1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

N4/C1 Token Design Questions

Discussion in 'Rules' started by Lawson, Oct 1, 2020.

  1. Sabin76

    Sabin76 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    1,708
    Likes Received:
    2,085
    The number on the graphic and the holoecho number are redundant. I can see how it might be confusing. The number up top is supposed to represent which set of holoechos they belong two (in case you have 2 troopers with holoprojectors on the board).
     
  2. Lawson

    Lawson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2020
    Messages:
    525
    Likes Received:
    815
    Because it's supposed to say "Equipment" and somehow a layer got turned on that shouldn't have been. Good catch.


    It's based on my unclear understanding of fireteams and the art of the existing official N4 tokens.
    Here is what the official N4 tokens look like (just snipped off the pdf, hence the additional icons):

    Screen Shot 2020-10-08 at 7.35.23 PM.png
    I've actually hewed pretty closely to what's there, but because I didn't see any official N4 Fireteam rules I didn't feel comfortable changing things much. For Fireteam Leader the dithered guys in the BG felt like they made the 'leader' stand out more, because in the original token it looks like 3 people with a star floating in front of them, rather than like the guy in front is the leader. For Haris, I didn't really understand what the little X was supposed to mean in the middle of the 3 characters, whether it was supposed to be a 'plus' or represent something else. Fireteam Haris can have 2 or 3 members according to what I read, so I figured the dithered character represents the hypothetical 3rd member. I'm open to suggestions on how they can be better.

    *Sigh* this actually gets to my earlier point about how annoying it that the game has some things that are identified numerically and some alphabetically and is inconsistent in its scheme. I would much prefer the game was consistent but I'm kind-of stuck with some of the choices the designers made. What I have done is identified the TOP number in the orange circle as a NUMERIC IDENTIFIER for Markers. The N4 tokens use it for this as well specifically for Camo tokens, but they also use it inconsistently as a VALUE on other tokens. For example... for Camouflage tokens, this number is a discrete identifier that can be traced back to the trooper that a camouflage marker represents (e.g. Camo Marker #1 is a Guilang Skirmisher, Camo Marker #2 is Hundun Ambush Unit, etc.). However, for Wound and Power Up tokens it represents the number of wounds a single trooper has instead. See below:

    Screen Shot 2020-10-08 at 7.43.47 PM.png Screen Shot 2020-10-08 at 7.43.41 PM.png
    Note that it is not even consistently used between the wound and Power-Up tokens (1 wound has the orange marker but 1 power-up does not) What I've done on my tokens is removed this secondary usage and instead re-worked the Wound and Power-Up2 tokens as Wound x2 and Power Up x2 and keep the orange circle to JUST function as an identifier...

    So here's where it gets tricky. The tokens in the game actually don't accommodate for multiples of the same Marker State on the board EXCEPT for Camouflage. Let's say, for example that you have two different hackers each with Cybermask activated. Both would be replaced by IMP-2 markers, but you or your opponent could potentially get them mixed up especially if they were moving close to one another. With this established, it stood to reason that any States that turned a figure into a marker OR put markers on the board that represented hypothetical figures (such as Decoy or Holoecho) should be numbered the same way as Camo markers were, using a consistent system (same thing could happen if two figures each had a set of Holoecho figures and were moving close to one another... you could mix up who owned which ones). Unfortunately I knew this was going to create a problem, because, as you point out, it results in a set of tokens that are essentially numbered multiple times. The Holoechos belonging to figure 1, numbered 1 and 2, and the Holoecho belonging to figure 2, numbered 1 and 2. The numbering on the face is just meant to echo (no pun intended) the number in the name and allow you see it easily from farther away - but I found I was even confusing myself looking at them. So here are the options as I see them. None of them are ideal.

    1) remove the orange circle numeric identifiers from the HoloEchos and Decoys and just hope it's not a problem that happens in the game
    2) change the HoloEcho and Decoy numbering at the bottom from 1/2 to A/B and risk inconsistency with way they are described in the game
    3) change the numbers in the orange circle to letters instead, A and B, and be inconsistent with the camo tokens OR change the camo tokens as well to read A, B, C, D, etc. instead of 1, 2, 3,4
    4) Keep the tokens as they are but make additional changes to the Holoecho tokens to differentiate them better, such as changing the color scheme for each pair (I noticed this is the way they appear on the Ghostlords sheet creator @toadchild)
    5) change the numbering on HoloEcho and Decoy entirely to be EXACTLY like Camo... e.g. just have the orange number, so you have HoloEcho 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. and you assign a figure a pair of numbers from the group when the Holoechos first appear. This means that 99% of the the time you just have 1 and 2, but if you have multiple figures each with Holoechos, the 2nd figure will get 3 and 4, and so on. Like this:
    Screen Shot 2020-10-08 at 8.08.58 PM.png
    I think this is the option I like the most and feels the most consistent to the numbering system established for Camo.
    5) something else?
     
    #62 Lawson, Oct 9, 2020
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2020
    Errhile and toadchild like this.
  3. Sabin76

    Sabin76 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    1,708
    Likes Received:
    2,085
    I don't believe you... :P
     
    Lawson likes this.
  4. Lawson

    Lawson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2020
    Messages:
    525
    Likes Received:
    815
    Realized I hadn't done a motorcycle token yet. Here it is:
    Screen Shot 2020-10-09 at 1.48.07 AM.png
    Will need to add it to the sheet
     
  5. ijw

    ijw Ian Wood aka the Wargaming Trader. Rules & Wiki
    Infinity Rules Staff Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,131
    Likes Received:
    14,620
    Let’s just say that the Team Leader Tokens in the PDF are... awkward.

    They should be labelled:
    Fireteam Leader
    Fireteam: Duo Leader
    Fireteam: Haris Leader
    Etc. as per the rules text.

    The most important information to go on them is the number of members, and whether you can have more than one of that type of Fireteam on the table at once. If you decide to use a star on one of the members, I suggest doing the same on all of them, because in game terms they’re all the same Team Leader Token, just for the different types of Fireteam.

    Core, 2-5 members, unique
    Haris, 2-3 members, unique
    Duo, 2 members, unlimited
    Triad, 3 members, unlimited (but to muddy things, it can drop to 2 members during the game)
    Enomotarchos, 2-4 members, unlimited
     
  6. Lawson

    Lawson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2020
    Messages:
    525
    Likes Received:
    815
    Interesting. Having not played with them exactly but only skimmed the N3 rules in the wiki, it seems like the FT rules are a bit kludgy to begin with. I've got a couple follow-up questions...

    1) Why is the Leader of a "Core" Fireteam just called "Fireteam Leader" and not "Core Leader or F: Core Leader" or something like that? Wouldn't that be a better designation since it matches the naming scheme of the actual fireteams? Or is there something exceptional about Core (e.g. it was the first type of fireteam created in the game and therefore had the designation of just Fireteam from the beginning)?

    2) What is the method of keeping track of fireteam members aside from the leader? Is it a combination of memory and looking at coherency? Is it just written down? Do the individual figures not need tokens identifying them as the members of a fireteam? Or is it just the leader because the leader is the only one your opponent presumably cares about killing at any given time?
     
    Daniel Darko, Xeurian and ijw like this.
  7. ijw

    ijw Ian Wood aka the Wargaming Trader. Rules & Wiki
    Infinity Rules Staff Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,131
    Likes Received:
    14,620
    1) Good point. The tokens are doing double-duty - marking who is the Team Leader (which is the general term, regardless of Fireteam type), and at the same time acting as a reminder of the type of Fireteam.

    So I think it would be a good idea to use Team Leader as the main text on the token, and then mention the type of Fireteam separately.

    2) Memory, although I sometimes see people marking them with coloured beads or similar. But yes, marking the Team Leader is by far the most critical bit.

    I think doing tokens for all the members would be reaching the point of diminishing returns, as you’d potentially need 3, 4 or even 5 different ones for Triad and Enomotarchos, and would need either two tokens on the Team Leader, or that many different Team Leader tokens for those types of Fireteam.
     
    Lawson and Xeurian like this.
  8. Lawson

    Lawson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2020
    Messages:
    525
    Likes Received:
    815
    @ijw Does this look better to you?
    Screen Shot 2020-10-09 at 12.08.15 PM.png

    Each fireteam has members dithered out to denote minimum/maximum size, except for Triad. As you mentioned it could reduce to two members, so I've just put an asterisk next to the 3 in the reminder text.
     
    Armihaul, Xeurian, HellLois and 11 others like this.
  9. ijw

    ijw Ian Wood aka the Wargaming Trader. Rules & Wiki
    Infinity Rules Staff Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,131
    Likes Received:
    14,620
    :heart:
     
    Lawson likes this.
  10. toadchild

    toadchild Premeasure

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    4,116
    Likes Received:
    7,756
    I ran into some of the same problems when adding annotations for N3 markers.

    For IMP, I simply added the same green number jewel that camo used:
    For Holoechoes, I took a different cue from Camo, and I made some simple color shifts in photoshop:
    You may notice that the number jewels on the recolored ones match camo markers rather than the original holoecho. This is because my artistic skills are limited.

    Edit: Images weren't loading for some reason, so I made links.
     
    #70 toadchild, Oct 9, 2020
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2020
    Daniel Darko likes this.
  11. Lawson

    Lawson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2020
    Messages:
    525
    Likes Received:
    815
    Yeah, I did something similar for IMP - essentially following the newer N4 token design like so:

    N4

    Screen Shot 2020-10-09 at 1.23.41 PM.png Screen Shot 2020-10-09 at 1.24.18 PM.png
    The N4 use an orange circle with a number at the top, so in the same way that you mimicked the N3 green circle, I'm mimicking the N4 orange circle:
    Screen Shot 2020-10-09 at 1.28.39 PM.png

    So the question is which one of these options makes more sense?

    Discretely numbered Holoecho

    Screen Shot 2020-10-09 at 1.31.12 PM.png
    Pros
    - retains a numbering scheme that makes sense and is consistent with camo
    - if you only have one figure with Holoecho it is an invisible solution to the problem
    - allows holoecho to be a color that is consistent with all other non-camo markers
    - potentially still allows for the creation of other colors for Holoecho if you and your opponent have multiple figures with holoecho and need to be able to tell then apart (you take one color and I take another, the same as we might if we both have many camouflaged figures
    Cons
    - a second figure's Holoechos will necessarily be numbered 3 and 4, which may annoy some people
    - Holoecho name field is slightly changed from Holoecho 1/2 to just Holoecho, which makes it slightly inconsistent with the rules

    Colored Holoecho
    Screen Shot 2020-10-09 at 1.39.42 PM.png Pros
    - retains the Holoecho names Holoecho 1 and Holoecho 2 exactly as they appear in the rulebook, etc.
    - easy to tell apart on the table at a glance
    Cons
    - coloring tokens differently creates inconsistency with the way I've tried to explicitly color-code tokens for my updated styling. For example... the green version of the token is the color that I've reserved for "Equipment"
    - even with various colors in existence, it is possible (however unlikely) that two players could end up with he same sets of colors and create confusion

    OR we could do a color coding like this:
    Screen Shot 2020-10-09 at 1.46.48 PM.png
    Pros
    - same as the above
    - creates a unique color identity for Holoecho tokens (which I could also duplicate over to Decoys) which doesn't break any of my other color rules
    Cons
    -minor: would need to tweak either the colors of the holoechos or the text for 'targetable' to make it more readable.
     
    #71 Lawson, Oct 9, 2020
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2020
    Armihaul, Xeurian and Daniel Darko like this.
  12. QueensGambit

    QueensGambit Chickenbot herder

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2019
    Messages:
    1,834
    Likes Received:
    2,645
    I liked your original Holoecho scheme best.

    If it's too confusing having two sets of numbers, I would keep the orange numbers for consistency with the rest of the scheme, and change the "holoecho 1" and "holoecho 2" labels to "holoecho A" and "holoecho B." And maybe for the graphic, instead of having the leftmost guy in solid with a "1" or "2" (or "A" or "B"), have the leftmost guy solid on the A token and the rightmost guy solid on the B token. (But still label them A and B of course).
     
    wes-o-matic likes this.
  13. toadchild

    toadchild Premeasure

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    4,116
    Likes Received:
    7,756
    Re: color - I think these fall under the same umbrella as camo, impersonation, decoy, etc. Maybe revisit the design and make sure you have a clear and consistent visual language for "marker state" so that coloration isn't the focus? I doubt you're concerned that the purple camo will be mistaken for an objective.
     
  14. Nuada Airgetlam

    Nuada Airgetlam Nazis sod off ///

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2018
    Messages:
    2,970
    Likes Received:
    2,921
    The discreetly numbered version is best.

    I also want to say, I can't wait for the final result and getting them printed. This is excellent work and CB should honestly hire you to do both tokens and color coordination / design for their rulebooks, as you understand and reproduce the semantics so well. Great job, mate.
     
    Lawson likes this.
  15. Lawson

    Lawson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2020
    Messages:
    525
    Likes Received:
    815
    I agree - it's just a challenge inherent in trying to make it 'work' for the most people. Essentially there are currently 5 overall marker designs I have in play:

    1) Tokens that modify figures by sitting next to them on the battlefield (the majority of them) have two borders, the same as the official N4 tokens... a light gray border on the outside, and an inner white border.
    2) Marker States and tokens that essentially represent figures omit the inner white border but keep the outer gray border
    3) Health/Wound Effects use a a dark red border instead of the white border to differentiate them from other tokens so that you can easily identify which figures have taken damage
    4) Supportware uses a dark blue border in place of the white border to differentiate it from other tokens so that it stands out, since supportware offers broad buffs across multiple units
    5) Order tokens are 'full bleed' color all the way to the edge) and omit both the white border and the outer gray border

    So in addition to the marker states Camo and Impersonation falling under #2, I've also classified things like Holoecho, Decoys, and Tinbots, the former two of which are targetable 'markers' and the latter of which (the Tinbot), while just a piece of equipment, can be represented by a mini and therefore falls under this category. Incidentally, I chose to represent objectives using the #2 designation as well because they represent physical landmarks on the battlefield (many of which can be interacted with or targeted) and because they can technically be replaced with models. This actually means that mines and other deployables should fall under category #2 as well (since they are targetable, represent battlefield objects, and can be subbed with miniatures) so I will change this in the next publish (since they currently use the white border).

    Camo is the only type of marker in N4 that is functionally rendered in more than two colors for its image and in distinctive visual flavors in the default N4 tokens, so its tough to use it as a reference for the aesthetics of the rest of the markers unless we choose to render them in a more illustrative style (which isn't necessarily off the table) - but Camo does essentially create the precedent that Marker States aren't subject to color-identification the same way the other tokens are (there was an earlier post where I drew attention to this issue and speculated on maybe creating various versions of the Markers in the different faction colors rather than tie them to an other form of identification but that obviously doesn't solve the issue within a given army potentially wanting multiple colors). However, while Camo has multiple color options, it's also likely that you wouldn't choose a different color for each one of your camouflaged figures, but instead might pick one color of camo for a given combat group, with each figure represented by a different marker NUMBER rather than having several different colors of #1s for several figures... so that doesn't track directly to a logical solution for the Marker States either. Not sure if I'm making any sense but what I'm trying to say is its TOUGH to figure out exactly how to do it and I'm changing my mind back and forth literally as I write this - I've been banging my head against the wall collectively for hours on this... but I think I'm close to a solution. Stand by.
     
    toadchild likes this.
  16. Lawson

    Lawson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2020
    Messages:
    525
    Likes Received:
    815
    @toadchild @Nuada Airgetlam @QueensGambit
    Okay how 'bout this for a compromise:

    Screen Shot 2020-10-09 at 9.53.53 PM.png

    We actually create a combination of numbering AND coloration, which is just like what Camo does... and the same as Camo, you as the player get to decide what combination of tokens you want use. If you prefer to use 1 and 2 for each and every one of your figures with Holoecho, you can use multiple colors. If, on the other hand, you prefer color consistency of your Holoecho tokens across your whole army, you can use numbered tokens in pairs, 1/2, 3/4, 5/6 etc. (note that I've somewhat adopted @QueensGambit 's suggestion I've flopped the artwork on the token for odds/evens so each pair of tokens will have a left and right side solid figure). The color choices, like camo, also give you a good option to tell your Holoechos apart from your opponent's on a crowded board. Finally, I've incorporated the white background, which means that the color of the background field will not be confused with the color identity of the other tokens... except perhaps for the Wound tokens, which doesn't strike me as too big a deal as long as I avoid a deep red as one of the color options for these.

    (I wouldn't include this many options on the default sheet because no one would make use of all of them, but it would be an option for players - the same concept would be extended to Decoys, with the possible option to apply it to other markers, such as IMP-1/2 just for people who like a particular color choice)
     
    Xeurian, Daniel Darko and toadchild like this.
  17. toadchild

    toadchild Premeasure

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    4,116
    Likes Received:
    7,756
    @Lawson I like those! Although 5 needs to be flipped...
     
    Lawson likes this.
  18. Lawson

    Lawson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2020
    Messages:
    525
    Likes Received:
    815
    It's a bit late for me so I may not have caught all the mistakes, but here's the update: N4_TOKENS_PROPOSED_LAYOUT_v02_000.jpg N4_TOKENS_PROPOSED_LAYOUT_v02_001.jpg N4_TOKENS_PROPOSED_LAYOUT_v02_002.jpg N4_TOKENS_PROPOSED_LAYOUT_v02_003.jpg N4_TOKENS_PROPOSED_LAYOUT_v02_004.jpg

    Again, the gridlines are because this isn't final - but we're getting closer.

    This represents pretty-much all the token options I've created. Pages 1-5 should cover pretty much anything that's typical, with an eye for quantities of token that would provide some good opportunities for those looking to make double-sided tokens (as I mentioned is my preference) Starting at page 6 things start to get a little more esoteric w/ 40 and 55mm Camo Markers and a 40mm IMP-2. Then page 7 is 55mm Camo Markers, page 8 is a LARGE number of various colored options for Markers to represent figures and/or Marker States (you'll note that there are some missing colors/numbers but this is only because they are on earlier pages in the document, so you get all of them if you print out every page). Pages 9 and 10 contain some leftover stuff, including 55mm HoloEchos, additional color options for 40mm IMP-2 and Seed-Embryo, a 25mm options for Command Tokens, along with 15mm mimetism tokens I figured it might not hurt to have. I wouldn't necessarily expect anyone to print out this entire set of tokens, but this is an indication fo the entirety of the options.

    Will look over everything again myself in the AM with fresh eyes and do some test prints over the weekend to confirm the look and ensure everything has the proper 'bleed' for cutting.
     
    Xeurian, Willen, toadchild and 3 others like this.
  19. Daixomaku

    Daixomaku Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    162
    Likes Received:
    218
    Just noticed there's the 40 mm Camo Token without -3 or -6 for the Long Ya remote ... maybe it is in the pages you mentioned.
     
  20. Errhile

    Errhile A traveller on the Silk Road

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2017
    Messages:
    1,595
    Likes Received:
    2,533
    I guess I'm late to the party, but... could you be bothered to make one more try at the Loaded / Unloaded tokens?

    This graphic design will be perfect for troops armed with Disposable missiles (Panzerfaust / Pitcher / Flasmmenspeer etc), and can of course represent any other Disposable equipment.

    However, it might be introducing some disorder if a troop is equipped with more than one type of Disposable equipment. For example, Hassassin Muyibs have loadouts with both Panzerfaust (a Disposable BS weapon, which those tokens represent in an ideal way) and Mines (Disposable Deployable) of one kind or another.

    Some more extreme cases have two kinds of Disposable Deployables, eg. Mines and D-charges (like Hassassin Farzan or EVAder). I have no idea how to handle that, though, without getting way too many different designs :(


    I'd love to see variant Orders (Regular and Irregular) to mark different Combat Groups.
    Dunno, maybe give them Roman numerals (I, II, III) in a circle at the bottom of the marker?
    Basic N4 rules seems to limit us to 2 Combat Groups as far as practical reasons go, though I guess some people will be happy playing 400pts (or larger) games without Combat Group limits, too.

    :heart_eyes:All in all I love what you do here, in general :heart_eyes:
    Might end replacing my MAS tokens with some of these one day...
     
    #80 Errhile, Oct 10, 2020
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2020
  • About Us

    We are a company founded in 2001 in Cangas (Spain), and devoted to design and manufacture games and figures. Our main product, Infinity the Game, was born with the ambition to satisfy the most demanding audience, offering the best quality.

     

    Why are we here?

     

    Because we are, first and foremost, players.

  • Quick Navigation

    Open the Quick Navigation