Some thoughts on simplifying the rules

1. Functional Categorization
No need to distinguish between Skills and Equipment—categorizing them by function is far more practical.
For instance, grouping min(-6) and MSV L2 together—since both are shooting modifiers—enhances overall readability and flow.

2. Streamlined Critical Hits
Remove the rule where a critical hit grants an extra Save Roll to reduce unnecessary edge cases and memory load.
If a critical hit needs to trigger an extra die, isolate it into a dedicated new skill—such as BS Critical (+1SR). This also helps reduce reliance on pure luck.

3. Removal of Martial Arts (L1–L3)
Remove Martial Arts L1–L3, as these can be fully replaced by existing attributes and skills (e.g., CC Attack (-3) or CC Attack (+1SD)).
Furthermore, even Martial Arts L4 and L5 can be phased out by introducing specific new skills, such as Total Reaction (CC).

4.Merge AERIAL and TECH-RECOVERY into a single skill.
There is currently no need to keep them separate, as it only adds unnecessary reading load for users.

 

Hey, this is exactly the kind of thing that requires extra memorization and is easily overlooked. I often have to remind beginners about these edge cases. There's really no logic to it at all—it's pure memorization. The core point here is removing the extra save roll, not the BS Critical (+1SR) mentioned later. Look at it from another angle: what's actually the benefit of keeping that extra save roll?

MA1 can be simplified to CC Attack (-3). MA2 can also be simplified to CC Attack (-3)—just bump the base CC stat up by 3.
To some extent, though, it could definitely lead to skill bloat.
My main goal with this post was to reduce the amount of stuff beginners have to memorize, so I might have overlooked the issue of skill bloat.

I completely agree with this.

 

I completely agree with you.
The fact that Doctors and Medkits can only be used on models in the Unconscious state, while Engineers and GizmoKits can be used in other situations, is really confusing and inconsistent.

 

I think Autohit is already a sufficiently significant reward in itself, because this is not 40K or some other wargame where failing an attack simply means nothing happens. In Infinity, a failed attack can leave you open to being killed in return.

You said that “Turn One Rambos would be even more powerful,” but in fact, the opposite may be true. Mathematically, the active player has a much higher chance of scoring a Critical than the reactive player. If you remove the extra save roll granted by a Critical, the defender’s chance of surviving may actually increase.

If you remove the extra save die granted by a Critical, the overall lethality of the exchange may actually decrease, because the active player generally has a higher chance of scoring a Critical and therefore loses more of the benefit provided by Criticals.

The extra die from a Critical makes the risks in Infinity more unpredictable, rather than making the attacker weaker.

If you're expected to rely on a Critical for a lucky hit to defend yourself, then the outcome starts to depend more heavily on luck rather than strategy. This is also why units with DTW generally use their DTW to defend themselves instead of relying on a lucky gunfight.

Likewise, when you're on the attack, you wouldn't normally abandon an attack simply because the defender might land a lucky Crit with a CBR and knock your unit down. You would still make the decision based on the overall odds and the tactical situation.

And the truly threatening ARO units are not threatening because of Criticals. They are threatening because of the weapons themselves—MLs, Panzerfausts, MSRs, e/mitters, etc.
You certainly wouldn't decide not to try to improve your odds and take a high-risk FTF simply because they didn't have the extra save roll from a Critical.

In fact, the extra save roll from Criticals can turn some situations that should be favorable into situations where the outcome is decided by a low-probability roll.
For example, your opponent's BS has been reduced to just 5, and then they suddenly land a Critical.
“Hey, sorry. Your decision was correct, but you still lose because of this terrible luck.”

Of course, dice games will always involve some degree of luck. But this additional die amplifies the negative impact that luck can have on the game. When something like a Hectari gets taken down by a Fusilier using a Combi Rifle because of a single Critical, that moment can make you feel as though all of your tactical decisions were meaningless.

And the negative emotions don't only occur during the active turn. During the reactive turn, opponents can also use Criticals to break through your defenses. Weapons like the HRMC are particularly relevant here because their high Burst gives them more opportunities to score Criticals.

Of course, all of this is heavily influenced by personal experience. I've taught at least 30 new players, and each of them has encountered different problems and situations. But Critical Hits are one of the most common issues I've seen.

For many players, a frustrating early experience is caused by Critical Hits. Human psychology also tends to amplify our own misfortune while treating our good luck as something that was simply expected to happen.

This is especially true when I try to go easy on a beginner by intentionally taking low-probability FTFs, only to knock out their high-value unit with a Critical. I often have to spend time explaining that it was just an unlucky break, but not every newcomer is receptive to that or enjoys this mechanic.

Undeniably, Criticals do bring an extra thrill to rolling dice. After all, as long as the probability isn't zero, a single lucky hit can take down a two-Wound enemy. But as I mentioned above, they also introduce more unpredictability into tactical outcomes, along with a heavy dose of feel-bad moments.
My concern is therefore not that Infinity should have no randomness, or that Criticals should never exist. Rather, I think the extra save roll attached to Criticals may add more variance to the game than it adds meaningful strategic depth. When a player makes a sound tactical decision and still loses because of a low-probability Critical, the result can feel less like a consequence of the tactical exchange and more like a random reversal of the situation.
For me, that is the main issue with Criticals: not that they make the game more random in general, but that they can make the outcome of otherwise favorable tactical decisions significantly more unpredictable.

 

I feel this issue simply comes down to a difference in how much of a role we think luck should play in the game. If you still insist that critical hits giving an extra Armor Roll (SR) is a good mechanic, I respect your opinion. To honor your preference while staying true to my original goal of simplifying the rules, I’d suggest removing all special exceptions so that T2, Continuous Damage, and Plasma directly grant an additional Save Roll instead.

Below are the points where I disagree with you—not to convince you, but just to share my perspective.

Removing the extra hit on a Critical won't make the game so predictable that it can be solved with an Excel sheet.
Since this is a dice game, Critical hits still exist. You can still lose a game due to extreme bad luck—it will just happen less frequently than before. Failing twice instead of losing an entire Face-to-Face (FtF) roll on a single bad roll can still happen.

I think saying "The game should be unpredictable" overlooks the strategic value and fun of decision-making in the game. In my view, the fun of Infinity lies in giving players agency over their tactical choices, even though success ultimately relies on dice rolls to a degree. Skilled players improve their win rates by finding ways to boost efficiency and success probability. To take your argument to an extreme: if everything needs to be unpredictable, should we start rolling dice just to determine our movement inches before moving?

Removing the extra SR from Critical hits actually hurts the attacker's lethality more.
Perhaps I didn't express myself clearly enough earlier. Let's look at the actual math instead of relying on gut feelings.






Here is a natural, game-community-friendly English translation for your post:

As shown in the image above:

• 4 dice: 18.5% Crit chance
  
  
• 3 dice: 13.4% Crit chance
  
  
• 2 dice: 9.3% Crit chance
  
  
• 1 die: 5% Crit chance

This shows that the active player has a higher chance of scoring a Critical hit. Having more dice also means a higher probability of landing multiple Crits, which raises both the damage ceiling and the expected value.

Additionally, the chance of a 2-Wound unit being taken down by a Crit during its active turn is significantly lower than when it is in the reactive turn.

This point can also be mathematically proven.




As can be seen from the two charts above, this shows the shift in damage efficiency with and without the extra Armor Roll (SR):
1. Active player damage efficiency decreases from 0.25 to 0.12 (roughly 48% of the original value).
2. Reactive player damage efficiency decreases from 0.05 to 0.03 (roughly 60% of the original value).
From this, it is clear that nerfing the Critical hit mechanic impacts the offensive player significantly more than the defensive player.

If you feel looking at Critical hits alone isn't accurate enough, here is another case study for reference.
let's compare a scenario where the defender counterattacks with a Panzerfaust, and analyze how much of an impact Critical hits actually have on their defensive strength.


This further confirms that nerfing the Critical hit mechanic hurts the attacker far more than the defender. Basically, no matter which numbers you look at, the Crit bonus always heavily favors the active player.

As shown in the two charts above, here is the shift in damage efficiency with and without the extra Armor Roll (SR):

1. Active player damage efficiency drops from 1.41 to 1.27 (roughly 90% of the original value).
   
   
2. Reactive player damage efficiency drops from 0.40 to 0.37 (roughly 93% of the original value).
   

This once again proves that nerfing the Critical hit mechanic hurts the attacker more than the defender. It also indirectly confirms that high-threat AROs actually benefit from this change: when both sides experience a drop in efficiency, the side that loses less comes out ahead.

Where this change does make a real difference is with inherently low-threat weapons, whose threat level drops significantly further.
Weapons like CBR, SMG will now require a string of continuous good luck to take down an enemy.
Personally, I view this as a matter of tactical rewards and penalties.
If you choose to perform an ARO with an unsuitable unit, you should naturally be prepared for failure.
Conversely, when you engineer a high-probability face-off against the right target, your chance of failure should naturally be lower.

I'm not asking to completely remove Critical hits—I just think reducing their impact would be better.
Removing them entirely and reducing their effect are two completely different concepts.
Besides, Critical hits play a crucial role in the game by giving low-BS units a fighting chance to win.

 

This is directly tied to game balance. It seems the goal of the recent patches was to make mid-tier units more viable. However, without buffing their base stats, the only solution seemed to be cramming in more skills. I think they’ve achieved their goal, but it has definitely increased the cognitive load on players. The developers should cap the variety of skills and equipment within a single faction. Right now, for a new player to fully master a faction, they have to memorize a massive number of distinct skill effects.