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.

GenCon video up with a bunch of unit sculpts being shown:

I'm neutral on n4. I'm hoping it's just the trimming everyone else has talked about but I doubt I'll really be able to get much going for it like I did at the start of N3 out here. Which is fine as Defiance seams more in line with what most of my friends would want to play anyway. Speaking of which that box is huge.

All they really need to do is cut down on the hacking programs and maybe try to make certain special rules less wordy.

Though I fear that if you oversimplified Hacking it would lose its flavor.

Personally, I would get rid of the current hacking system all together. Make it much more of a support system with very little in the way of direct offense, and that direct offense being difficult to pull off. So instead of a successful hack of an enemy hacker actually killing them, just have it disable their hacking equipment or other hackable equipment they might have. They'd need an Engineer to fix it and get it running again.

Surprised the puppet master is so active looking.

 Red Harvest wrote:
...And cull the herd. Remove at least half of the hacking programs. And... yeah. N4 ought to be N3 after a good weight loss prgram, lean and mean and ready to kick some tucus. There is plenty of fat to be trimmed.

Amen brother!

 Grey Templar wrote:
All they really need to do is cut down on the hacking programs and maybe try to make certain special rules less wordy.

Though I fear that if you oversimplified Hacking it would lose its flavor.

Personally, I would get rid of the current hacking system all together. Make it much more of a support system with very little in the way of direct offense, and that direct offense being difficult to pull off. So instead of a successful hack of an enemy hacker actually killing them, just have it disable their hacking equipment or other hackable equipment they might have. They'd need an Engineer to fix it and get it running again.

I like what you're sending out there!

But yes, hacking needs a good hacking, certainly.

 Alpharius wrote:

 Red Harvest wrote:
...And cull the herd. Remove at least half of the hacking programs. And... yeah. N4 ought to be N3 after a good weight loss prgram, lean and mean and ready to kick some tucus. There is plenty of fat to be trimmed.

Amen brother!

 Grey Templar wrote:
All they really need to do is cut down on the hacking programs and maybe try to make certain special rules less wordy.

Though I fear that if you oversimplified Hacking it would lose its flavor.

Personally, I would get rid of the current hacking system all together. Make it much more of a support system with very little in the way of direct offense, and that direct offense being difficult to pull off. So instead of a successful hack of an enemy hacker actually killing them, just have it disable their hacking equipment or other hackable equipment they might have. They'd need an Engineer to fix it and get it running again.

I like what you're sending out there!

But yes, hacking needs a good hacking, certainly.

Hacking and weapons lists need a trimming. There are too many similar programs & weapon profiles.
I know command tokens addressed some important balance issues, but it’s a clumsy meta tool.
It’d be nice if they could cut down on the number of tokens overall. You need so many damned tokens to play this game.

Hackers should basically act like support mages in a fantasy game.

Have your Hacker spend an order and give up to 3 friendly models in his hacking area +1BS.

Have you hacker hack up to 3 enemy models in its hacking area to suffer -1 BS.

Hack an enemy model to give friendly models a +3 modifier when ARO'ing in a FtF roll with that model.

Hack an enemy model to turn off a hackable piece of equipment it is equipped with. This would be how you defeat an enemy hacker. Brick his hacking device and turn him into an expensive cheerleader.

Hack a remote or TAG to cause wounds to it or take control of it(Only robots should be able to suffer wounds from a hacking attack).

Give all Ariadnan units a Hacking Resistance trait or something that increases their BTS value against all hacking programs to 10 or something.

Pretty much that. Get rid of about..half the ammo and weapon types? 70% of the fifty hacking programs, and generally make the thing manageable and it'll work fine.

If they could decide if they're a skirmish game or squad based game it'd be nice too, the Fireteams are a bit schizophrenic right now imo.

Oh, and consolidated fluff would be nice. When I bought N3 i really didn't expect to have nothing on Aleph despite the faction being years old at that point.

First and foremost, N4 needs to actually be complete and ready to go out of the box. N3's slow rollout was sloppy and felt pretty unprepared (and the miscommunication around them saying there would be no reprints of HS et al in order to sell remaining stock still remains a big strike against them for me). Worse, it simply retraced all the mistakes that ended with 2nd Edition being such a bloody mess at the end of its life.

All armies (including the ones with discontinued model lines) need to be ready to go out of the gate. They need to NOT annex major rules in later supplements, and they need to not perform the exact same release cycle again.

In general a living rulebook would be the best way to go, but so long as the core book is feature complete (i.e. you can run sectorials without having to reference some other book or document) then it should be good.

Other than that, general agreement with a lot of other folks. Trim the fat, knock off the barnacles and skim the accumulated cruft off. The game needs a ground-up overhaul and a house-cleaning, there are too many bloody special abilities, nested abilities, weapons, hacking programs, ammo types, etc. and all it does is act as a barrier for playing the game at a semi-competent level. It got to the point where my group would drop the game for a few months to play something else and when we came back, we had forgotten enough that the first few games were painfully slow. After a few cycles, a few months became half a year to a year between plays and now we basically just don't pull it out because our time is better spent on plenty of other games with as much depth but less baggage.

Infinity was my favourite game for a damn long time, and while I was initially hopeful with N3, it ended up breaking my heart and killing my ongoing interest in the game due to how badly handled it was throughout its life. Pervasive feature creep, rules bloat, newer lists making older ones often feel like beta-tests. Over-stuffed, super-optimized profiles getting used as crutches to make armies work and destroying any semblance of internal balance. To say nothing of the sloppy PR and lack of general planning (or at least the feeling that they were constantly flying by the seat of their pants as an outside observer).

I want to believe N4 can finally turn this around but... well, I've been burned enough that I'm maintaining my wait and see policy.

I'm in the same boat, I was really excited for N3 but I've actually played it less than second edition.

The game just has too many rules for it to be readily playable. It seems to sit somewhere between RPG and miniature game hybrid in terms of numbers of rules, complex interactions and abilities only available to a handful of units. I know people always whine about simplifying game systems, but it's possible to have a game with a simple rule set with lots of tactical depth.

I love the Infinity setting, the artwork and the miniatures, but the game as it stands is just too difficult to play and keep a group going. All it took for us was for one person to lose interest and move systems and it's been over a year since we last played. A simpler ruleset would be easier to sell to new people and to keep existing players engaged.

I want N4 to be a success, but it needs a stripped down, fully complete, ready to go rulebook that doesn't need a raft of addendum, FAQs, erratas and supplements as soon as it releases, especially when there's huge gaps in between as there were with some of the N3 books.

I'm really happy with N3. It's not nearly as complicated as it is disorganized and there's a lot of room to clean things up. Remove some profiles that don't have models, reorganize some of the "level" skills to remove some of the oddities from things like Veteran and Camouflage. Hacking really isn't that complicated and I like how it works overall, but there's tons of room to cut programs down to more distinct functions.

Cronch wrote:
Pretty much that. Get rid of about..half the ammo and weapon types? 70% of the fifty hacking programs, and generally make the thing manageable and it'll work fine.

If they could decide if they're a skirmish game or squad based game it'd be nice too, the Fireteams are a bit schizophrenic right now imo.

Oh, and consolidated fluff would be nice. When I bought N3 i really didn't expect to have nothing on Aleph despite the faction being years old at that point.

Nah, Ammo and weapons are fine. It’s a nice modular system and since range bands and stats get printed on the lists it’s easy to check what it is. Plus 95% of weapons are shared between factions.

I think the ammo and weapon types are only fine if they make the ammo a function of the weapon profile. Having a 20 page catalogue of ammo types is all sorts of terrible, especially when the difference between ammo types is usually very minor.

Optimally, I'd like to see Infinity do character cards (stats, ability descriptions) and weapon/equipment cards (range, damage, ammo). That should cover all (or most) of the unit rules while still allowing you to pick models with different weapon loadouts.

They would solve the weapon and ammo issue, well any equipment issues really, but allowing army to print out those item's rules. This would be similar to the cards mentioned above but not something you have to buy -- just let their app make them in the army list pdf if needed.

 Monkeysloth wrote:
They would solve the weapon and ammo issue, well any equipment issues really, but allowing army to print out those item's rules. This would be similar to the cards mentioned above but not something you have to buy -- just let their app make them in the army list pdf if needed.

I'm less about the format these things show up in (though I'm absolutely on board with cards), and more about organizing the rules as either belonging to the unit or to the weapon. The basic rules for Infinity are fairly short, with the majority of the rulebook being lists of specific rules (many of them unique to only one model). I feel like the units and weapons are first order gameplay devices from which all the abilities, states, and ammo types are derived. Instead, Infinity treats abilities, states, and ammo types as primaries and units are derived from that.

It's like the difference between saying this is a loaf of bread - You can eat it, cut it, or toast it - and there are things you can eat, things you can cut, and things you can toast - bread is a member of these three groups.

 Monkeysloth wrote:
They would solve the weapon and ammo issue, well any equipment issues really, but allowing army to print out those item's rules. This would be similar to the cards mentioned above but not something you have to buy -- just let their app make them in the army list pdf if needed.

A ton of the game's more confusing elements can be cleared up with better presentation. MayaNet does a really good job of "compiling" a list down into what the unit can actually do and I think a lot of these kinds of problems can be solved by pulling in some of the interface of that program into the main builder.

LunarSol wrote:I'm really happy with N3. It's not nearly as complicated as it is disorganized and there's a lot of room to clean things up.

LunarSol wrote:

 Monkeysloth wrote:
They would solve the weapon and ammo issue, well any equipment issues really, but allowing army to print out those item's rules. This would be similar to the cards mentioned above but not something you have to buy -- just let their app make them in the army list pdf if needed.

A ton of the game's more confusing elements can be cleared up with better presentation. MayaNet does a really good job of "compiling" a list down into what the unit can actually do and I think a lot of these kinds of problems can be solved by pulling in some of the interface of that program into the main builder.

Yes and yes. Infinity is a complex game, but not really a complicated one. What it desperately need is to be a better teacher. New players (and I guess veteran players too, judging from this thread and some of the other comments I've seen this week) get confused by the amount of options, but the options aren't actually a problem and removing them or consolidating them doesn't actually make the game any better. Rather, players need to understand that they don't need to know all, or even most, of the game's rules. Instead,they need to know the game's basic rules and game play concepts and they need to know how to use Army and the wiki and how to print lists. Thats it. Unfortunately the game doesn't do a good job of teaching this to new players, and because of that too many players think they need to memorize all the rules, or know every weapon rage or hacking program.

Better teaching could really make N4 much easier to play without having to simplify any (or many) rules.

Infinity absolutely is a complex game. That should never change. Providing better learning tools is the best path to making the game accessible for players who like complex games and want to learn ow Infinity works. While the game may be able to be simplified in some small ways to improve accessibility and game play, simplification is likely to lead to a poorer game. This will sound exclusionary (and its not meant to be), but there are older many, many simple skirmish games to choose from. infinity's niche and a very large part of its appeal has always been its complexity. Any call to simplify should keep that in mind. I think a better path i to refine Infinity so it continues to be an accessible complex game.

When I started teaching Infinity (about a year before Warcors became a thing) someone at CB advised the following:

- Players should start with small 100 point armies. The armies should have only a single special feature each. For example, 1 guy with heavy armor. 1 guy with mimetism. 1 guy with a sniper rifle. Everyone else should be basic guys with rifles or shotguns or chainrifles.

- Leave out any complex rules. No camo. No hacking. No infiltration or AD. No imeptious no mines. Focus on shooting, movement, cover and order for the first 1-3 games.

- After a few games start introducing more advanced rules one at a time. Camo and MSV in one game. Hacking and Remotes in another. Close Combat and Impetious in another.

- After a few more games try larger armies and introduce a few more rules. Stress that they don't need to remember everything. You can look stuff up as you go. play at 150 points until they feel comfortable

- Try some 300 point games. Introduce Fireteams and Tags


This kind of incremental introduction is also suggested in operation icestorm and the other starters, but its not really pushed hard, and most new players want to try to jump into giant games with all the features right away. I started teaching this after we kept having new players join and then leave after a few games. With the help of this process we ended up growing our community to about 20 players over a year, and it stayed healthy for a long time (its still going strong). this process takes longer and requires actual teaching and patience, but its the best way to teach the game and results in players who understand how to play, how to look up rules quickly and who won't get frustrated and leave because they think they have to memorize everything.

I don't really like teaching with 100 point armies. I find too often that at that small a model count, losses just feel catastrophic when the order pool is trimmed so significantly. You also need to play on a weirdly narrow 2x4 table to keep ranges relevant but still provide adequate ARO saturation to "feel" right.

What I REALLY like is the Operation+Beyond armies. Full sized Limited Insertion army that generally isn't packing too many tricks. Each of them usually has one AD or Camo model that you get to teach as the "big trick" so they get to experience one of the game's more compelling features, but otherwise they're a pretty good mix of straightforward combat options.

The big deal is that you're learning before you try list building. Getting an appreciation for how the game plays and an understanding of what's in a unit profile makes Army significantly easier to understand. When players play with a preset army and only have to learn the rules of THAT army, a lot of the simplicity of what you actually have to work with on the table shines through.

N4 has me interested, but only if they go all in on consolidation.

None of the arguments where because all the books are free online somehow makes it okay. A bunch of spread out rules all over does not help a game grow.

Moreover, they doubled down on rules complexity for little gain.

Infinity will always be a complex game, but they went off the deep end and it hurt growth right when they really started nailing their model sculpts.

 Ronin_eX wrote:


In general a living rulebook would be the best way to go, but so long as the core book is feature complete (i.e. you can run sectorials without having to reference some other book or document) then it should be good.

The wiki is well maintained & linked to everything in the army builder.
That’s been the living rulebook for some time.

Rather, players need to understand that they don't need to know all, or even most, of the game's rules. Instead,they need to know the game's basic rules and game play concepts and they need to know how to use Army and the wiki and how to print lists. Thats it. Unfortunately the game doesn't do a good job of teaching this to new players, and because of that too many players think they need to memorize all the rules, or know every weapon rage or hacking program.

This very much feels like saying "the game is fine, it's the players that are doing it wrong".
For reference, I started playing Infinity back in 1st ed. In fact, before 1st ed, when the rules were a small PDF on the first Infinity website. 1st ed had horrible translation, but sensible amount of special skills that were not hard to grasp. Then, each book started adding more skills and ammo types and all sorts of guff. At this stage, not only is it impossible to learn all the rules for most players, there's so many rules that do barely anything (Kinematika for example) that the game keeps getting bigger because CB has no other idea how to diffrentiate the tenth SK model for Nomads or fifth HI option for YJ otherwise.

There is a massive SKU and skill bloat, and when I came back to 3rd ed after passing most of 2nd edition, I honestly felt immediately put off, and I am, for most intents, a veteran, I know how the game works.

The game will not be simplified if you remove superficial skills that add little to the flow of the game, it will simply be more efficient ruleset. Right now CB is just proving they have no handle on what they want the game to do, they just throw stuff at the wall and hope the wall takes it.

Counterpoint: Between the armybuilder, the Wiki, and the Comlog app, I haven't even bothered to bring a rulebook with me for the last year and a half, not even to tournaments. They aren't needed. Once you know the basics, it's FAR easier to look up the wiki by circumstance

The books over the last year+ have had no rules in them, just fluff and the campaign revamp in the last one.

I'm REALLY hoping that all we get is a cleanup, I do NOT want the game to become less complex just to try and attract people that can't be bothered to learn the rules. I've said it before, there's TONS of skirmish games out there already that offer a simpler play experience, but there's extremely few that can offer the complexity and relative balance that Infinity has maintained. If you have a group that only gets around to this type of game a few times a year, you're better off using Infinity models to play Deadzone or Zone Raiders or Rogue Stars or a dozen other similar games. Infinity's complexity is a HUGE draw and I'd hate to see it lose that

Or, they'll do like they've already done, don't play the game and move on to others with the same complexity.

But there's a way to cut out over complicated aspects of a game and keep the complexity.

Ronin_eX wrote:Other than that, general agreement with a lot of other folks. Trim the fat, knock off the barnacles and skim the accumulated cruft off. The game needs a ground-up overhaul and a house-cleaning, there are too many bloody special abilities, nested abilities, weapons, hacking programs, ammo types, etc. and all it does is act as a barrier for playing the game at a semi-competent level. It got to the point where my group would drop the game for a few months to play something else and when we came back, we had forgotten enough that the first few games were painfully slow. After a few cycles, a few months became half a year to a year between plays and now we basically just don't pull it out because our time is better spent on plenty of other games with as much depth but less baggage.

it is hard to keep track of. What really needs to go are the little differences, the minor but small distinctions between similar things and the different things that are pretty much the same, but SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT. Also how an actual rule is spread out so far, I've searched the wiki for how something works only to find out that the thing I was looking for was under the condition related to the thing so. Many. Damn. Times.

I want to believe N4 can finally turn this around but... well, I've been burned enough that I'm maintaining my wait and see policy.

I have learnt from GW not to wait. I hoped 40k would be better after the next codex/edition/FAQ/chapter approved for too long. Should have been playing Infinity instead.
If a company keeps doing a thing, they will probably keep doing it.

The other thing we can learn from GW is that more rules do not give a game depth (maybe the illusion of it, but not actual depth), or the complex play experience. Depth comes from having choices that actually matter. A game feels complex when several of those choices matter in one interaction. You need a lot of variation for the Infinity experience, but making it hard to remember and having minute differences that don't actually matter just makes the game a pain to play.

 Sqorgar wrote:
I think the ammo and weapon types are only fine if they make the ammo a function of the weapon profile. Having a 20 page catalogue of ammo types is all sorts of terrible, especially when the difference between ammo types is usually very minor.

Optimally, I'd like to see Infinity do character cards (stats, ability descriptions) and weapon/equipment cards (range, damage, ammo). That should cover all (or most) of the unit rules while still allowing you to pick models with different weapon loadouts.

It's already a function of the weapon profile. It says its a X weapon with Y damage type. Weapons could have any damage type and vice verse. And there really aren't that many ammo types or weapons. There are 23 ammo types, but really only about half of them are in any way common.

And no, there really isn't much in common with the different ammo types. Rolling twice with Double action ammo is very different from having your armor halved by AP. Its also mostly intuitive when it comes to combining ammo types.

The only part that is kinda messy is if you have Ammo that rolls against BTS and/or you've got multiple ammo types with some rolling vs armor and some rolling vs BTS. That could use some reworking. Though mostly a re-balancing, weapons which roll vs BTS are too cheap IMO for their power.

Its certainly an easier system than having unique weapons and statlines for every faction. If someone has an AP HMG, it doesn't matter what faction it is. You know what its statline in. You know its damage 15, has machine gun range bands, and halves your armor.

While we're at it, it'd be nice if TAG weapons had different profiles to hand-held ones. It's stretching the ol' suspension of disbelief something awful when a tag-sized "HMG" with 30mm caliber gun is the same weapon as a SAW-sized HMG held by a Fusilier.

Cronch wrote:
While we're at it, it'd be nice if TAG weapons had different profiles to hand-held ones. It's stretching the ol' suspension of disbelief something awful when a tag-sized "HMG" with 30mm caliber gun is the same weapon as a SAW-sized HMG held by a Fusilier.

Well, they're currently all +1 Damage, so the TAG-sized HMG is Dam 16 compared with the Fusilier's Dam 15.

Where is that written? I don't think I've seen that in the main book?

It is in the ITS documents for a couple of seasons.

Ah, so not in the game itself? :C