Is the game getting too complex?

Nah, the opposite is true too. I've seen my fair share of infinity players sharing cool moments and scenes, and just as many W40k players talking about powerbuilding and cookie-cutter list. It's a player mentality issue, not a community one.

However, i agree that infinity tend to attract competitive player more easily than w40k, therefore making them more prevalent in the community, but that's because Infinity is one of the very few wargames out there who managed to make tactical decision MUCH more important than list building, thus making it a far better competitive game than w40k.

As you pointed its a double edged sword that makes the game harder to get into for more casual player, but i think there's a lot of us who found with Infinity THE competitive game they always wanted, and to be honest i think it's a pretty good niche to occupy in this market.

 

Our local community materialized out of thin air about a year ago. Three of us being experienced table top war-gamers. By teaching demo games and also running games like this we were able to grow the community and hook several people who do not consider infinity too complex. We started with one experienced player playing a new guy to help coach through actions and then have evolved into the top tier players playing each other while keeping an ear on the other tables. It's worked well, and the experienced players are usually done first and can help sort out questions that may pop up in end game regarding strategy.

In keeping with your post, I've always tried to do a chat about each game I finished with my opponent while they were learning. What worked, what didn't why I made a move that I did or asking what their logic was behind something they did. I think it helps to build a greater understanding for the strategy and little complexities of Infinity that wargamers from other groups may not be accustomed to.

 

I promise its all local.
Even when I went to Gencon this past summer, all three of my games were a blast. Myself and opponents laughed and chatted throughout the whole time. The same can be said about my local tournaments.

If you're trying to run things in your local area, maybe try some of the more "fun" things in the ITS tournaments like spec ops and soldiers of fortune and LI. it's a pretty good way to get people thinking differently

 

I don't know your community or the environment you are playing, but that's what we do. Competitive doesn't mean we don't have fun.
And one-sided games doesn't make fun either way.

 

Other question: Have you ever tried fun formats like hunger games. It's fast and easy and you can learn many from it. And everybody else excepting one loses too, what makes it easier.

 

I've read other people saying a similar thing about learners losing all their early games, and (without implying any criticism of you, Space Ranger), maybe I could encourage our more experienced players to be mindful of basic educational principles.

Effective teaching usually requires contrived learning experiences, and allowing the student plenty of scope to enjoy their experience. In a game as complicated as Infinity, if the teacher is easily winning their teaching games, they need to rethink their approach.

To be good teachers, we have to sacrifice our own immersion in the game, and avoid attachment to its outcome. Instead, our goal is to focus on the student and their game, carefully introducing new elements only as fast as their individual ability allows.

A skilful teacher-players can remain somewhat detached from the experience, but provide continual challenge so the learner is continually engaged. They can know we're holding back without being sure when or how, and only somehow win or lose in the final turn.

 

No one should expect to win more than 1-2 of their first 10 full-sized games without help, in any reasonably complex game against more experienced opponents. If you go into a wargame expecting to win your first games, rather than to learn the game and the rules, you're making a mistake.

A game where bad players can consistently beat good players is just... not good.

 

Is it too complex? Compared to what? It might be interesting to compare the GW weapon chart to Infinity's, and also their special rules.

Personally I don't think it's complex enough, but I'm used to Warmachine, which has much more special rules, and most units weapons are unique to that unit.

 

I think the degree of challenge that a teacher presents to a new player should vary depending on the new player in question. Some players respond well to the highest degree of challenge possible. Some do not.

When I teach the game (and I teach the game a lot) I always start with basic demo mechanics (order pools, AROs, face-to-face) and then encourage players to find units or miniatures that they like. Identify those units, look up their rules in Army, and then spot-check what those rules do.

Hey, Achilles is a badass. What's he do? Oh, Optical Disruption Device, wow that's powerful. Martial Arts... Level 4 huh... Okay, I can attack in 4 different ways, that's neat. Can I build a list with this guy? Oh he's going to be almost all of my list, better try to learn some cheap dudes that can fit into the 150 point game I'm playing. What's cheap? Netrod huh...

It creates gradual, player-driven momentum. They're encouraged to pursue and learn about the things that are relevant to them. Some players do indeed learn by reading the rulebook cover-to-cover, just as some academics can learn by reading an encyclopedia cover-to-cover. But for most players, you need to give them a context of why are these rules relevant to how you enjoy the game.

 

Who said anything about competitive play?

We play the game, help new players that will show up and want to learn. We play every week and as a veteran of 8 years, a player with 6 weeks of experience (from taking coaching and applying it every week) trashed me so hard last week it wasn't funny.

For those that know how I play, I tend to help people in all situations, reminding them of deployables, MSV, weapons, etc during gameplay even at the largest events.

Infinity is a heavy "intangibles" game. Knowing all the rules doesn't make you a good player, having a flexible mind, understanding all your tools and applyinc inventive problem solving makes you a great player and those types of skills don't come quickly.

That is the dedication I am speaking of, not "ITS all the way" that keeps being thrown out.

Our area is running through Paradiso right now (which like it or not is the granddaddy of the ITS, competitive or not) and it takes just as much knowledge and problem solving that no amount of rules knowledge can fix. It is about what is going on, on the table and recognizing then driving opponents decision making.

Casual gaming, to me, can be infrequent, but Infinity, as a game, rewards the talent of the player more than most other similar TTMG. Getting those games in will give you that experience, reading the rulebook won't.

 

I think it depends on what the goal of the game is. I've got a two year old son I'm trying to get into playing games, so we bought a game called Dragon: Rapid Fire. It is a totally luck based game, which means we both have an equal chance of winning the game.

This is important, since it's been shown that play is very important to mammals, to the point were rats will make large sacrifices just for the chance to play. Generally if you put two rats together after a couple of tussles they'll figure out which rat is the better rat. However the weaker rat will stop playing with the stronger rat if he doesn't win about 1/3 of the time. The game isn't fun for them, so it appears to be part of the social contract of play that the participants both have a decent chance of having the successful out come.

So you then have the classic dichotomy of chance vs skill. The more chance involved in a game, the more it results in equal outcomes between the participants, to the point were a pure chance game (no decisions) means completely equal likelihood of successful outcomes. The other extreme is games with pure skill, where there is (almost) no chance, such as Chess, and which means that the more highly skilled player will always win.

Most games fall somewhat in the middle, and adjust this balance up and down as they adjust their rules. By so doing they make it possible for a broader audience to engage with the game, and play with a equal chance of success.

Nor do I feel there is really a "correct" answer to this. Some players prefer games with more chance, others with more skill. The only time when this is wrong is when the participants aren't all having a good time, IMHO.

 

This is the definition of being competitive. You're dedicating time to improving yourself, to improving the way you play, even if you don't play an ITS tourney every month you're still being competitive because that's a competitive mindset.

I'm not saying being competitive is a bad thing, I'm saying it can be. I was taught Infinity by literally the most competitive player I know, and with that guy I actually have to flat out state if we're playing for fun or to compete because things get hardcore.

But at the same token, two weeks ago I introed a guy to Infinity who literally just wanted to play Acontecimento to have a Dragão. If I were extremely focused on being competitive with that guy, I'd have listed all the ways using a TAG can be bad, but if I had done that, I would have turned the guy off the game.

This is my point: I often see Infinity players doing that. Telling new players not to do this or that because it's bad, and taking away their fun because not everyone cares about extremely optimized lists.

We, as a community, need to be supportive of both the Hardcore and Casual gamers at the same level to keep things growing healthily.

 

I usually only play infinity monthly and casually at that. I have played this way since N2 was a new thing, and I will continue to play this way until I tire of the game, the meta or the models (in that order). My playing of a game has ZERO to do with winning/losing, it's the play experience. It's also the bonus to having the models, not the raison d'etre for the models. Is it too complex? I don't think so.

Some players dislike complexity. Some people prefer checkers to "go", and some prefer tiddly-winks.
In my club, we have a stack of people who love GW's battlefleet gothic (for some reason, mostly they were teens when it was released and castles in space). I prefer Full Thrust when it comes to space ships battling. With vector movement. Yes, FT IS more complex than BFG, but BFG is sailing ships in space (unapologetically). FT gives me more of the "the expanse" feel to the ships (or at the time, babylon5 since the Earth Alliance ships are just as boxy as the Neu Swabians I have).

 

I'm not sure how one can teach anything without actually doing it and the frequency of doing said thing speeds the process.

Conversely if we were doing "Deployment" days, where you do nothing but deploy and let another person try to pick your deployment apart in one turn giving them 20 minutes then reset (Honing a skill) I might agree, but showing up and rolling dice while trying to convey common practices and having post game conversations on mindset doesn't (to me) harken to competitive but just effective learning and teaching.

 

You've been playing for like several (7-9?)years though? N2 infinity was vastly simpler than N3 infinity to date from an absorption standpoint. The sea of information is daunting today and leanring the game in 2010 is not the same as learning Infinity in 2018.

 

I agree a lot of rules could be more simple. Why drop bear and mine dispenser ? Why the molotok and redrfury and not just an AP or shock spitfire ?
And there are tons of exemple like that ...

Rules could be a lot more rationalzedr and short for sure.

But is that the main issue to get new people ? I don't know. 40k keep adding new rules with every codex and people love it.

ITS and fomated games are boring you ? Try the uprising book scenario, or the uprising campaign, even the paradiso campaign (or just any local made campaign).

For friendly relaxed game I will usually go limited insertion and original scenario. Especially with beginners.

Edit : I get your issue is keeping new player playing ... In my local club there a a lot of new players. Some will keep playing the game on a regular basis, other not that much. I don't think you or I can do much about it. Each game has its inherently strength and weakness and people are attracted to one or the other.
For example warmachine bus good if you seek a competitive game, not for a relaxed and roll dives games. 40k and Kill team or shadespire probably the opposite (quiet easy but unbalanced for competitive game). And infinity for player not afraid of a lot of rules for fun, with a lot of skill but also some luck. It won't appeal to everybody. No point fighting that.