Hello, my fellow Infinity players, I have been wondering how do each of you feel about the new ITS rule that limits us to a maximum of 15 units per army. I personally dislike the rule and see it as a huge step back from N3, despite the fact I usually bring 14-16 units in N3, but I know a lot of other players liked to work with 18+ units. Let me know if you like or dislike the new rule, I was originally planning to compare N4 to N3 after I get the book and read it few times to get an understanding of all the rules but this particular rule bugs me way too much to and I couldn't wait.
@the huanglong did you intentionally spell Warband like that, or was it some weird autocorrect fail? Because if it’s intentional, it’s in exceptionally poor taste.
There's so many things changing it'll be a while before we know how it plays out, but I like the change as a starting point. Are there other interesting possible solutions? Sure, this forum is full of them. But this is really easy to implement, and has been playtested with tactical window for a year.
The solution is absolutely craptastic. If the players are spending points in a way that results in unintended gameplay, they should be incentivized to spend them in the intended way. Cheaper HI / TAGs? The N4/C1 ARM buff was one of the ways. Making irregular / impet warbands unable to flip to Regular with a Command Token would be an option. Taking away the profiles that make cheap low-BS warbands completely ignore the reason why they are so cheap - like template profiles or no-LOS weapons (jammers). Something, but not "OK, so you have warbands, but you can't physically fit them in a list without gimping yourself with other overpriced profiles". Used twice, third use spelled correctly, not corrected in self-quote - I guess we know the answer.
Unless I missed some 2020 PC development it seems pretty generic to me. I say more offensive things while taking a dump on the toilet.
You don't seem to have good taste either and using the example you just did only proves the case. It's not a matter of political correctness, ya dolt. You simply lack basic Kinderstube to understand why he shouldn't have said that.
I do disagree here. You need a Command Token to do that, meaning you can do it at most 4 times per game. 5, if you have fielded one of those rare and powerful Lt. choices who bring an extra Command Token (if memory serves me, only Sun Tzu can do it in N3). And that's only if you forgo using your command tokens at anything else. This was not an option back in 2ed (because there were no Command Tokens at all back then!), and yet lists with ~20 Orders did exist and were a pain to deal with. As were Impetous Irregular Warbands.
I have to disagree there, as someone who has a very wide ranging and extensive vocabulary when it comes to profanities I'd have to argue I'm somewhat of an expert in the field when it comes to judging this.
Hey, you can't go and derail a thread with off topic discussion and then just page the fun police within 5 minutes that's just not cricket.
i don't understand how one can see this rule as "better" or "worse". it's just different. adapt and overcome. stop being a baby.
Guys, I love some of the solutions but can we keep the fighting to a minimum and keep the ideas and opinions on the topic if we could.
I like the change. As someone who usually plays one combat group, I've found that I can play 14-16 orders fine, but 18-20 consistently overwelms me. I just can't build the defenses in my lists to hold off 2-3 rambos in the first turn, and always end up with <5 orders left bottom of the first.
Exactly. It's really easy to implement, really easy to understand, really easy to modify or tweak, and by virtue of its simplicity has far less chance of unintended negative consequences. Many of the more "elegant" solutions have such complexity that (speaking rhetorically, not literally) they make substantial negative consequences a certainty, rather than a possibility.
I really like the change. Yeah fixing point cost would have been the best solution, but I can understand that a total revision of unit point cost could be a huge work. 15 unit max are still a lot and still make a difference in list building, I think that can be the best way to balance between the fact that Order in infinity is king and having MI/HI on the field.
I think this solution is broadly reasonable - it sets a clearer expectation of where they want the game to be, while still leaving list composition options open, and giving options to groups that want to run alternate formats for events. As mentioned in another thread, my preferred approach would have been to increase the base cost for bodies/orders - for example, a flat +5 point increase for every profile in the game. This massively increases the cost of cheap orders, reflecting the value that simply having bodies on the game board brings, while not significantly inflating the cost of top tier models. Just dropping the cost for "elite" units doesn't actually do anything to reduce model counts, as it just allows a 20 model army to include better high end strikers. You have to fundamentally change the unit costing that allows 20 model armies to exist in the first place.
Sorry, but to treat symptoms and not the cause is always bad. N4 isn't released and has already failed one of my biggest hopes, a fair pricing of equipment and abilities. Yes, it is a huge task to make these point adjustments, but it's the only way to keep Infinity as a balanced and fun game. I'll see what N4 will bring for good changes but atm I don't see anyone. 15 order is exactly the same way unpleasant as it is LI.
I see a lot of variations on this theme. Any overhaul to the point system though would change the balance of the game in various unpredictable (and unintended) ways. The assumption that we would end up somewhere significantly better than where we are is... optimistic. The game balance now isn't perfect, but they are addressing a lot in one step with N4. Adding a complete revaluation of costing to that will not make anyone happier, and has the opportunity to break more than it fixes.
