ITS Type of operation

i don't feel the direct action type and specialist type mission are samey, but in general, I heard others say all ITS mission feel a bit samey, which i feel to some degree is true. They do share a lot in common with each other. I like it when a TO respect mission type suggestions. It allows to build a secondary list for table setup and opponent faction. Instead of having to make 1 list for the direct mission(s) and 1 list for the specialists heavy mission(s) because the TO mixed both type in the same tournament.

 

The subtle differences really make or break the missions, IMHO. Supremacy really feels different from Deadly Dance, because of the shifting priorities.

Adding more complexity would probably be counter productive, since it would make balance harder, increase rules questions, and becomes too much about the mission, instead of playing Infinity. That is the say the goal is to play Infinity, the mission is secondary by providing objectives to work with, and supports the system. A far more complex mission would make the game all about that mission, with playing Infinity itself pretty secondary. You'd build a list that strictly for that mission, and would probably end up doing things that made little sense in the overall, but only within the context of that mission.

To some extent, older ITSs has this problem by raising the importance of various specialists far beyond their value in the game itself. Paramedics and Forward Observers (particular in N2) were perfect examples of models taking only because they were specialists, and able to perform missions, rather than for their actual utility as Paramedics and FOs. With N3 the med-kit has made the Paramedic useful as the occasional doctor, in keeping with their reduced price over a model with the Doctor skill. (Seems like the FO still needs some work).

 

I don't see a reason for those categories. TOs should let players know which missions are being played before the tournament so players can build their lists accordingly. Which missions are chose should be up to the TO. I find it harsh enough that all missions have to be from ITS.

I am liking ITS more these days, but the missions still feel sterile and somewhat sameish.

 

oh true. it reminds me of the paradiso mission, i was building list tweaked out just to be able to even complete the mission. And it would go down to that. And if players wanted to fight each other they'll both get low OP, such as an old ITS mission where you connect 4 antenna in a sequence.

 

Yeah I love it. That way you have a little direction but don't get to overly specialize. Other than a few specific problems the missions seem fine to me compared to each other.

 

If ITS is feeling samey, I think it's because the TO is not varying enough. We spent two years playing before someone even attempted to play capture and protect. It's 24 missions, but maybe every two missions feel a little similar to one another.

I like the division because it makes for different tourneys. Some of them are very combat focused while others are not. It works for me.

 

That was very much the problem with Paradiso. I mean, there's actually a big chart that @ijw put together to show what specialists were required to complete each mission.

If you did not build to the mission, you lost. And lost horribly. If you killed the opponent instead of going after objectives, you lost.

Current ITS is a lot better than that.

 

@Section9 I agree. Too much focus on button-pushing is a problem, as it discourages interactivity. I know Spain is in Europe and Euros stereotypically love their noninteractive games, but sometimes Infinity takes this too far...

The only Direct Action tournament I've ever played in is one I ran. I don't know why. IMO button pushers are the most boring scenarios.

 

@Hecaton Euro games is a title slapped on most of all German boardgames. French, German, Nordic/UK, and eastern EU are all fairly different and unique. Nordic/UK probably compares best to US design (or since I'm EU-positive, US design probably mimics Nordic/UK best)

But all tournaments need scenarios that encourages conflict. Button pushing is moving towards that direction, which is good. Still have a few scenarios with way, way, too many and complicated buttons to push.

 

I love a variety of styles both for gaming generally, and infinity missions in particular. I liked how some missions, like cold sleep, demanded a lot of planning and focus on the objectives because they were hard to achieve. I found them to have enough conflict because you still could disrupt your oppent's plans through aros, and mines, etc.

I also miss objective rooms, they were imo fun. I can see why there should be fewer missions with them, they certainly penalized larger silhouttes. But adding one or two scenarios that use them back into ITS would be nice.

Basically I like more variety, and anything CB does to make ITS more varied, the better. That is why I voted no above. It limits the combinations of missions a TO could implement. Beforehand nothing prohibited a TO from running all direct action styles, or mixing and matching styles, now there are limits, that at least to me don't seems to serve any purpose, other than to limit things.

At least locally our TO mixes up styles and add ons so we don't get stuck in a rut. I appreciate that.

 

I agree with this. One of my most epic games so far was a 400 points game where my Suryat Core managed to hold an objective room against three different types of Haqq HI over two turns. it was fun.

Thinking about it, I would like to see some mix and match on the styles. Because the way it is right now it's either all button pushing or all shooting at people's faces. And I think getting to a balance between both would make the game more interesting.

That being said, I do think ITS 9 is a step on the right direction.

 

Ah, the Objective Room. It's a huge coincidence, but just as I got one from winning Haqqislam's Baterp Contest in Wotan, CB decides to drop them from ITS missions.

 

well... the 5th mission of the narrative tournament seems to be The Armory... so you might want to revisit that thought :p

 

Oh? That is excellent news! Good thing I had the foresight to paint mine.

Guess I have some Tournament Pack to buy.

 

No reason if you want the mission, the PDF will be released next week.

 

But I want that Oyoroi! Thank goodness my wife doesn't read these forum threads.

 

Win a tournament then XD
Mind you, it's a normal O-Yoroi with new arms.

 

Oh, I intend to! We're all super Hyped for the Narrative Tournament.

I have a JSA Army Pack and a Domaru Buttai 4 pack (that I was going to sacrifice for conversions until I got the JSA Pack, now they have new use). So that Oyoroi would be a very welcome addition to my collection.

I won 2 of the last 3 Events we played, so I'll give it my best.

 

I'm fine with both misions, kill based and button based.

Armoury out is a huge loss, but i can understand that it was hard for big tournement to get enought central room. But i think more varied misions may need more standar escenografy ( in the central room sense).

Other idea should be misions with atack and deffensive player, but i know they will be very dificult to balance ( in our group we have been trying a one civilian control, one player trying to kindap it and the other one trying to stop it). Even looting and saboutage is hard to balance for certain sectorials and both attack or deffend. Anyway i think the new misions from wotan very funny ( except hunting party...) and a good improve.

Ps: refering to the OT, having a tournement wlthout supplies should help to get more variety, i don't know if it's Barcelona's area but always, always is a supplies mision if you play specialist based misions