result in spite of a minor mistake or misreading, but it always leaves a bad taste in my mouth, being something of a stickler for "correctness". A simpler game simply has that many fewer things to screw up, fewer opportunities to make a mechanical mistake (so more mistakes are of the tactical & strategic sort). Which gets back to the whole "lifestyle" gaming that characterizes things like 40k (and apparently, Infinity), vs a "casual" game that you can pick up and start playing in under an hour.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
For me, one of the key points of streamlining is to increase the likelihood that the game is played correctly, without any mistakes. The more complex the game, the more opportunities to make an error of some sort. Now, that isn't to say you can't have a good time or get a good result in spite of a minor mistake or misreading, but it always leaves a bad taste in my mouth, being something of a stickler for "correctness". A simpler game simply has that many fewer things to screw up, fewer opportunities to make a mechanical mistake (so more mistakes are of the tactical & strategic sort).

I understand that completely. I've played Doomtown Reloaded several times now, and I don't think we've played it 100% correctly once. And there are several complex games in my collection (like Earth Reborn) that I've never played because I just open the rulebook and get overwhelmed.

Streamlining has both good and bad qualities. In every case that I can think of, it has generally produced better, more playable versions of games, but it has always lost something in the exchange. I think there is a little bit of crazy that goes into game design, and streamlining is the process of removing that crazy. But I like that crazy, and the less crazy there is, the more game designs start to look the same. Like take MMOs before World of Warcraft, or CCGs during their heyday. Tons of crazy there, and I miss it so much. There's something to be said for a streamlined design, but I'll take inspired jank over bland perfection any day. I do realize I'm in the minority on that though.

Which gets back to the whole "lifestyle" gaming that characterizes things like 40k (and apparently, Infinity), vs a "casual" game that you can pick up and start playing in under an hour.

Infinity isn't casual, but it isn't really a lifestyle game either. Lifestyle games are ones that have constant releases and an ever changing meta that keeps you heavily involved in a game for long periods of time. Infinity doesn't change that often (new models are for existing profiles, so Infinity only changes every few years with each new book release), and there aren't really winning lists or combos that require building armies a specific way to counter. Someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you can build a single 300 pt army once (based purely on which models you like the look of) and use it forever with moderate success. The motto of the game is "it's not your list, it's you". So I don't think you really have to be heavily invested in the Infinity ecosystem or keep up with the Infinity community to play and enjoy the game. I think that most of the Infinity players who do treat it as a lifestyle game do so out of their own enthusiasm than it being a requirement for playing the game.

I get the whole loss of detail - that's a given. Thing is, I don't think streamlining causes follow-the-leader bandwagoning - it's market success that drives people to try and cash in. Before, it was Magic-like CCGs; now, it's Clash of X apps. The streamlined increase in accessibility and playability often accelerates any market success, though, so it shouldn't be discounted.

Earlier, someone else had characterized N3 as a lifestyle game, due to its complexity. I just don't disagree with that.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I get the whole loss of detail - that's a given. Thing is, I don't think streamlining causes follow-the-leader bandwagoning - it's market success that drives people to try and cash in. Before, it was Magic-like CCGs; now, it's Clash of X apps. The streamlined increase in accessibility and playability often accelerates any market success, though, so it shouldn't be discounted.

This might be getting a bit off subject, but I think that as you streamline games, you naturally move towards fewer decision points and lowered variety. The end result is that games move towards a more homogeneous existence. Rather than having a dozen characterizing systems, you have two or three, and there's only so much you can build around two or three basic systems. You've reduced the game design sphere exponentially.

FFG's living card games are a good example. The sphere of card game design is rather huge and extremely varied, but FFG's 9 different games are largely built on the same half dozen basic gameplay systems, usually with one or two minor unique systems to differentiate them. They need a broad enough design sphere to allow growth and change for 9 games over a decade or so, but I think they've streamlined many of the games so much that the end up repeating themselves. Age of Sigmar is another game that may not have a wealth of options in gameplay that could gimp the game a few years out (though the game is really secondary to the quality models). The fact that it is such a simplistic backbone does mean that they can build systems on top for variety, which they've done with the General's Notebook.

Streamlining towards accessibility, I understand, but don't appreciate. It is a hard sell to convince someone to read a new rulebook, and it is even harder when you can't communicate the virtues of a game until after they've done so. Like Infinity's ARO system is brilliant, but I'm not sure I could easily tell someone why until after they knew how to play. Players are lazy and want new games to just sort of be absorbed rather than worked for, so it is much easier to sell a familiar game (it's just like Magic, but with ninja!) than it is to sell an unfamiliar one (the best part of this game is the feature explained on page 47 of the 150 page rulebook). The ability to sell something familiar is what leads to bandwagoning, even with products that aren't out to make a quick buck.

That being said, while I understand the marketing value of accessibility, it doesn't lead to an objectively better game.

That assumes that each variation is meaningful. I guarantee in the case of Infinity and 40k, at least half of the variations are marginal.

For example, 40k should not distinguish Fearless, No Fear and Stubborn, but instead, pick the most meaningful version and only retain it. Similarly with 40k's Power Weapons - either it is an at I AP3 sword or it is a +S AP2 I1 fist.

Getting back to Infinity, Martial Arts only needs to have basic and Black Belt levels, rather than the 5 it already has. And one flavor of Camo that retains the best ideas.

Camouflage is a really bad example to choose as something to streamline into one level, given how distinct they are, and how drastically different an effect they have on the game.

In case you're not aware, you're talking about the difference between a simple -3 to hit, the trooper starting as a marker that can't be attacked, or starting in a hidden location with your opponent not even knowing about the presence of the trooper.

To take your 40k analogy, it's already pared down to the difference between a basic CCW, Powersword and Powerfist.

Camo was one of the things that were stream-lined from N2.

I had no idea that the quickstarter was so bare bones. Bummer.

Weapons with different ammo have different mechanisms for resolving their use, so I would count them as entirely separate, the AP rifle v the rifle for example. I just counted the weapons listed in the PDF download. Some have 2 or more profiles, like regular and AP. Still, I get 94 separate ranged weapons.

About the lifestyle... the game has changed frequently since N3 released, and even before that. It has had constant releases. CB was releasing new units even before N3 ( Bolts, anyone?) . Almost the whole of USAriadna is post N3 release. Now Blackfriars and the Hassassin Ayyars in HS. And I suspect we will see a stream of new units, and possibly other novelties, leading up to the next book. We are seeing 2 new characters ( in Dire Foes 6) in October(?).

Complexity is a good thing. Complication is not. Complexity makes you think. Complication makes you jump through hoops. Quantity has a complication all its own, to paraphrase a certain blood-soaked monster. (Stalin)

Hacking is the biggest culprit of this, being a game within a game, IMHO. Martial Arts could use some refinement. Then tackle the weapons/ammo by removing the marginal items. (marksman rifle for example.)

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
That assumes that each variation is meaningful. I guarantee in the case of Infinity and 40k, at least half of the variations are marginal.

Maybe, but I think they may be more important than you are willing to admit. Take special ammo, for instance. The difference between ammo is relatively minor. DA ammo causes two save rolls instead of one, shock ammo skips the unconscious phase and goes straight to dead, and AP ammo halves the opponent's ARM value for a save roll. They don't significantly change the game, but each one of those is REALLY useful in the right circumstances - possibly even the difference between victory and defeat. This makes the decision of which ammo type to use into an interesting decision rather than a meaningless one.

Getting back to Infinity, Martial Arts only needs to have basic and Black Belt levels, rather than the 5 it already has. And one flavor of Camo that retains the best ideas.

Martial Arts is basically just a table of modifiers. The higher your MA skill, the more modifiers you can choose between. Mechanically, it doesn't add complexity to add a new row to a table you already have to consult. The different levels allow for varying ability, and even contribute to the fluff of the army. PanO's MA units generally have L2, while Joan of Arc has L3. But Yu Jing generally has L3 because, hey, they're Asian. Combined Army has a few L4 units who come from a alien warrior race. And Musashi Miyamoto, bad ass historical dual sword fighter, has L5.

So I think it adds to the game by giving a small, but interest choice when being used and it codifies game lore mechanically, which I personally love to see - without significantly making the game more difficult to play. And it's just a small thing, really, but Infinity is filled with small things like this that ultimately contribute more to the game than their complexity takes away. If you prioritize simplicity above all else, I can see how a trade off like that could be less ideal, but because they do positively contribute to the game, I'm not sure that you can definitively say that Infinity would be just as good with only one level of Martial Arts.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
That assumes that each variation is meaningful. I guarantee in the case of Infinity and 40k, at least half of the variations are marginal.

For example, 40k should not distinguish Fearless, No Fear and Stubborn, but instead, pick the most meaningful version and only retain it. Similarly with 40k's Power Weapons - either it is an at I AP3 sword or it is a +S AP2 I1 fist.

Getting back to Infinity, Martial Arts only needs to have basic and Black Belt levels, rather than the 5 it already has. And one flavor of Camo that retains the best ideas.

I disagree. Marginal variations are what bring the flavors out of the differences and allow for small differences with small point variances without being all or nothing affairs. Indeed, more people wish there were more subtle variations with 40K rules then many of the all-or-nothing setups they have.

To address your example, when dealing with Fear, Fearless and No Fear are the same, but Stubborn is not. When dealing with a Morale Check, none of them work the same. Fearless auot-passes, No Fear automatically recovers the turn after you fail, and Stubborn ignores negative modifiers reducing your chance to fail. So realistically, this is not a good example of marginal variations.

Now, they could be be brought together in to a variation line where they are all gradations of the same mechanic to keep a margin of difference so they aren't extreme. Also, all of those with these rules could receive a very watered down combination of these rules so that the point difference they should provide will not affect their current pricing structure.

Power Weapons, I rather have to agree with to a point. I like how the Power Maul and Power Sword work, but the Power Axe has too much of a weakness to justify not spending 10 more points to get the Fist. And basic Power Weapons were all the same from 3rd through 5th, only changing in the last 4 years to the variation we see today.