Rules Change Suggestions to Make the Best Game Better

Hey, I don't care who is or is not a shill, I just came here to argue that Grenade Launchers should get their +3 rangeband back, Repeaters should trigger AROs, Blackout has a place, Frenzy shouldn't cost negative points and maybe the templates should be toned down. I'm all for overly-detailed point-by-point debates, but can we at least keep them on topic?

 

Wasn't that over an unofficial FAQ?

 

Grenade Launchers:

Why would you want grenade launchers to get the +3 back? I always found the Emily Howitzer totally unfun and non-interactive, and that was when I was -using- her.

Repeaters and Blackout:

These two are linked. I don't think repeaters should trigger AROs under normal circumstances (no shooting a repeater you are hacked through: Dodge or Reset if you're not a hacker, that's about it and is appropriate to what hacking -should- be).

But Blackout should be the exception to that rule. Blackout should be allowed as an ARO against a repeater if a hacking attack is being routed through it... your opponent's or even your own. Blackout should then also be usable in the Active turn to attack comms gear.

Guided Hit Removes Targeted State:

Goes along with the fix to repeaters to make GML less deadly (and boringly universal).

Deactivators Don't Require LoF:

Gives another angle of attack on repeaters. Makes this gear actually useful and encourages counterplay beyond "I dodge through the mine/feed it a Servantbot/etc.". Should still require a roll. Remove the +6 band though, make it +3 max.

Frenzy:

The problem isn't the cost: the cost is pretty balanced against suffering -3 vs your opponent in a face to face shootout (no cover), not to mention losing the armor bonus.

What is -not- balanced is that you can turn the negative effects of Frenzy/Impetuous off by putting the troops in a link. That rule should be struck, making linked Impetuous troops (or those whose Frenzy has triggered) lose their ability to claim partial cover.

There will probably need to be some adjustment to troop profiles after that change: I can't imagine Moiras will remain usable for example. But for troops where Impetuous fits the fluff and the free extra order is actually useful (hi, Teutons), the rule would still fit them well.

Template spam:

Easy fix is to change the functions of shotguns, making them roll to hit with a +6 on anything under the template rather than auto hits on anything it covers. Then give the slug mode a +3 and AP ammo across the board, even on light shotguns.

Boom, significant chunk of the template spam out there resolved. Chainrifles, nanopulsers, and flamethrowers should stay autohit-under-template.

 

That was over an unofficial FAQ that billed itself as an official FAQ, down to the font. Big no-no.

Releasing a fan-made standard rules patch wouldn't trigger the same reaction, especially if it was clearly labeled as fan-made.

Said rules patch would also need to be pretty minimal. I think the fixes in the reply to @SpectralOwl that I just posted above would do most of it. I'm iffy on whether Blackout would even be needed. But it's also the only one of those fixes that isn't glaringly obvious.

 

A PART of the community. Because they have unreasonable demand and/or aggressive way of address problems.

 

Are you serious???

──────────────────────────────────────────────────

5 2
KUSANAGI MULTI Rifle, E/M Grenade Launcher, Zapper / Pistol, Shock CC Weapon. (0 | 39)
MOTHER AGATHA Vulkan Shotgun / Pistol, EXP CC Weapon. (0 | 38)
CENOBITE Chain Rifle(+1B), Flash Pulse / Heavy Pistol(+1B), DA CC Weapon. (0 | 21)
CENOBITE Chain Rifle(+1B), Flash Pulse / Heavy Pistol(+1B), DA CC Weapon. (0 | 21)
REVEREND MOIRA MULTI Rifle, E/M Grenade Launcher, Zapper / Pistol, Shock CC Weapon. (1 | 28)

1 SWC | 147 Points

Open in Infinity Army

For the record, no marked state required from the target, Kusanagi shoots at 14+3 directly the EM GL, making it speculative fire of 11, and whatever gets the grenade has to dodge (at -3, because no LoS with origin of the template..., unless they have sixth sense. No TAG has that...) and then, if it fails, pass 2 BTS/2 rolls... and if failed, get ISO and IMM with a direct -12 to all Reset attempts.
The Moira could be changed for the Lt one, or any of them while Kusanagi gets to be LT, all Moiras have NCO anyways. And switching one cenobite for a ML makes the fireteam able to perform ARO duty (BS11+3, Mimetism -6 and cover, 2 wounds).

N3 to N4 changed (nerfed) BSG from close to that to essentially a Chain Rifle B2 with a shotgun B2 option, making them more expensive, because the "roll always, and choose between placing a template or +1 to damage" was too complex (with the teardrop template, like Plasma, but CB decided switching the teardrop template here for the circular one was not called for, despite plasma doing so).

Also, there is too many mimetism troops, and MSVs are not common gear despite the buff to MSV1 against smoke (making it a very attractive option, specially for Sixth Sense-capable troops), so templates remain the most common tool to deal with them, specially since flamethrowers no longer Burn Mimetism-6/ODD

 

Because the numbers on the worst offenders (DZ-to-DZ Core Linked X-Visor artillery with improved ammo) are pretty much unchanged, at the cost of something like an unlinked Zhanshi being utterly useless at their fairly important job of removing enemies from tight corners or rooftops without just walking into templates. Standard Grenades work, but aren't widespread enough, so I'd honestly rather LGLs get their +3 rangeband back even if they have to give them no ability to hit outside 16 or 24 to compensate. GLs should never be an effective first strike tool unless the opponent has clustered their models, but they really shouldn't be hitting on 5s (against an enemy whose Dodge target is typically a few points higher) when used optimally for kicking out entrenched Skirmishers and Warbands in the midfield. I would take my boring Squalo HGL back a thousand times over when compared to the braindead template-trading that defines play on dense midfields right now (or in DZs in Jaan Star's case). At Speculative Fire has a Face to Face roll to it.

Of course, this concern goes out the window should CB actually update older factions with enough tools to avoid that crap, but with release slots limited finding a fix for what's already available is better than wishing for extensive reworks.

This is fine. I just want some tool to zone out overly-aggressive Repeater use, I'd prefer some ARO-focused Killer Hacking Devices to threaten attackers more permanently but I'll take what I can get.

This one is always just baffling to me from a fluff angle, though more than functional as a game balance tool. My more "out-there" fix for GMLs I'm considering is to allow Forward Observers to use any Guided weapons on the table as though they were equipped to the FO- get a bit more hard ARO and direct shooting into the game. Doesn't help with the entrenched enemies, but GLs doing their job would work there.

 

I can't stress this enough- the problem here is the BS14 Core Linked E/M bit, not the Grenade Launcher bit. As I said, a Zhanshi gets their Speculative Fire on a five right now. With the damage of a Chain Rifle. There are twenty-plus Grenade Launchers in N3 that were useful without being oppressive, the whole mechanic shouldn't be obliterated because Emily Handelmann was made too strong.

 

Spoiler: Giant reply TLDR: No, Infinity is not dying and the hyperbole is ridiclous

Here's the mismatch, and why what you are saying is hyperbole:

Yes, CB are slow. No, the current issues with the game, like the Jujak fireteam you mention, are not hair-on-fire disasters requiring fixes immediately, or even within three to six months. The game is playable enough where it is. You have -no idea- what the scale of effort required to squash all the -other- bugs you never even got to see was. That stuff probably takes most of the publishers' available resources. We get what's left for patches unless they are emergencies. I'd rather see slow-ass patching and still have new products and narrative coming out.

Nailing CB to the cross over a few small issues (and yes, current issues are relatively small) does not make you look credible. It takes valid criticisms of both rules issues and speed of patch releases and buries them in insults and claims that CB have "lost the community's trust."

My dude, you are making mountains out of molehills here. I see the same issues, but they do NOT strike me as "run away from this game" issues. Giant sets of weird profiles always have some imbalance, it's the nature of toy soldier games. When compared to any other scifi skirmish game I've ever seen (and I've played demos at least of most of what's on the market), Infinity is a masterwork of balance while still having enough variance to make things interesting.

Now there we agree. However it's not at all a confidence-killer, just a few details in a largely playable game. I think you're taking things too seriously partly to argue a point/die on this hill in internet fashion, and partly because you do really care about the game.

Actually, we play 400 in our area a lot. I much prefer it, it's been about 30% of my games. And in fact I realized that thanks to your posts.

We also play 200 with big comp restrictions too as a newb-friendly format. Quite a few of our tournaments have been non-300, maybe half in the last 6 months I'd say. And we play Deathmatch and other weird formats occasionally.

IME people mess around with Infinity's rules a lot, way more than other miniature games like WMH or 40K or even Core Space and the like. It's the nature of a game of this complexity, one which is not really a tournament-friendly slick don't-look-under-the-hood product by nature.

If you're the local Infinity expert and are patient and nice, people will listen (especially after you whup them at the game).

I played at a rather weird-format tournament this summer (varying points levels with only 1 list/level, custom missions, and crazy terrain with stuff like smoke grenade dispensers and predatory animals because it was run by some of our best players and Infinity writers in the area). It was awesome and changed the way I look at the game.

About 40 people played through that madness because the organizers were our Infinity experts (one of them can play two games at once against different opponents and win both, does it regularly). They are very very nice, and they know their shit. We'd follow them into weird variants of the game again for sure. That's how you lead.

You should do the same for your locals, and I think you could.

If anyone believes that about the game, they probably do because they are reading (incorrect) forum posts trumpeting negative opinion about those things. We can correct that by making it clear that those issues are not that bad, and that if/when they present a couple small tweaks to the rules will fix them easily.

Out of curiosity, which state are you in?

I'll share some real life experience perspective too: I'm in the greater Seattle, Washington meta now. Regionally I play from Oregon to the Canadian border and will play in western Canada soon. I've been to Gen Con and watched the tourney but never played, never been to Adepticon though. I used to play in France regularly, Spain and Germany occasionally, and have played at Interplanetario.

I stay in touch with Infinity folks from most of those places, as well as the UK. They're all still playing and there are significant new recruits in most of their metas. Those metas are not dying, and most say the playerbases are now recovered from the pandemic dropoff and tourneys have returned in force. France has added a proper Satellite since last year, and UK friends have started all-new Satellites as well. I've heard the major cities' metas in Spain are doing well, though I only know people in two cities there. [Would be interested to hear form any Spanish people reading this what your impression of player numbers these days is. I'll ask our local Spanish player here in Seattle what his friends back home say.]

In our own local Seattle group, Infinity is recovering well from the pandemic and is now at player numbers higher than we had before I moved away from town a few years ago.. and that is entirely -without- actual store support. Our city has suffered from a lack of support on several levels and there's a geography issue (lots of lakes and terrible traffic make travel to stores at rush hour take hours). But it has erally come back in the last two years thanks to a few great vets and a lot of awesome new players. We're likely going to see a big uptick this winter as we start better-organized league play spread out across the region.

I've heard Portland, Oregon has about the same numbers playing now that they did pre-pandemic, which was/is way way higher than Seattle's numbers (they have better store support down there, Mindtaker in particular is awesome). The satellite-ish thing I went to there over the summer was the size of many national-level events I went to in Europe. The local ITS event I attended there in spring drew about 24 players iirc.

All of this contradicts your claims that the game's community is dying, especially from anything as specific as a "lack of trust". I will agree that the online CB forum community is shrinking, but I think that's only CB's forum, while the Discords continue to grow. The CB forum problem is of course largely due to the forum become a pile of griping and mass negativity which is tunnel-visioned and seriously out of step with the quality of the game. Infinity is in a much better place for rules balance and unit balance than any other scifi skirmish game out there (I do wish we had NPCs like Core Space but I feel like that might be coming someday).

And of course our respective claims of the game's demise or health are entirely based on your own local experience. [I'd love to see sales numbers, but we do know that CB's revenue is doing well enough that they are expanding their facilities.]

However I invite you to consider whether the overwhelming negativity that you and others exhibit on the forums might bleed into real life and repel players, rather than the game or the publisher's PR actually doing so itself. I know I overfocus on weird stuff and get super negative about it, often for years at a time. It really seems like you are doing the same thing, and blowing your valid game balance concerns into a sky-is-falling perspective that you and others have managed to paste all over the forum because griping is easier than fixing things.

Tweak the format with one or two simple rules (play 400, Deactivators are no-LoF for example), and watch the issues most likely evaporate. Oh, and teach them to deploy and choose forces to blunt alpha strikes, which is Step One Point Five of learning to play Infinity.

 

There are little like those. The xenotech MSV2+smoke template combo from ITS10 comes to mind and it took nearly 6 months to be corrected... While reinforcements are not an emergency, if CB wants to shoehorn them into the game they should hurry, because people get some dates into their mind and the perception makes it look even worse (released in august - summer - & patched after christmas looks incredibly worse than patching it the first week of December)

The truth is that Trust in CB has suffered a death of a thousand cuts instead, with litlle (and not so little) things piling up and up and up.

In my experience, no, because people around here plays competitive (or wants to, at the very least), and several move around to other cities' tournaments, making it a must to play with the "official, vanilla" rules.

I'd like to point that there are two options: either no one reads the forum (aside for the usual suspects), or people read it and grabs the most negative posts as you mention.
I can't talk for other places, but in Madrid the common reaction when mentioning the forum is either complete repulse, considering it useless at best, either discouragement (to check it up) to new players. Thus the state of the spanis side of the forum, besides the tournament threads.

 

Problem is, it is EXACTLY that way anywhere. And why is that way? (Spoiler here...)

 

NO, it is not true. And at the same time YES... in a way.

No, it is not true. CB adress problems with their game and solve issues and give patches and fixes. For example, back then in patch 1.3 I was quite active in the thread where a part of the community asked for some changes in the hacking area rules as it caused an ARO-bait who affected even sixth sense hacking. I was in fact quite... vocal in such thread, and I hope that I was able to keep my participation civil and constructive. Nevertheless, the issue was fixed with the 2.0 rulebook with the new Hacking Aros rules text, which make null the ARO bait problem.

Yes, it is true. CB solve a lot of issues, and I am sure they're activelly thinking on how to address and solve ongoing community concerns. But this effort is not usually being properly being communicated to the community. An example of this was the very thread I mention before, where while it was finally fixed, there was no acknoweledging of that it was going to be adressed or fixed in any way... until it was. I can presume that the thread and the work and effort of the community did trying to make CB notice the ARO-baiting issue was helpful to CB. But this is just that, a presumption. Since there was no acknoweledgement nor comment from CB in that sense.

And this is why I disagree to the mayority of this forum negative attitude toward CB. I am pretty sure and confident on it, that CB is working hard on making this game a better one. Continously. But they can do it better on making the community feel such effort. EDIT: I was slowly writing this post during work breaks since mid-morning and didn't see that @Koni has made a beautifuly crafted post here addressing the community about their feedback. This is the kind of constant reminds and communications that the community need, to feel there is a two-way channel and they're being heared. Keep it coming please and good job!

 

Except it's not "the truth" that trust in CB has "suffered a death of a thousand cuts." YOU and a very few other loud complainers think so but the vast majority of CB players understand that the game is fine and CB does what they can with the resources that they have.

We know that everything will work out okay and most major issues will get fixed. Basically what @Rabble said here.

The game is quite enjoyable and playable now, as long as you play on tables with appropriate scenery (which is the problem with Interplentario which makes SP and GML so dominant at that tourney in particular, IMO). It needs some fixes, but they are pretty clear and easy to schieve. We can implement them ourselves if CB moves too slowly, even.

Infinity's main ACTUAL critical problem IMO is that the a bunch of loud whiners were allowed to dominate discussion on the forum for too long, and it is driving away players from the main discussion hub which should be used to build enthusiasm for this hobby. Fortunately there are still a few of us who really value this forum, who will point out exactly how silly it is that you think "THE GAME IS DYING!!!1!1!" because of a few overadvantaged units and a hacking mechanic that we already have proposed some easy, direct fixes for.

Grow up guys, it's toy soldiers. We can change the rules anytime we want to, if CB doesn't move fast enough for us. Don't have childish fits on the internet over toy soldier games, it doesn't look good (and I say this as someone who has thrown an embarrassing number of stupid fits on the internet myself.)

Fortunately we've had decades of watching CB do a good job of addressing rules issues (eventually...), so it is most likely that they will continue to do so.

Spoiler: Yes, you can organize big tourneys that are not vanilla rules. Even in Spain.

We have learned in the US that no, a tourney doesn't have to be vanilla to be competitive. Tourney and event organizers can add interesting changes to their missions or rules, and people still come in the same numbers. In fact it has the nice effect of repelling players who fear change and have terrible social skills.

I recently played at a 2-day, 40-person tourney where the level of general skill was at least as high as the Interplanetario 2017 or EIC 2017 or 2018 which I attended. This tourney was super non-standard: it had two very weird custom missions; an escalation format that went all the way up to 400 and then came back down to 150 (for Highly Classified at 150 even); and terrain with lots of special rules and which was complicated but also well thought out. Their attendee numbers were as high as any other large event we have here.

Try it. Organize a major tourney and use house rules or variant missions. You'll enjoy it, almost certainly. And as a nice side effect, it gets rid of people who are so grumpy about a toy soldiers game that they can't accept any form of change.

There's no cultural reason that Spanish players won't accept the challenge of some very limited alternate missions or rules or format. I did notice a bit more general grumpiness and sports-team behavior among organized Spanish clubs (the ones who have matching shirts mainly), but we have a few of those here in the US too. Those grumps still play at our weird tourneys, though they might complain a bit about it if they lose.

Spoiler: More dogfighting about "the game is dying!", read only if you want that.

You are making another false argument. There are several more options. The one that corresponds to reality is:
- Many people recognize the value of the forums, and still want to read or participate in them and occasionally try to.
- When they do, they have encountered a very few people loudly and repeatedly screeching about "THE GAME IS DYING!!" because they disagree with the Bulleteer points change or are still butthurt about Uprising... or any number of other non-emergencies.
- Fortunately reasonable people then probably realize that the game is mostly fine, and the internet attracts drama queens and weirdos to forums like this. They can ignore the negative posts and learn from the other posts that offer better information, as long as we can actually get good posters back here to post useful stuff again.

Hopefully once the drama queens are silenced for a while (or shouted down by the rest of us), things will slightly improve and we can get back to healthier pursuits for this forum. Like, say the original intent of the thread that we've been clogging up with this discussion about negative posters overdramatizing things.

 

I will send you my answer in private, since we are not derailing this thread, but sending it to another galaxy.

I will just say that lack of critics => complacency => disaster. And that nowadays six months to fix a comma (insert ridiculously small part of the game) is too long.

Heck, 99% of all feedback in the Reinforcements threat says that the Commlink trooper tax is a no-no, and CB will just take their time to decide if they remove it or not -.-U

 

This might help you make your decision. CB will do it in their timescale, not yours.

 

I had another rule change idea that IMO should deal with alpha strikes and other issues, it is part of my greater idea how to rework lieutenants and bunch of other rules, but that is hard without edition change and is beyond the scope of this thread.

Idea goes like this, no more LT roll, both players roll D20 and higher one wins. Then after players decide who goes first, then they choose which list they want to play. Why is this better than how we do it right now ? Well it greatly expands list building, now you can build your lists for missions, but you can also build them for playing first/second. Since you are not rolling LT WIP you don't declare who is your LT to the opponent, that is another big plus. I generally don't see a downside compared to how we play it right now and change would be super simple.

 

But wouldn't that allow players to tune for alpha-striking even more? IMO, most players already build a good amount of defense into their lists, so the only player who would benefit would be the one who can discard all their defensive choices and focus on just hitting a hard as they can to table their opponent Turn 1.

Being unsure whether you are going first or second forces a few defensive measures into your list, even if you are the player going first. It slows you down a bit.

There are other things that could be added to the rules that would -not- benefit an alpha striker, like:

- Allowing the player going second a second use of Command Tokens to put troops in Suppressive Fire, and allowing tokens to be used to place a deployable weapon (free Minelayer basically), activate a Supportware program (Fairy Dust or Assisted Fire for example), and maybe activate other hacking programs (Cybermask especially).

 

Alpha strike is still limited by AVA and mission objectives. For example you cannot add 3rd Bearpod to improve your Alpha strike in Kosmoflot.
You are always unsure if you are going second or first, we still roll dice for that, dunno what you mean by this.
Plus this would open list building for some mind games, example I get to go first, my opponent thinks I have an Alpha strike list, but I bring a mission focused list instead. Adds another fun layer to the game.
You cannot solve Alpha strike issue with command tokens, as some factions are starved for those. Plus I haven't played a single game in N4 where someone put a unit in SUPFIRE, this includes games at Interplanetario and another international event. It is not an effective tool for the cost. Cybermasking LT is even more limited.