On Terrain: I like varied terrain apart from just boxes and barriers on a flat table. It makes for fine urban terrain, but getting into the countryside there should be meaningful amounts of elevation differences, difficult terrain, vegation and/or rubble etc. to satisfy my sense of immersion. Trees and wetlands is easy enough to model; Here's an example table: The area around the trees is terrain(jungle) - difficult ground, saturation and vis-3. The actual trees are treated as obstacles, bloking LOS and providing cover when in base contact (this works better with pines than with "normal" trees). The stream, small lakes and patches of bog are all terrain(aquatic) - difficult, no saturation, provides cover when in the terrain. Significant areas of saturation will definitely shape the game - B2 AROs are much less powerful, for instance, making fireteams less relevant. Significant areas of visibility mods will advantage MSV units over non-MSV. Significant areas of difficult terrain will advantage troopers with that terrain type, as well as make AD skills more relevant. This of course means that some armies or lists will benefit from a given table, while others will be disadvantaged, which is not great at tournament-style games. For home games, I'd make sure that both players had an idea of the terrain before they construct their lists - this makes sense to me from a narrative perspective, if you know you're fighting on a space station, you send troopers with zero-g skills if you can; Likewise, if you're fighting at night or in a jungle, you provide as many troopers as possible with MSVs. For tournament games, I think a mechanism for allowing the players to put down a piece of advantageous terrain (on the supposedly somewhat terrain-neutral table) pre deployment is a good compromise - you get relevant terrain, in limited amounts, at tactically interesting positions, and neither side has a pre-game advantage from terrain, generally.
Seems to be the problem I call "legacy data". We are all used to the old rules - N4, N3, in some cases N2 or even all the way back to N1 - and not only we find it it difficult to learn new ones, but also the old ones keep popping up in our heads. Crits worked a specific way the whole N4. I don't really know yet, how are they about to look like in N5 (especially in terms of "crit overflow"), but yeah, I expect learning this (and unlearning the odl way of doing it. Same with ARM / BTS roll, which worked one way since N1, and is about to change) will be a chore. Especially for people who have been playing this game ofr years - those who come into it in N5 will find that this is how things are. I'm not commenting whether the rule changes are for the better (I hope they are!). Merely the fact of change itself. There's nothing constant in life save for the change. And I was never good at dealing with changes. But that's how things are... So, chin up, and we shall not let this wave sink us, eh? ;)
As it has been reported. nothing radical has changed, instead of adding the excess on the roll you just treat the excess as critical numbers. So CC 24 in the old method would be D20+4 summed total equal to 20 or above are critical minimum normal roll is 5. New method will be roll D20 numbers 1-4 and 20 are critical, minimum normal roll is 5.
yes, but with the old method, every roll is modified by the excess. With the actual system, if i roll a 10 with CC 24, it becomes a 14, in the future, it will remain as a 10. Crit probabilites are the same, but the rest of the rolls got worse.
That's one of my concerns. Giving a little advantage to MSV or AD troop is not bad, usually there are one or two of them in the lists, but negating the fireteams bonuses, that is a core mechaninc. is simply bad. You are negating the reason to exist of the sectorials, fireteams Where is that mat from? It's too colorfull
I'll wait for the rules to officially drop, ok? I'll be trying to wrap my head around the new way of doing things then. I can make my peace with needing to learn to do stuff in a new way, it is just my internal, mental dinosaur ;) that dislikes to do so. I'm not saying the new way is bad (I might have an opinion on that once it comes in here). I'm not saying the old way is good, and needs no improvements. I'm merely saying my internal dinosaur doesn't like to change... ;)
So much doomer posting here, yet when I look at the subreddit, Facebook page, and discord there has been so many "I'm new what do I buy" posts everyday since GenCon. N5 is gonna be a major boom in player pop from what I'm seeing.
I couldn't get my head around the maths of it at first. But it works out identical to current. CC24 as your example you have the same chance of every roll between 5 and 19 as you did before (just now it's the actual roll of 5 - 19 whereas before it would be roll 1 - 15 + the 4). You then have the same number of crit chances. When the actual number of a crit mattered this would have been a negative, but it doesn't anymore.
You didn't answer Savnock simple question. Which game, far better than Infinity N4, are you currently playing? For the rest of your post, once again, you seem to have a tendancy to take your little own non-representative experience and make it a generality. Don't.
Map out the dice results and you'll find that, in actuality, nothing changed. Old system: CC 24 = add 4 to the roll, 20+ is a crit. Roll outcomes: 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, Crit, Crit, Crit, Crit, Crit New system: CC24 = 1-4 and 20 are a crit. Roll outcomes: Crit, Crit, Crit, Crit, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, Crit Both systems give you the numbers 5-19 and 5 crits. Mathematically, nothing changed.
While it is the same with a normal roll, doesn't it affect Face To Face Rolls? Or is that an illusion?
The dice results are exactly the same, just shifted over. You can map the new outcomes to the old outcomes 1-to-1, which means that the list of outcomes (and the probability of those outcomes) is exactly the same. A model with CC 24 has the exact same probabilities of rolling the exact same numbers, which means nothing changed. It's just easier to calculate.
Slightly an illusion, Prior rules: you roll a 10, you added +4 , it became a 14, this was higher so felt better, closer to crit. New rules: you roll a 10, stays a 10. now.. it feels worse but you have to understand the following example: Prior rules: you roll a 2, it became a 6 with +4, not great. New rules: you roll a 2, its a crit. There is a change in the perception of rolls, Face to face rolls in infinity are usually score below the target number but as high as possible in that range. This remains the same in CC, and your CHANCES of landing crits is the same, and since the changes apply to everyone, your CHANCES of doing well in CC are the same as now the low rolls are crits instead of being raised but there is that perception of... I rolled a 6, this is not a crit, this is bad...
Okay, here's why I don't think that is true: Lets say I have CC24 and my opponent CC13. We both roll the dice: I roll a 7, my opponent rolls a 10. In the old system, my CC24 adds 4 to my 7, which turns it into an 11 – I win the face-to-face roll. In the new system, my 7 stays a 7 and my opponent wins. So, while my chances of rolling crits stayed the same, my chances to win the f2f are now lower than before.
So let's take your example CC24 vs CC13 opponent rolls an 11. Currently you win on a 8+ which is a range of 13 which is 65%. New rules you'd win on 1-4 plus 12+ which is a range of 13 numbers so 65%.
Ah. Thanks for explaining it to a math idiot. Then I guess it truly is the same. It just won't feel the same sometimes, but luckily feelings aren't necessarily the same as truth (or math) :D
On the French forum I had noted this possibility in the recap of possible things in 2024. With the story of JSA and its sectorals, it wouldn't be impossible to see a totally Korean sectoral coming out.
