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.

After my (brief) exposure to competitive 40k and slowly getting more fed up with GW from there; Infinity was a breath of fresh air.

It was great and I played with a great crowd. I've moved away though and even though I know there is a great community here too, I'm putting off reaching out and getting back into Infinity. I've already found people playing other games, but not Infinity. I had lost my enthusiasm before I left, but it's a great crowd to game with

Infinity seems to be conflicted.
It's a game that seems to need to be taken seriously, it demands thought and time. There is a lot to understand. There is a lot to keep up with. There is a lot to figure out if you haven't played in a while, if just in the middle of every game.
The smallest mistake can lose the game. Which mistake is another matter though. It could be a flawed plan, being careless with a specialist, not giving the right angle against AD, moving to 1 cm short of your good range band or just getting crit when the odds were on your side.

Crits happen though, sometimes things go wrong.
I find Infinity is more fun if you don't get too invested in the result, just play and have a good time. It's wonderfully from nematic and makes great stories.

Which is it though? Is it a game I should just have fun with?
Gaslands is cheaper and the rules are easy enough to actually know how all of them work. How does one not get invested if you have to just to get the rules down.

Is Infinity a tactical game where good play prevails. Is it something worth putting a lot of thought into? You have to just to get the rules down. Random events can decide the game though.

It could also be that the rules that are already too much, but CB writes new skills and equipment to each release. It takes keeping up with. It's a chore to figure out how everything works and they add more.
If it was they only game I played it would be fine, but it's not.
I like other games and some of them are just as rewards and tactical, but actually playing those games (as opposed to playing well or winning) is easier.

I find it to be one the most interesting games out there. I used to find it random, but that was when my state of mind was focused on model to model interactions. As soon as I stopped thinking of my turn that way and started putting more thought into it as my turn being something of a single activation in which I have X resources to spend, I've found it to be a lot less random than I initially felt. Once I started to see the board and what I needed to accomplish during the turn, it became a lot easier see how likely plan A was to fail and ways to still accomplish that goal with plan B.

I think its a game that's easy to get overwhelmed in what "could" be, but a lot simpler than it first appears. Sticking to a list lets you focus on learning the things you have and I find everything beyond that is just a minor variation on what I know. When I felt hacking was overwhelming, someone told me it was "just a spell gun" and yeah.... it really is.

That bible of a rulebook is what keeps me from taking a swing at this skirmish game.

If they made a very, very stripped down version that is basicly just dice rolling like what say Warmachine is, i would be all over that version.
They make some of the best minis in the marked and i have bought several just cuz i realy wanted to paint them, but is amongst the moust complex game system.

 FrozenDwarf wrote:
That bible of a rulebook is what keeps me from taking a swing at this skirmish game.

If they made a very, very stripped down version that is basicly just dice rolling like what say Warmachine is, i would be all over that version.
They make some of the best minis in the marked and i have bought several just cuz i realy wanted to paint them, but is amongst the moust complex game system.

The game wouldn't work if it had a more traditional turn structure. It would be far far too random.

I suggest just playing out of the operation/beyond boxes if you want a simplified version. The armies in them are all pretty well balanced against one another and do a good job slimming the game down to its essentials. I carry my Icestorm with me all the time just because there's players that are happy with the game at that point.

 FrozenDwarf wrote:
That bible of a rulebook is what keeps me from taking a swing at this skirmish game.

If they made a very, very stripped down version that is basicly just dice rolling like what say Warmachine is, i would be all over that version.
They make some of the best minis in the marked and i have bought several just cuz i realy wanted to paint them, but is amongst the moust complex game system.

They announced that they are coming out with a stripped down version of the game at the same time that N4 comes out, just last month. It will be called Infinity: Code One.

https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threads/infinity-code-one.35397/

I'm really interested in Code One; I've just started getting into Infinity and my current impression is that the rules need to be cleaned up a bit (or at least I would have an easier time with the game if the rules were more streamlined).

I feel like there's a lot of rules that do quite similar things with only minor differences; I'm not saying that's inherently a bad thing, but I believe a simplified version would be easier to pick up for new players such a myself.

 Soul Samurai wrote:
I'm really interested in Code One; I've just started getting into Infinity and my current impression is that the rules need to be cleaned up a bit (or at least I would have an easier time with the game if the rules were more streamlined).

I feel like there's a lot of rules that do quite similar things with only minor differences; I'm not saying that's inherently a bad thing, but I believe a simplified version would be easier to pick up for new players such a myself.

That's definitely an issue. The other big one is nested rules. Part of the text of Martial Arts is that it also grants stealth and courage (and technically surprise attack, though that doesn't do anything on its own so why I have no idea).

It is something I find to be less of an issue on the table than I do off though. Part of that is MayaNet, but part of it is just that models don't really have that many unique rules, so once you have a core list its pretty easy to add a new model with new rules and just focus on what it does. It's part of the reason I'm a big proponent of the Operation/Beyond list. Those things are pretty straightforward and once that had given me an idea how the game worked, it was pretty easy to swap in a model or two and focus on learning them.

 LunarSol wrote:
The other big one is nested rules.

Yeah, nested rules... annoy me a little bit. At least when used excessively. I'm not saying that it's wrong to have nested rules, it makes a lot of sense in some cases that having one rules automatically gives you another, but it's a little annoying for a beginner like me when you try to read a rule and it ends up linking to several others, and of course the fact that a model which has, say, three rules on it's profile actually has maybe six or seven rules. It's just a steeper barrier to entry.

I'm glad to hear you say that it isn't a big problem in practice though. That encourages me to stick with it. Still, looking forwards to seeing how the streamlined version turns out.

It's a big problem in practice, not during each individual game, but every time you run a unit, or against a unit with nested rules. A simpler solution was to just link rules, as in Rule A+(Rule B and Rule C). The forgotten rules and lookup time adds up.

Let's not forget rules listed with levels implying different strengths of a single core rule, but are actually often completely different and mutually exclusive rules per level.

Then, everything being written like a programming function sounds and looks good on paper, but is kind of terrible in practice.

I'm hopeful they know what they did wrong, and some of the stuff I'm seeing in Defiance indicates they can write more concise rules.

Has been for quite some time.

They've continually insisted "they need to tone things down because of SKU bloat!!!!"...and then promptly make product decisions, while claiming it's "for the customer"(it's not--selling us 3-4 blisters at $12 each MSRP vs a box of 4 with alternate options at $50 is for them, not us), that go against that need.

The insistence of making these "sidegames" a big focus, the continued insistence of "campaigns!", etc have all made it very clear to me that CB is all about that cash now.

Or... you know, the game might just about as big as it can reasonably get and they're working to diversify.

Or... the general state of distribution is such that bundles sell and singles don't.

Or... honestly, I just don't know what to tell you Kan. You're going to find the worst view of any situation, but I probably spend less on Infinity than any other game. If they're trying to bleed me dry, they're wildly incompetent at it.

Huh. Didn't know I had to justify my responses as to why I've lost interest in Infinity. Weird.

But seriously, you do get that arguing "the general state of distribution is such that bundles sell and singles don't" while CB is continually pushing out singles is...questionable at best, right?
And that just because they're not "bleeding you dry" doesn't mean that they're not doing things that are consumer unfriendly?

People have always loved to champion Infinity as a "cheaper alternative to GW", which is cool and all...but I really feel like it's a misrepresentation these days. You might not drop as much cash up front but you're not exactly going to be getting games left and right, you're running the risk of your army being invalidated at the end of a season or when a book drops, and frankly you're going to either have to do split boxes(which I LOATHE that it is a necessity when they could suck up the minor cost it would take to provide alternative arms and the like) or have spares of profiles you're never going to use to get the ones you will use because as much as people love to chant that line of "It's not your list, it's you" it ain't true.

 Vertrucio wrote:
Let's not forget rules listed with levels implying different strengths of a single core rule, but are actually often completely different and mutually exclusive rules per level.

Yeah, that one is a real head-scratcher.

My interest is picking up. Mostly because of Defiance. I've already pledged to get the core game and Outcast.

The game itself can be a bit overwhelming, so I don't play it all year long. But I tend to buy new minis when they come out, no matter what faction, if I like them.

Also, I may start playing the RPG soon.

...I do wish we'd get new Myrmidon models. We had an idea to start playing a group of Myrmidons that were 'damaged' and became tropes (80's action movie protagonist, long-winded conquering leader, obnoxious rebel grrrl, etc.)

 Kanluwen wrote:
Huh. Didn't know I had to justify my responses as to why I've lost interest in Infinity. Weird.

But seriously, you do get that arguing "the general state of distribution is such that bundles sell and singles don't" while CB is continually pushing out singles is...questionable at best, right?
And that just because they're not "bleeding you dry" doesn't mean that they're not doing things that are consumer unfriendly?

People have always loved to champion Infinity as a "cheaper alternative to GW", which is cool and all...but I really feel like it's a misrepresentation these days. You might not drop as much cash up front but you're not exactly going to be getting games left and right, you're running the risk of your army being invalidated at the end of a season or when a book drops, and frankly you're going to either have to do split boxes(which I LOATHE that it is a necessity when they could suck up the minor cost it would take to provide alternative arms and the like) or have spares of profiles you're never going to use to get the ones you will use because as much as people love to chant that line of "It's not your list, it's you" it ain't true.

You spend far more time making sure there's a downside to absolutely everything CB does than I do paying attention to what they do at all. I'm just suggesting you move on is all.

I did misunderstand that you were complaining about releasing singles instead of bundles though, so that's my bad. I just hadn't seen a ton of singles outside of characters lately, but I also stick pretty close to Nomads these days.

I don't really compare the game to GW very often. They're very different companies. I suppose it competes in my head space with Kill Team, but I think Infinity does that style of game a lot better in the same way I don't try to do huge army games with CBs stuff. I get in a lot more games of Infinity than GW stuff, but that's mostly because I like the game better. The point though, is CB is just another company selling another game. They're really not doing anything you don't see in every other system. PP only sells max units so you end up with stuff you don't want if you want two mins. Wyrd sells things in boxes of 3 even if you want 1. GW offers unique characters in box sets you have to split. Legion has a model for every special weapon even though can only use (and only want) one. Every SKU config has pitfalls that don't line up with exactly what players want to run. You just take CBs gaps very very personally. I get why, we've talked about it, but its not worth being a dedicated fixture of negativity. You're a nice guy and I appreciate your opinion, but when it comes to any thread with Infinity in it, your view is so vindictive its hard to not dismiss as trolling at this point.

The only downside to playing infinity is the amount of time I have to spend setting up the terrain ( I do love a nice looking table). I have an entire part of my terrain cabinet dedicated to just infinity

so I can make stuff look like this




of course that and the fact I also in addition to infinity play
.classic battletech
.dust
.epic 40
.battlefleet gothic
.victory at sea
.40K
.30k
.B5 wars
.warmachine

you're running the risk of your army being invalidated at the end of a season or when a book drops

that only applies in tourneys. in a FLGS setting nobody is forcing you to play a game a certain way (hell I still get 5th ed 40K games in from time to time).
my buddy still runs his haramaki sectorial list, I also still have and run all my original haqqislam lists. some of the rules may be tweeked (I am glaring at you suppression fire...used to be so good, now I never use it) a bit but the armies still play fine.

That bible of a rulebook is what keeps me from taking a swing at this skirmish game.

If they made a very, very stripped down version that is basicly just dice rolling like what say Warmachine is, i would be all over that version.
They make some of the best minis in the marked and i have bought several just cuz i realy wanted to paint them, but is amongst the moust complex game system.

They do, it's called DUST 1947 - I love it game mechanic wise better than 40K (the models are fantastic to boot). it has some of the speed of 40K mixed with many of the core components of infinity-every model gets 2 actions that can be combined. there is a chance to react (limited by range), there is healing, repairing and re-arming. you also can't get alpha striked (something 40K has become notorious for) since it is alternating activation on a unit by unit basis.

Also terrain setup is a bit more like 40K since it uses an area terrain mechanic similar to 3rd edition 40k for ruins/trees etc..

Not Infinity specifically, my interest in gaming in general has waned quite a bit due to inter-gamestore drama.

We went from a group of 8~12 regular players every single week at the FLGS 6 miles from home, to scheduling games ahead of time at any of 3 different shops between 40 and 60 miles from home. To be fair, the new main FLGS that is 40 miles away is a VASTLY superior shop with much friendlier and supportive staff, but it's much smaller and it's 40 effing miles away :/

It's on hold. The wait for Code One, N4, and now Defiance has seen to that. Interest will go up if Code One lives up to the idea of a nice stream-lined ruleset.

I lost interest the moment I played.
It wasn't like playing a game at all.

 ValentineGames wrote:
I lost interest the moment I played.
It wasn't like playing a game at all.

What was it like? Baking a cake?

ValentineGames wrote:I lost interest the moment I played.
It wasn't like playing a game at all.

I am sincerely curious about this. A game as opposed to what?

No, it really wasn't like playing a game at all, for a very limited definition of the concept of 'playing a game', which is rolling a large number of d6s and removing equally large numbers of grotesquely scaled plastic game pieces from a table upon which is a smattering of gray gothic ruins. During this process of 'playing a game', Eating pretzels and drinking beer is optional, but highly recommended.

Also, a Nazi soldier as your avatar? Bad form, old chap, bad form, I say.

 Red Harvest wrote:
Also, a Nazi soldier as your avatar? Bad form, old chap, bad form, I say.

Surely it is worse form, in a wargaming forum, to not recognize General Rommel - the Desert Fox, himself. Calling him a "Nazi soldier" is technically correct, but only technically.

Surely it is not. I recognized the photo. If there is a swastika on the uniform, then there is a Nazi in the uniform. Or, even better, if you kill others, or cause them to be killed, to support a cause, you are a part of that cause. And I can go on. There's nothing "technically" about it. He supported, willingly, through his actions, the Nazis, even if he did not believe in the entire Nazi credo.

 Sqorgar wrote:
Surely it is worse form, in a wargaming forum, to not recognize General Rommel - the Desert Fox, himself. Calling him a "Nazi soldier" is technically correct, but only technically.

Rommel was a Field Marshal, not a General ,BTW. Is it bad form to get his rank incorrect?

 Red Harvest wrote:
Surely it is not. I recognized the photo. If there is a swastika on the uniform, then there is a Nazi in the uniform. Or, even better, if you kill others, or cause them to be killed, to support a cause, you are a part of that cause. And I can go on. There's nothing "technically" about it. He supported, willingly, through his actions, the Nazis, even if he did not believe in the entire Nazi credo.

I hope you are good with painting your miniatures, because it must offend you to your very core to look out on a field of unpainted models and be confronted with all that gray area.

Rommel was a Field Marshal, not a General ,BTW. Is it bad form to get his rank incorrect?

I'd always heard him referred to as General, such as:

Erwin Rommel is remembered today as one of the “good Nazis” who tried to kill Adolf Hitler. The short version of the General’s history is that he became so appalled with the barbarity of the Third Reich that he turned against the Führer himself.

But, just to make sure, I double checked. He was a Generalfeldmarschall. "The term general is used in two ways: as the generic title for all grades of general officer and as a specific rank." and "the ranks of German generals were established in four grades, beginning with Generalmajor, followed by Generalleutnant, General and Generalfeldmarschall." So, it seems we are both right. He was a general, and his rank was Generalfeldmarschall - or at least it was when he was forced to commit suicide after a failed coup/assassination of Hitler... which is honestly, a terrible way to support, willingly, through his actions, the Nazis.

But this one-upmanship is off topic and irrelevant. Trying to shame someone for their avatar is super lame.

 DarkBlack wrote:

ValentineGames wrote:I lost interest the moment I played.
It wasn't like playing a game at all.

I am sincerely curious about this. A game as opposed to what?

It feels too serious. And the fanbase takes it too seriously.
You have to keep up with and keep track of too much.
You make 1 tiny mistake and you've pretty much thrown the game.
It feels like playing a chore not playing a game.
It's not relaxing. And not exciting.

 Red Harvest wrote:
Also, a Nazi soldier as your avatar? Bad form, old chap, bad form, I say.

*eye rolls of dismissal intensify*

 ValentineGames wrote:

 DarkBlack wrote:

ValentineGames wrote:I lost interest the moment I played.
It wasn't like playing a game at all.

I am sincerely curious about this. A game as opposed to what?

It feels too serious. And the fanbase takes it too seriously.
You have to keep up with and keep track of too much.
You make 1 tiny mistake and you've pretty much thrown the game.
It feels like playing a chore not playing a game.
It's not relaxing. And not exciting.

 Red Harvest wrote:
Also, a Nazi soldier as your avatar? Bad form, old chap, bad form, I say.

*eye rolls of dismissal intensify*

I respect that feeling, I felt it myself when I tried to play WMH a few years back, but I didn't get that impression from trying out Infinity.

Sure, there are more stats to track than in AOS/40k (whatta ya know, it's a skirmish game, not a mass battle game) but there is (IMO at least) a free, well laid out app that does a good job of helping you keep track of what your dudes do, and most armies in the game use some variation on the same basic weapon list.

And as for being unforgiving, I'm also not really sure what you mean there. Every model in infinity goes into a healable "Unconscious" state before dying, and you can bring them back to life with docs/engineers, and you also have nearly as much chance to kill things on your opponent's turn as on your own. One of the big things I liked about it was how forgiving it was compared to 40k, where on a bad turn you can scoop half your army off the table. You can have backup lieutenants, healers, defensive hackers to un-hack your robot troops, suppressive fire units to combat enemy deep strikers/infiltrators...I've only played 3 full size games at this point but it seems like there is a LOT of stuff going on defensively.

A bad, powergamey community can definitely tank any game experience for anybody (I rolled up to my local WMH group after painting my army and found a half dozen people playing with flat felt terrain and miniatures they weren't even willing to glue together because it would mean not being allowed to swap the loadouts, let alone paint) but structure-wise I have to disagree. I think I've found my preferred skirmish-level pickup game in Infinity, for when I don't have the time or people to commit to a campaign of necromunda.

Maybe there's also something to be said for that great skirmish game feeling of buying a starter box for 40 bucks and realizing you have just purchased half of a full army pointswise.

It's important to remember that while there's no premeasuring; players are expected to work with one another to determine where LOS applies. If your opponent is trying to win on the gotcha ARO from regular troops (cloaked is another story), it can feel unforgiving, but that's why the game stresses that you are able to ask what has LOS from a specific point. "What can see me here?" is a valid question during any action.

Lost interest a while ago. Between massive rules bloat, power creep, completely changing my faction and making it more complicated but not any more powerful (so the skill floor went up but didn't affect the median or the ceiling...), my local group, playing EXCLUSIVELY special operation missions when my faction is literally based around being good at direct ops and bad at special ops, the game revolving around taking 16+ models (or orders, if you're Yu Jing, and can take 15 orders in a 10 model list...), crits meaning spamming cheap bodies is the way to win, and TAGs being terrible... there was nothing to keep me going.

funny I find the horde lists to be not very good. I always go for the max 10 in a single squad. the only list with an extra order in the pool is my standard HAQQ list because it has saladin in it.

otherwise I follow a pretty straight forward approach-3 heavy weapons, and at least 1 of each- engineer, doctor, hacker. I have the main general list and 3 link teams lists based around djanbazan, muyibs, and lasiqs.

I may not always win but the approach is proven to be a pretty solid. mix of hitting power, support, and actions.


The one thing I dislike about the current edition is making suppression fire pretty worthless. I prefer to play with the original MK1 rules for it.


I think they have overdone it with all the various hacking devices and programs as an example EVOs used to just aid the hacker now they have their own list of abilities.