The worst offender is DBS, where you rarely have more than a couple Druze and everything else is random mercs. CB needs to go back, rework profiles, and release miniatures for people to actually use them. Not everyone likes to proxy, hell, I would say most people would rather have WYSIWYG or the option of it. I know in our community proxying is a way to test something out without buying it or a method of last resort because CB doesn't make the model.
I don't remember anyone saying it was going to be bad Before it came out. Most were looking forward to it. Unfortunately it just didn't work, time to move on. If you don't like it, come up with your own way and play it.
No, it's important to figure out why it failed. Please point me to all these people being optimistic about it. I only saw intense negativity.
When Reinforcements was first announced, people were stoked for a new game mode. You can see that in Adepticon 2023 thread (https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threads/adepticon-gencon-2023-many-projects.41872/page-3), and in other threads about Endsong. In addition, multiple podcasts, including WIP 12, Loss of Lieutenant, MayaCast, and Tactical Awareness, talked excitedly about Reinforcements. In addition, you can also see the YouTube discussions like Late Night War games, Infinity Gamer, and Fast Panda Gaming. Now you can say that when the rules were released, there was some disappointment. But, here was a lot of excitement for the new mode when it was announced.
You see what you want to see, how much relation it has with reality is another subject all together. How well reinforcements have sold is something only CB knows, if they sold well enough because people liked the rules or the models it open to anyone's guess, what form the reinforcement rules have its up to anyone's guess. The only solid information anyone has is CB saying they experimented in having some mini sectorials available only in this game mode and by popular demand they intergraded them to the main sectorials they were designed to be part of. They have no reason to lie, if you choose to not believe them it is your personal choice.
Link me to people being optimistic or positive on the Reinforcements rules or please stop bringing it up. It's getting ridiculous at this point. No, distributors know too. I've definitely talked to them. People with parasocial relationships with CB definitely have incentive to lie.
Only it uses a completely different game system... I suppose it could be "the next step after Aristeia!", but the amount of pieces to be used as a "gaming mat" are not enough, also it was a one time deal game anyways, meaning the art assets for the gaming mats are already made, it's just a matter of size. And adapting N4's rules to be used there in a 6vs6 or so gaming mode instead of a 4Vs infinite AI enemies. A complete redesign of their profiles, I'd say, since increasing the cost one or two points because of reasons still mean in certain faction they remain autoinclude while in others with a lot of cheap sacrificial pawns they are already with one or two foot out of the airlock. Whatever the choice, some backlash will be inevitable. I would start with redundant units, an example is the sheer amount of Engineers in vanilla nomads (9 different troops at this time!); I'd say that some heroes should be exclusive to their sectorial, and some units merely confuse the heck of newbies (so for example, wildcats and Carlota, and possibly Evaders, should be Corregidor only, Zoe & Piwell could be limited to Bakunin, and we are now down to Fiddler -which can be on Tunguska and Bakunin, so she has some reason to be in Vanilla-, Tomcats -because only DA engineer-, clockmakers -because some units should be everywhere, those being the common remotes and the support pack models-, etc..). Of course, Corvus should be more aware of the most used options, due to their access to the Tournament Manager, and attempt to make the decisions. As a final note regarding the mercenaries in general in vanilla, sometimes they bring something unique (knauf & Le Muet), sometimes they are much more cost-effective than the other options (for example, monstruckers) and last but not least (much less the end of the list) sometimes they give a cheap sacrificial pawn that lets you play some mind games (for example, the Libertos minelayer). That would make hard to justify some C1 package options that shoehorn units from separate sectorials, since those units are not available in any other way. And also make it hard to justify why one sectorial has an overabundance of something while others lack it entirely (for example, smoke in Aleph... for me one of the reasons I simply don't play OSS is the lack of smoke, another how little variation in fireteam core compositions, etc...). While you can't grow past 50 whithout exploding in costs thanks to our government, you are allowed to have a contractual relationship to other, separate companies specialized in certain aspects of the industry, so you can get away with having just one accountant taking care of day-to-day stuff and providing the external financial advising company with a liaison, while also doing some more chores (for example pulling out statistical data from the OTM). I agree it's not easy and there is a hard ceiling on this, but there are ways around problems with some effort and good planning.
Let's be reasonable. It is obvious that the reception of reinforcements was lukewarm and the reason was in the rules. The models were mostly well-received and continue to be reasonably well-received, with only the Haqqislam ones receiving some criticism. The only issue was the unexciting rules, which also did not work well with the current list of missions. Miniatures got very little play time in an alternative gameplay mode, and the alternative game mode was not sufficiently well-developed and balanced. It still isn't although some steps were made in the right direction. This is where I see meaningful community input - what do you want to do with various special rules related to reinforcements - allow some of them to arrive early as parachutists, restrict where they can land, introduce AROs against the reinforcement troops. The good thing about Infinity is that it is sufficiently modular to test various special rules, concepts, home-brew missions and so on. So the theorycrafters have a lot to play with. CB on their side would also do well if they drop various playtest materials so we can try them and give our feedback before the next ITS season drops and preferably before the community week initiative.
I'm not going to go searching through stuff to prove a point. I know I was looking forward to it. But disappointed in the implementation. I think you have a tendency to only see the negative. Sorry but that's all I think I ever hear from you. Constructive criticism is great but I've seen little of that. Edit: I know it’s hard though for constructive criticism though, because as we know it can take too long for changes happen. It can be very frustrating. But I like to think they are listening and will eventually change things for the better. I know I can also be negative at times too. I’m sure I can find some quotes from me in the YJ section. But I’ve learned to move on. Now I’m playing O12 instead of YJ and it’s helped my attitude a lot.
Dude, if you're not going to back up your points, just don't express them. There's too much of people in this community who just deny math when it's presented to them, let alone tournament results. I don't only see the negative. But the toxic positivity of the CB parasocial fanbase means that it's the negativity that needs to be expressed the most. What's more, I think your (and many of the other people in this community's) opinion of what's "nonconstructive" and "constructive" criticism has more to do with who's saying it rather than what's being said; the cliquishness of the facebook/discord groups for this game tells the story on that one. No, it's not a matter of "too long." The *process* is wrong. When they said that reinforcement play wasn't good for competitive play but only for their narrative play... you know what, a narrative play system would be a great thing to release to the community! I love narrative-style play. A pity we don't get that... just sort of half-assed competitive rules with horribly broken missions that hinge on who wins a roll to go first or whatever. Someone at CB who has a lot of pull seems to preferentially listen to the hugbox/toxic positivity types too. I don't see CB incorporating constructive criticism, instead I see them doubling down on bad ideas in almost defiance of the community (very Jervis Johnson-esque of them), and taking feedback from only a small selection of people, who are more interested in keeping their place as community middlemen between the larger fanbase and CB rather than actually helping to make a good game. It's a problem, and I don't think they're apprehending it.
You have been historically, either unwilling or unable to accept any viewpoint that does not conform to your assumptions, even when the majority of the forum, or raw data, try explain to you that this is not the case, on top of that you never back up your position with anything other that what equates to "I say so, so it is so". You are needlessly adversarial and confrontationist, something that is both tiresome and degenerates any valid arguments you may make, a think that has been pointed out to you multiple times by multiple people, both privately and publicly. There is no excuse to your behavior and your belief that if you are seemingly not heard of, or your assumption that when the majority of people in the discussion disagree with you are "toxic fanboys", therefore you need to be as loud and aggressive as you can to make your point/ be heard of, is not an excuse. Therefore, I would suggest again to stop it. As a bonus point: You think, you do not know, and cannot quote, but assume, therefore it is so, please stop assuming what people think and believe, I was going to let it slide as I know what is your solidified opinion of me and I do not give much attention to such quotes, but it is a good illustration to what I said above, even a cursory read of the Reinforcements, discussions and feedback cannot support such a claim, but you did it anyway.
As it seems Hecaton didn't use his temporary banishment to chill and learn how to engage with people at least in an okeish manner, maybe it's time to get him some more definitive kind of vacation :)
At his point I need to ask you, why are you even here? Also, why are you even playing the game? Obviously you are not happy with either.
And to defend @Space Ranger, I provided a thread and information about multiple podcasts and YouTubers who were excited about the rules. It was not just the models (unlike your short response stated), people were looking forward to it be a major shift in the game. Now it ended up being disappointing to many, but from all that I provided, a lot of people were looking forward it. When you demand for people to show backup for their opinons with facts (and they do), while you state your opinions as facts and refuse support them with any objective information, you come off as disingenuous. I hope that is not your intention.
I don't think I do that very much. I think anyone observing the situation would say that you do exactly what you're describing far, far more. Well, there's no way to disagree with certain people on here without being seen as adversarial and confrontationist. So at a certain point you just have to accept it - they're going to find anyone going against their groupthink a malefactor, regardless of how well-reasoned their point is. Why are you putting "toxic fanboys" in quotes when I never said that? What are you trying to pull? See, this is another example of how you hold people who disagree with you on certain topics to different standards. and see adversarial and confrontationist behavior where there is none. I was literally saying that I don't think you agree that the reception of reinforcements was lukewarm (because you say we can't say that with certainty without global sales numbers) and I don't think you agree the reason was in the rules. You're really reaching to find that insulting when I'm just commenting on your own stated opinions on the topic. I could go back and quote it but it didn't seem a contentious idea until you decided to take offense for a civil statement.
I simply abbreviated this to as few words as it needs to be. Nothing more nothing less. No, I pointed out that, because, if you had bothered to read the threads, you would know that me denying that community did not receive the rules well is not true in the slightest. As I said you need to start reading what people say, not skim through threads, assume what people say and take your assumption for granted.
