1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Is the game getting too complex?

Discussion in 'Access Guide to the Human Sphere' started by Space Ranger, Oct 30, 2018.

  1. DFW Ike

    DFW Ike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2018
    Messages:
    148
    Likes Received:
    218
    Why not just make guard +1 B in CC, then just give the troop Martial Arts if they need additional modifiers for CC?
    Same with Protheon: just make it a CC Weapon that hits BTS and gives you wounds back: you can then tweak whatever CC bonuses CB needs to give the model with MA.
     
    coleslaw likes this.
  2. DFW Ike

    DFW Ike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2018
    Messages:
    148
    Likes Received:
    218
    I heard that CB got rid of their technical writer for the rules Q12018.
     
    Hecaton likes this.
  3. dlfleetw

    dlfleetw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    305
    Likes Received:
    326
    There are at least two credited, so which one?
     
  4. ijw

    ijw Ian Wood aka the Wargaming Trader. Rules & Wiki
    Infinity Rules Staff Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,331
    Likes Received:
    14,817
    I'd love to know more about that, given that it's effectively me. :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:
     
    ev0k, chromedog, coleslaw and 6 others like this.
  5. Mruczyslaw

    Mruczyslaw AROnaut

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    898
    Likes Received:
    884
    Really? That would explain a lot, since I was quite ok with rules written between HS and 2018. 3rd Offensive is technical nightmare.
     
  6. ijw

    ijw Ian Wood aka the Wargaming Trader. Rules & Wiki
    Infinity Rules Staff Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,331
    Likes Received:
    14,817
    In case my sarcastic reply wasn't clear enough, there have been no changes in who write the rules or edits the rules. I have no idea where DFW Ike heard this, but it's simply not true.
     
  7. Wolf

    Wolf https://youtube.com/@StudioWatchwolf

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2017
    Messages:
    835
    Likes Received:
    969
    I'm aware that you conceived some of the Fireteam rules, but can you tell us what actual technical writing you've provided for the ruleset, please IJW? Credit where credit's due.

    I'm sure many others would also be interested to know if you have any leeway when updating the wiki. For example, can you create your own copy, which we'd naturally expect to be a lot better than whatever might be provided from the Spanish rules team?
     
    #347 Wolf, Dec 19, 2018
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2018
  8. antox717

    antox717 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2018
    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    24
    Just adding my two cents here. I've always liked mech deployment. If I remember well, Acontencimento had lots of those and it was "fluffious" to imagine a landing craft/vehicle/flyer dropping units onto the battlefield. Also, having an army deploy models cluttered together (for MD rules) was a very characterizing element and a nice tactical issue.

    Yes, I'd say that from n2 to n3 what we have lost, more or less, are the "characterizing weak points" of the various factions. There are still holes, but I remember them to be... bigger, more evident and eterogenous. And there was fun in it. (I'm sorry for my engrish)

    Addition :P So i'm all ok for streamlined rules. But also "exotic" rules, if used with criteria, can add a lot to faction flavours
     
  9. DFW Ike

    DFW Ike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2018
    Messages:
    148
    Likes Received:
    218
    Wasn't Jeremy a technical editor too, who had some disagreements with some guy before getting moved to just translating the fluff? I always assumed "some guy" was you, since you tend to ... uhhh... make your opinions known.

    I went and looked at the books and apparently Jeremy is in the credits for all of them including the most recent. But maybe Jeremy working on the rules was just a rumor and there was never a USA representative on the rules editing team ever. If its really just you working on the rules, we (collectively) need to give someone at CB a hard time since its definitely something you need a sounding board for.
     
  10. meikyoushisui

    meikyoushisui Competitor for Most Ignored User

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2017
    Messages:
    1,803
    Likes Received:
    2,804
    Damage penalty to the opponent could be interesting. We already have MA levels that give DAM bonuses, guard could just -3/-6/-9 DAM to the oppponent. Doesn't matter if you hit them if you can't actually hurt them.

    All of the MA rules should just be merged as three tables in one rule.

    Acon just had the Montesa and Peacemaker.

    I think MRRF has a couple of mech dep units though. (Edit: I'm wrong, it's just Zouaves.)
     
    #350 meikyoushisui, Dec 19, 2018
    Last edited: Dec 19, 2018
    Wolf and Mruczyslaw like this.
  11. SmaggTheSmug

    SmaggTheSmug Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2018
    Messages:
    497
    Likes Received:
    753
    I have been reading a few different rulebooks to find a quick secondary game (mostly small model count medieval/fantasy ones, like Frostgrave, SAGA, Badgers & Burrows etc) which gave me a different perspective on Infinity.

    Infinity's ruleset is definitely better than 40k most of us come from due to more decisions and fewer pointless dice rolls (I analyzed a typical situation in Shadow War, where it would be like 5 or 6 dice rolls to kill a single guy – but you're not even allowed to choose the target). However there is definitely a rules bloat and some rules that copy each other should be axed or merged, as already suggested in this thread. Mech deployment, Forward deployment and Infiltration are all just ways to deploy models outside DZ; maybe all Mech Deploy units should retroactively just get FD2? I think most people could stomach losing 4 inches here.

    There's certainly too many hacking programs that do the same thing. Gotcha!, Carbonite and Basilisk all do the same thing effectively: put the target in Imm-1 state. I know CB intended those to be sidegrades, but what would be wrong in making just Basilisk-1 for the Imm-1 hack and Basilisk-2 a straight upgrade for it, one for HD and the other for AHD/HD+? There's usually one program that's simply mathematically better than the other ones at all times anyway. Redrum on KHD is a good example of that. It would make it much easier to remember and there would be no need to double programs between HDs and AHDs (one would get Basilisk-1 and the other Basilisk-2 since there would be no point in using B-1 with it).

    Making Atalanta's bunny into a Tinbot was a good thing. Similarly Guard could just be G: Sync with MA/NBW on the doggie, and while that would throw Voronin out of the link, I think it would be easier to stick to one type of rule.

    It's not like these things haven't happened before. Above mentioned Atalanta's bunny becoming a TinBot is one example, Blinded getting rolled into Stunned is another.

    Also there's many rules and rule combos that seem underutilized. Only now we're getting Jammers that aren't on Ghazi or HI bikers. But we also have only one AI bike and Decoy unit so far.

    Also I think CB went a little too far with mixed links and wildcards. IMO Wildcard should have been reserved to named characters or AVA1 units, not appear on stuff like Kamau. The rule that one unit may count as another giving rise to the Teuton fireteam without Teutons or the headache that is Securitate/Grenzer fireteams in Tunguska wasn't needed either. What is the point of having Grenzers count as Securitate if they have their own Core anyway? Just say one Grenzer can join a Securitate fireteam or the other way around and be done with it.

    Ban on premeasuring needs to go
     
    Wolf, Berjiz, Kahlain and 7 others like this.
  12. antox717

    antox717 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2018
    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    24
    Yes, but has no infiltrators (nagas are not acon :P )

    Agree wildcards seem to be a bit out of hand. Mixed link are a real necessity though. They make viable links with really expensive units that would see a lot of less time-table. Wish mobile brigatas had some sort of mixed in my corregidor (corregidor and druze player...love mercenaries ;) )
     
    meikyoushisui likes this.
  13. meikyoushisui

    meikyoushisui Competitor for Most Ignored User

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2017
    Messages:
    1,803
    Likes Received:
    2,804
    This so much. Vanilla has been stronger than sectorial for ages, except maybe ISS who already has a few decent mixed link options. The best way to even this out is to buff the sectorial specific benefits. Short of changing the Fireteam bonuses, making Fireteams more flexible and more effective for less cost accomplishes this.

    I'm also a huge fan of sectorial specific profiles and sectorials getting access to units not in vanilla (like the JSA mercs and the Aleph in PanO sectorials.)
     
  14. Abrilete

    Abrilete Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    2,490
    Likes Received:
    3,387

    I was just about to give you a like, but... premeasuring?
    Hell, no.
     
    ev0k, chromedog, Smiler and 1 other person like this.
  15. RogueJello

    RogueJello Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    436
    It would definitely simplify a lot of the "quantum" questions, since you could just check ZoC on the fly.
     
  16. Abrilete

    Abrilete Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    2,490
    Likes Received:
    3,387
    And would add a lot of time spent measuring from every point to every point of the table trying to find optimum deployment based of each weapon range, Activation zones for mines, dispersion of Fireteams to account for Teamplates... The same for every time you have to move.

    So no, please, no premeasuring.
     
  17. Mruczyslaw

    Mruczyslaw AROnaut

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    898
    Likes Received:
    884
    Premesuring kills chocies during game.
    Good game is about making choices.
     
  18. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    12,018
    Likes Received:
    15,302
    Uh. No it doesn't.

    It makes your choices more informed at the expense of removing range estimation as a significantly meaningful skill, but it doesn't change the choices you have. As I see it, that's what it boils down to; do you prefer to make informed decisions* or do you prefer to retain a larger set of player skills as being meaningful. Both are valid stances to take, IMO.

    * That and it also reduces some of the edge-case weirdness inherent in Infinity's rule set.
     
    chaos11, Durandal, Berjiz and 5 others like this.
  19. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    12,018
    Likes Received:
    15,302
    While this is a real concern, it is no different from a person spending significant time eyeing a large amount of LOFs or umming and humming about which trooper to activate or weighing their odds way too thoroughly when deciding which weapon or ammo to use, or any other number of time-wasters that you'll get in games. Just solve it using the same tools as you solve other slow play.
     
    Durandal, BLOODGOD, toadchild and 2 others like this.
  20. ijw

    ijw Ian Wood aka the Wargaming Trader. Rules & Wiki
    Infinity Rules Staff Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,331
    Likes Received:
    14,817
    It's a real concern because it's in addition to those existing issues. It's worse for Infinity than for almost any other tabletop game because of the Order Pool mechanic and the sheer number of possible actions.

    It's worth noting that when Warmachine added premeasuring, they had to dial-back and added very strict limits on how many things you were allowed to keep track of via placed markers/range rules etc.
     
  • About Us

    We are a company founded in 2001 in Cangas (Spain), and devoted to design and manufacture games and figures. Our main product, Infinity the Game, was born with the ambition to satisfy the most demanding audience, offering the best quality.

     

    Why are we here?

     

    Because we are, first and foremost, players.

  • Quick Navigation

    Open the Quick Navigation