It's pretty cool. New universe book that builds a bit on the core rules. Factions are all generic enough that you can use a good spread of models (I'm using my elves from WFB and can use them as great kingdoms, lords of the wild or the horde depending on which units I take). The battleboard are a bit slimmer in abilities than historical Saga but that makes room for the lores of magic you have available. Each faction has access to two lores of magic, there's no WFB thing of slinging a super spell and winning on T1, it's a lot more subtle and support focussed as you'd imagine
Gah! I know, I know! ... this week, my miniatures backlog grew by some 50 Stormcast Eternals minis for AoS... BTW. You know, I actually am finding it easier to get myself to assemble AoS stuff than Infinity stuff. Part of the reason is that I feel somewhat intimidated by Infinity minis. So pretty - and so difficult to assemble at times... Every one of them seems to be a challenge... Interesting, I haven't heard of that one. Thanks! I admit I don't like math, but I have a friend who is a math professor at a university. I guess I could ask him for help when needed :) Something I'm wondering about: are game rules protected by intellectual property laws? Could you get in trouble for adapting some game's specific mechanics for your own stuff? For example, let's say you take the idea of Infinity's ARO mechanics and use something similar in your game. Would CB go after you for stealing their idea? (not that I'm planning on stealing rules from CB! Just wondering how such things work...)
Nope, the terminology can be copyrighted but the mechanics can not, Wizards of the Coast tried to copyright Magic the Gathering's mechanics quite a while ago which set a precedent of "No, no you may not". So you cant have "Automatic Reaction Orders" in your game, but you could have "Response Actions" that work in a suspiciously similar way.
Copyright is a thorny mess, with different rules in different regions, and more than one company trying to over-reach what is allowed. That being said, If your building for you and your mates, there is an almost zero chance anyone is going to come after you. Now if you plan to sell the fruits of your labor, you might want to consult with someone who knows a little more about your local laws.
I remember that, they tried to claim they owned the idea of turning a card 90 degrees to the side, to denote a game state. Ridiculous.
I find I'm always much more eager to assemble and paint minis when it's not a generic faction unit. If it's a character I made, I actively want to paint it.
He may tell you he doesn't know the right kind of math. My Dad is a Math PhD, he looked at me cross-eyed when I described Infinity's dice mechanics, trying to come up with an actual formula for probability. The Infinity Dice Calculator brute-forces it, running something like 10,000 individual trials to give a reasonably close approximation. Computers are good for that kind of work. No, game mechanics are not copyrightable. Or patentable, even. Fluff can be/should be/is copyrighted. It's why CB has never released PDFs of their fluff, but even in N1 released the rules for free.
Oh, most definitely, I agree! It's just that GW's minis are, objectively speaking, easier to assemble. No fiddly poses with two hands on the same gun etc. The Icestorm Grenzer especially traumatized me - I managed to assemble him only on my third attempt! My biggest problem with probabilities is this: alright, I can come up mechanics that would give me this or that probability spread... but how do I choose which of these spreads is the appropriate one? How do I decide if the values should have the same probablity of coming up, or if there should be some probability curve? And how do I decide things like, say, whether an average soldier shooting at a target should have 50% of success, or 25%? Not at all? I really can't imagine another company importing Infinity's rules for their own game... I imagine you cannot copyright specifics mechanics like ARO etc., but if you lift the whole "engine" and put into your own product, it surely crosses some sort of legal limit?
Rules text is copyrightable, not the rules themselves. So if you copy everything verbatim, you'll be in trouble. Switch some words around, change the sentence order and you're golden.
OK, that's more in game designer than in probability. Double-check the medieval Arthurian fantasy RPG 'Pendragon'. I'm pretty sure most of Infinity is the same mechanics!
That was actually my first painted mini ever! Two hands on the gun can be fidly to assemble, but I like the resulting pose. Makes it more action-like. GW minis, espeially space marines, are very generic looking, all having the same pose.
I'd like to learn how to make such design decisions.... Really? The old Pendragon game? That I didn't expect... Oh, I agree. It's just that, when I set up to glue the GW minis, I don't have this sinking feeling of "How many hours will I spend glueing it? What if I won't be able to do this at all?". True, some GW minis can be tricky in some respects (those glue-on heads, ugh), but my attempts at assembling Infinity minis occassionally ended with tears. Literally...
Well that gets a little more into the 'art' of design. The best way to learn that is to try, test with friends, fail (comically), learn from your mistakes, and reiterate. Couple pieces of advice. When playing a game, something happening is always more interesting than something not happening. You want few rolls where nothing happens at all. Look at infinity, with both players usually shooting, something is going to happen, somebody is going to get hit. Then their are armor rolls, and guts rolls that happen afterwards, miniatures complete their movements to safety etc. While the net result might be no change, both players feel like 'something' happened. But even there, you don't want the 'no change' state to be normal. Models need to be wounded, removed, moved, debuffed, buffed or something. Nothing happening at all is boring. I would advise starting with a 75% chance of game states changing during the course of an action, test from there and adjust according to taste. This of course can be modified by other factors. If your throwing 20 dice at a time, it doesn't matter if less than half of them are 'hits' as long as some 'hits' occur. Most models in infinity have about a 95% chance to score a hit in the active turn with their preferred range bands, of course this is modified by the opposed roll of the ARO, and many other factors. Bell Curve or linear probability distributions: Bell curves are nice if you want decreasing return on investments. Like RPG's where you want to get a player hooked with rapid changes and improvements to their character, but such rapid improvements are not sustainable, so you slow them down over time, each new improvement costs more and more. Bell curves are nice, and can feel somewhat 'realistic' but they take more care to balance properly, and usually restrict the design space more. Linear probability distributions are easier to understand and design, and can give more design space. They can however feel more swingy, which is not always a problem, it just needs to be accounted for. If you want over-the top crazy action, I would go with linear distributions, If you want something that feels gritty and technical, use Bell curves. Infinity is complicated, because it takes two (or more) linear distributions and then compares them to each other. I model out some probability charts with anydice.com before, but I lost interest and moved to another project and forgot the results.
I would look up some game design theory videos on youtube. A lot of it has to do with video games but the psychological aspects do not differ overly much.