Is the 15 unit limit a good design choice?

Of course it doesn't mean that they can't change their minds, but given that people were trying to claim that there was no evidence that the army was 'intended to play that way'?
The evidence is right there from CB themselves.

Which circles back around to "it's goofy that they chose the route that affects only certain factions rather than a blanket change".
Literally, off the top of my head for a better potential concept? Only a certain percentage of your list's points can be composed of Line and/or Garrison Infantry.

I mean, we have these ISC notations. Why not use them for stuff?

 

Exactly. Samples from several years ago, and different design directions since then, just mean they've moved on, and think that new direction is better to keep their game progressing and growing. I mean, now it is more viable to say you only need 10 models, and they've kept the forum saying of "it's not you list, it's you" alive as well.

 

I'd imagine the main default configs for group two may be incredibly simmilar to what they are now, either the ARO group so that way the main orders you lose to your opponent's opening aggression you don't really care about leaving you the most for your own strike elements, or the support group with the doc/engi/sniffer bot/2 or 3 chain smokers (for the armies that can still get away with it), and maybe a hidden piece.

What will be interesting would be if we are stuck with a 10/5 split or if we will be able to mess with it and do stuff like a 8/7, which could allow for less rigid army design, and greater flexibilty in unit selection.

 

They've already confirmed you can split the groups any way you like, so 8/7 and 6/9 are legal options.

 

Maybe it's just interesting to me then, with the Yu Jing silver spoon in my mouth and two full viable attack combat groups.

We know that there's full flexibility in terms of how you allocate your troopers, so 10/5 will only be one option and things like 8/7 are totally fine.

 

It will be interesting if Free Agent is expanded on profiles.

 

Thank you. This gives a much clearer view of your opinion. No, I was not being willfully obtuse, but rather trying to point out that short, aggressive posts do not convey nuanced meaning very well between parties unfamiliar with each other over a text based forum.
I am sorry to hear that you feel like you are personally being pointed out as a problem on these forums. I suggest that you contact the moderators if that is the case, because bullying is never ok. My previous comments have not been directed at you, even though I have used some of your comments as examples of the ideas that I am responding to. I find this to be a good way to apply context to my own posts, and I am sorry if you have felt like I was attacking you in some way. With that said, I think it is something to bear in mind going forward, in order to avoid feeding a toxic atmosphere, to consider the clarity and tone of posts in order to not be perceived as unnecessarily hostile. I don't think we should derail the thread further with this discussion, but I do think it is a point that bears being raised in public on the forums from time to time: We do not have to agree, but we can at least be well mannered in our disagreement.

Just to make it super clear: I think it would be a very good idea to use the "space on dropship" as a metric in tournament play, and that it could be used with greater granularity in a campaign setting. Silhouette value could be used, or number of troopers if it is rationalized as a function of being able to stow TAGs, REMs and other heavy equipment in compartments that are not adapted for crew use. Any way works fine for me.

 

why are some people so fixated over that an skirmish should be 10 dudes or less? a battle with 50 dudes in each side is still a skirmish! (really, most of old 1500 points in 40k are a big skirmish or an small battle, not a big battle). From the fluf point of view, as a skirmish game, 20-30 dudes would still be ok, but the mechanics of infinity make it not so fluid to play it (And not so fun for some people as we see here). The problem is not the "skirmish" label, is the "cover op" instead, but I think it is also justified in the numbers we usually play. In this game, we have also the support roles and the back up. Getting the main dudes doing mission (which should be the priority point, yet, we have a lot of kill-kill in the game to make it more interesting for some people), the support infowar dudes (Which usually wouldn't be on a battelfield, but we have them in the game anyway), the back up dudes for when the first ones mess it all and so, is easier to get over the usual numbers we have in the game.

 

I seem to recall them hinting that Free Agent being an example of a skill that's going away.

 

free agent is a nice rule on paper, but is not so useful. It was released the same ITS that they created limited insertion, so there was no appeal to use that rule, and they put mostly on active/expensive dudes, those kind that usually are not swapped from group to group, so its usefulness is not so good. As an example, a duo of taskmasters jumping from group to group sounds interesting to me, but then I make the list, and see that the 2 dudes are 100 points, and I have to choose between spaming a lot of small dudes to compensate (Which is not desirable based on lots of comments here), or going L.I (which takes out the purpose of free agent)

it could be more useful if the game was dessigned over 3+ groups, or the groups were smaller (the unnoficial 5-man groups variation for example). In there, that kind of roule is way more interesting. But when you might start with only one group, that rule is just bloat

 

"skirmish" for a table top game doesn't mean the same thing as a "skirmish" in real life. The gaming world seems to have settled on that a game in 32mm scale with very few miniatures is a skirmish game and comparatively quick play times.
If you scale it down to 15mm, a skirmish will allow for many more miniatures.

If you'll allow me a nitpick, I do think we're playing "black ops". This is different from covert ops because the expectation isn't that your enemy doesn't find out about it, but rather that you'll reasonably be able to say "Nuh, uh, Haqq did it" knowing full well they'll know it was you but they can't prove it before Concilium.

 

I agree to some degree. But more than the scale of the miniatures, I think it has to do with the "historical period" and "place". For celts and ibers, a 50-100 dudes per side was more a battle than 200 for vikings for example. In smaller scale game (and/or older rank&file rulebooks) one miniature might represent more than 1 dude, that's why maibe 30 miniatures might represent a battle for 150 or even 1500 dudes, that might not be an skirmish even if there are not a lot of miniatures.

In infinity terms, even putting 30 dudes (which each one represent only one dude), it is still a skirmish game. Black ops, cover ops and so... I am not so sure (I might be wrong here, but I think I saw CB using since n1 the "operaciones encubiertas" and "operaciones especiales" terms, which is "covert operations" if I am not mistaken, not sure if there is something as "special ops" in english, and not sure how would be black ops translated), and my english doesn't help.

But anyway, what I mean is that we cannot justify T.W with the skirmish excuse, because with or without it, it is still an skirmish game, and the body count is still in a size expected for an skirmish

 

I find it strange how everyone who is against 15 limit say a rules change would have been better. If the rules change led to the same affect I see no world in which it is better. Less arbitrary...sure but just allow yourself to view the limit however you need to.

Space on a dropship is a great way to think if it. Covert black ops, rather than storm the defenses assault is another.

The truth though is the designers saw the game heading in a way they didn't like. Too few of the hundreds of models and profiles being used. Too many of certain sectorials not to mention builds winning the big events. Too much risk for new players to like what they like but be crushed endlessly by over optimized clone forces and give up before they could get to the right skill level.

Miniature gamers are a passionate lot and love their forces and often love their specific forces. I personally hate losing models and struggle with infinity's lethality due to that and make poor decisions on the tabletop.

15 models is a solid compromise and playing against 20 plus or even 16 plus lists is just not fun. It is slow, difficult to overcome with lots of list builds and is primarily playing the numbers more than playing a style or story. We don't know point costs, all the rules or even if there are stat changes that will have major impacts on the way we play. Heck some of you may even like getting to learn new units and secretly relish blowing the dust off of that model that was just not quite as good as 5 throwaway troops but you really liked.

 

Space on dropship is a good way to model "points cost" - if you build your system that way to begin with.

As it is, bigger doesn't equal stronger in Infinity, quite the opposite, which would lead either necessitate some pretty hefty discounts for size (Maghriba and Hortlak priced the same?) or some funky business where some factions are afforded smaller drop ships (which, don't get me wrong, wouldn't be outlandish in some cases such as Aleph, and would really sell the "elite" nature of the force). Equally, it could do some funky stuff with AD and infiltrating troopers, be they free of space or have a system where specific transports are dedicated to different subtype of troops.
You could even have different types of transports for different factions. Say Yu Jing favours a huge carrier and a stealth craft which gives large capacity for regular troops and small capacity of AD/Infiltrators while Aleph favours a few stealth crafts and Ariadna have a few APCs and one single aircraft (AD only) and these individual crafts could affect deployment zones or even remain on the field as a playable unit (an APC might be crap for getting large number of troops on to the field, but it's a damned APC with its own HMG driving around the field) and all types of shenaniganery.

But again, this isn't a small patch you can just tack on like an ITS extra for a system like Infinity. It'd require a complete alteration of the points system from the ground up.

 

Stop selling me this carrier idea, I'm really starting to like it.

Different spacecraft to serve as a template for list building could end up being too restrictive, but if done well, it would be a nice way to differentiate factions and sell gorgeous models.

 

[The designers of Dropzone and Dropfleet Commander would like to *know your location*]

Speaking more generally, though- the idea of a transport (be it ship, pod, track, whatever) is neat and could sell some cool terrain or maybe even be the thing to sort of take Infinity to a parallel of a 40K Apocalypse game, which would in Infinity mean light vehicles and squad by squad activation (in what would likely play as some hybrid of Infinity and Star Wars Legion), but for Infinity as it stands it's probably best relegated to a sort of background detail or abstraction of the troops on the table and why their cost/combat group limitation is the way it is.

Obviously I think most would prefer a perfectly representative points formula that somehow is able to account for every nuance and every potential abuse (known by the designers and unknown as discovered by either unintended or unforeseen interactions of rules and points), but it's impossible. An optimal build will always exist, and will always tend to lead to negative play experiences for those who either do not play the optimal build or do not want to play that way. This is not to say "well it's pointless, might as well not change anything" but rather to look to what will take the game in the direction the designers intended or envisioned. If lotsa models wasn't the intention, and if a solution that makes this playstyle as equally viable as small elite factions is improbable to be achieved without going guardrail to guardrail, then the change needs to go to something that better aligns the game with the vision.

I think, too, in regards to changing points costs - we don't know what point costs will be yet, nor what they will be season to season (or whatever time frame CB intends to update it, if they do at all). But as of now, assuming the changes are minimal (though that HB TAG suggests otherwise, at least for big ole expensive models), then cheaper models will exist to generate orders still such as for an Avatar list or for something running a big HI link, but not to an excess of 15+ orders as was seen before. They still serve their purpose, and still have a place, but just not to take to their maximum. Same goes for cheap area denial pieces, usually in the form of warbands. Models just became a resource like SWC, and I think almost overwhelmingly it's a neutral to positive change for most factions since no one is quite sure what the new optimal is besides some doomsaying about Steel Phalanx, Shas, etc. Not to say that, obviously, these could not absolutely dominate in a 15 model cap world but we simply don't know what the point changes are, what the new ideal lists are, or what changes are intended for down the road.

 

If you cannot see the difference between "15 model limit" and "<insert silhouette value cap here>"? That's on you.

Both are arbitrary limitations, but only one actually puts a specific limitation that does not apply to all armies. High point cost, low model count armies? They don't give a hoot about "15 model limits".
Low point cost, high model count armies? They do give a hoot about "15 model limits".

Adding a Silhouette value cap instead of "15 models" allows for players of the latter to feel less targeted by the change and actually move towards something different for lists.
Adding the 15 model limit just confirms that CB is more interested in selling the "new hotness" as they continue .

Can we just stop with the "covert black ops" bullshit?

We have line and garrison troops involved in games of Infinity. That isn't "covert black ops". They're the nameless grunts getting bowled over by the A-Team on their way to stop the evil real estate developers.

Spoiler:
If they wanted to fix that, they could fix that. But they don't and likely won't. Remember that they choose, continually, not to backdate Sectorials with skills or fireteams until they decide it's time.

Good thing you can usually have more than one list for events, hey?

This is the typical drivel I expect here.

Unless there's a full overhaul of every single profile? This change is and will continue to be nonsense, and takes like "you may like getting to learn new units" and "blowing the dust off of that model that was just not quite as good as 5 throwaway troops" will continue to be just as much nonsense.

"Maybe just buy a new army?" is also a bad take, before anyone tries to throw that one out there.

 

Ok, have you seen the win / loose ratio?
Because the factions with the biggest win / loose ratio are not particularly known for having 15+ orders. Aleph, SSO, shasvastii, varuna, tohaa and spiral are the ones who are winning tournaments and are the ones that are almost unafected by this change, so explain me how this change is about balance because without some proper nerfs those armies are going to become even stronger against the rest.
I have not seen USARF win a tournament in ages.

Also you talk about clone forces but if the armies with more orders are reworked to fit into the 15 cap style then we will have 40+ armies with 10 to 15 bodies per list. That is a huge loss of diversity for the game.

This is not about balance.

 

Oh come on now. Are we really going to pretend that these armies are somehow disadvantaged here? This is so much hyperbole, all data speaks against you.

No it won't. Silhouette values does not convert into performance at all. Silhouette is the direct opposite of a 15 model cap and would be a good start to address a situation where TAGs are utterly demolishing order-spam lists - but this isn't what's happening. Then there's the issue of Gecko vs Achilles - Achilles takes up the space of a Line Kazak while the much less powerful Gecko takes up the space of 3, so how is that even a limitation?

You may not like the new gold standard, but this line of argument isn't exactly designed to convince anyone over to your point of view.

It must be nice living in a world where you can spend thousands of manhours on QA and development for what is in reality a fairly niche product capable of supporting what is at best a medium-sized business. How do you expect them to pay people for continually backdating products that have already sold to capacity? Edition changes are about as much of an overhaul as you can reasonably expect for a niche product such as a wargame and that's happening - and lo and behold part of that complete overhaul is that the gold standard of play should change down to 15 order generating units because this adds a cost to spamming the units that are causing issues when spammed.

If you look up the numbers posted by @Ieldin Soecr I think you'll find that as long as you don't go all the way to Limited Insertion, there doesn't actually seem to be a great need to overhaul everything or continually backdate stuff.

"sell 'the new hotness'" what hogwash. These changes aren't anywhere near enough targeted at a specific subset of units to accomplish that, especially not considering how CB sets their products up you'd have to have gone far out of your way with the specific goal of getting screwed over by Tactical Window games.
And honestly, if you managed that then I'm impressed, both that you managed and that you spent so much disposable income doing it.

 

now that exist a limit for troops, we gonna start to see profiles that can fill various roles. Example: Dr Worm. He is doctor and engineer, so you only need one slot for him, freeing the other for more stuff