I do want more terrain rule to affect the game because it gives reason for my YJ having Terrain Total or my O-12 ZeroG. But it’s also fun. I agree that the circular special terrain is a pain though. I’d rather it was the whole table. It would be interesting if maybe the player that chooses Deployment can also choose terrain. Sorry but that sounds more like the players fault than the game. I know in my area we want more tournaments but no one wants to organize them. We have Warcors that don't run them too. One guy that does nothing but help organize one big tournament a year and another I have yet to even meet even though he's connected to the store I go to the most. For myself, I would love to do tournaments but due to my bad back I can't play more than one game without pain. But blaming N4 is looking for a scapegoat.
As I said - round terrain templates are a very bad solution, but still the best that we have tried so far ;) I agree - it is fun to have terrain on table. But we have to think about various aspects of that. Repeatability. One group might have certain type of terrain pieces, other might have not. Scalability. How big a "terrain piece" is allowed to be? Or how small? How do we address that without running into the problem above? Portability. Infinity is known to need a lot of terrain pieces - and comments on how difficult it is to pack and carry with oyu a table's worth of terrain are not uncommon. Solving that for an urban-style table, where - when all is said and done - most terrain pieces are hollow rectangular shapes, well, that's manageable. Personally, if I had to squeeze some irregular mountain / jungle / water / desert pieces into my terrain box, I'd be in quite a hot water. Now, Round Template - with all its drawbacks - addresses the above three problems perfectly. Though I'd absolutely love to see what could CB come up with if they put Topo Solitario to work, and made a couple more cardboard terrain sets (think 2gen cardboard terrain, yet this time not buildings, but natural terrain sets: a jungle one, a mountain / ice one, a desert one... I have a slight problem imagining an aquatic one being anything interesting, but hey, someone may have a better imagination, eh? - same with zero-G one). Of course, economic viability of these remains an opne question. Could you elaborate, please? For as of now, that doesn't sound convincing to me.
I guess? None of this really affects other wargames. Use the terrain you have available. As far as how interesting it can be. Having water features like rivers that block off areas means you have to choose how to cross right? We could learn a lot from historical wargaming. Terrain is interesting, varied terrain is interesting. Infinity terrain is boring, it's the same boxes, rarely interiors, and nothing real nifty going on.
The game has generally improved IMO when movement has been made more free. I'd be down with eliminating terrain rules completely in favor of factions or units that should have terrain adaptations having thematic movement skills (winterfor units and climbing plus for example). If terrain rules have to be there I'm a fan of affecting troop types instead of troops without said terrain skill and applying within x inches of a building or objective. For example low grav anomaly or zero g; for anything that weighs below a certain amount (isn't an HI or TAG) it's rough terrain for 4 inches around this console.
No, the official rules are N4, so i have to play N4, like it or not. What do you want asking that? And even if i want to play N3, i cant, because there is not functional army for it anymore. BTW, what armies do you expect to be ready at the start of the new edition? I'll bet every vanilla and only one sectorial for each, probably the newest ones. All old sectorials, OOP and NA2 will arrive later
So if the probabilities stay the same why does it need a change at all? Is adding +x to a dice roll that mentally challenging for players?
All reinforcments are small mini-sectorials in its own. I don´t think we need a Korean sectorial. Then what about Thai, Indonesia, Cambodia etc. I think all have interesting traditonal soldiers in their past. I rather would like to see some dedicated troops, like bikers representing sci-fi mongolians, Thai warriors in temple-guard armour just some more flavor.
So, the one and only game you are currently playing, for years, is Infinity N4. Which you don't like and is, according to you, crap. Yeah, sure, that makes total sense!
If that's already diminishing someone's QOL that person might not be made for Infinity at all IMO that new system breaks with the general concept of "the closer to the final value the better the roll" of all other rolls. And Crits on a 1 still have that bad taste of N3's Fatality Lv.2
To be fair, the illusionary effect of the CC change definitely feels nice. Rolling low on a CC attack with a specialist is a feel bad. Now it will only be middling rolls that will feel disappointing.
I think see a pattern there The good thing is it'll be about the same percentage of feel bad rolls as before Could you elaborate why though? So far out of experience the way CC rolls are processed was never seen as a problem by players, not even the beginners. And most of the ones who quit during N4 were unhappy about the Guided Bots
If it's literally a QoL change and the math doesn't change and you say that players who'd want it shouldn't be playing infinity that's kinda the definition of gatekeeping.
It is a quality of life change, makes the step easier and faster and removes unnecessary math in both cases, both survival saves and critical chance got improved without changing. Also not from me but here is a chart. Credit to whoever made it.
Some other things I'd like to see in N5. Could the Contender become a like semi useful gun? Please? And probably unpopular but I think the Assault Pistol should either be B2 DAM13 or B4 DAM11, it's always seemed ridiculous to me in it's current state.
