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

Units removed

Discussion in 'News' started by Arg, Jan 27, 2020.

  1. Sabin76

    Sabin76 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    1,708
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    I know it's a quite a stretch, but also think about this: There isn't a single CCG/LCG that wasn't helped by rotation in terms of keeping the game fresh and people buying.
     
  2. colbrook

    colbrook Grenade Delivery Specialist

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    17,066
    From a pure game design point of view you're correct.

    But whilst card games and miniatures games share a lot of design space, they differ massively in player investment.

    Not just monetary investment, which is much higher even for a low model count game like N3, but time and psychological investment too, minis require assembling and painting, people also start to form fondness and emotional attachments to their little metal dudes and dudettes as they go through games with them.

    Discontinuing factions in a miniatures game therefore is a bigger loss of "investment" (again, not just monetary investment) than a deck of cards, and if the framework of N4 remains similar to that of N3 (which indications are that it will) then the best outcome to me is to keep the Sectorials in the game with my the barest of minor updates.

    Finally, the Japanese Secession, and the community's response to it, is a good reason to believe that CB will avoid removing any sectorial entirely in the future.
     
  3. Sabin76

    Sabin76 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    1,708
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    I don't disagree. Hence my qualifying statement in the beginning. I simply brought it up because there is also a parallel in CB's idea of keeping a set amount of SKUs.
     
    colbrook likes this.
  4. AmPm

    AmPm Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2019
    Messages:
    716
    Likes Received:
    1,380
    If you look at competitive play for CCGs I think you will find that depending on format the costs far outstrip the costs of Infinity.

    Both have a large amount of investment involved, some in the case of hunting down rare cards (Lotus I'm looking at you) and others in the painting of miniatures. Nobody likes to see their stuff become invalidated, but it has to happen. I have some old S2 Az'Rail, they are not usable anymore. I have a Spitfire Druze, same deal. I had old JSA stuff that didn't exist anymore, etc. Hell, it's even worse as far as Warhammer goes. My massive Warhammer Fantasy Battles army not only became invalidated by going through editions without a new book, but they also killed the game.

    Infinity needs a paring down. The amount of units and sectorials is silly.
     
    Berjiz, ZlaKhon, DukeofEarl and 2 others like this.
  5. colbrook

    colbrook Grenade Delivery Specialist

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    17,066
    CCGs are a scam and should be treated as such.

    The LCG is actually a really neat format that allows the game to rotate cards in and out without any massive disruption.

    Neither have the non-financial investment levels of a miniatures game as they lack the duality of combining a creative/crafting hobby with a gaming one.

    Having the occasional miniature become a casualty to progress is acceptable. Losing a faction is just going to piss people off.
     
  6. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    12,018
    Likes Received:
    15,302
    I don't quite understand why people seem to equate a faction being removed to all of its containing units going away. CB doesn't churn out huge amounts of new models each year, after all, so killing off that many miniatures wholesale isn't going to work.
     
    ChoTimberwolf and Golem2God like this.
  7. colbrook

    colbrook Grenade Delivery Specialist

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    17,066
    You think they will (for example) keep all the FRRM units in Vanilla but remove the sectorial chart?
     
  8. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    12,018
    Likes Received:
    15,302
    I wouldn't expect them to keep "all" nor would I expect "none" if they do remove e.g. Merrovingia. In the specific case of Merrovingia I would at least expect them to keep Chasseur which I think they released a new miniature for not too long ago and in the specific case of Merrovingia I would hope for a re-conceptualisation if they do remove it.
    Not sure if it's even likely for MRRF and Caledonia to merge, but that could also be a reason to remove a sectorial and a few units as all of them are too many and reinventing the wheel completely and then releasing it in CB drip feed fashion seems a bit excessive.
     
    Golem2God likes this.
  9. A Mão Esquerda

    A Mão Esquerda Deputy Hexahedron Officer

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    3,394
    Likes Received:
    4,104
    And at the end of the day CB has removed, what, something <10 minis entirely from the game, with some of those profiles (Raiden, Haramaki) morphing into something else? Yes, I'm a supporter/apologist/whatever term you want to use, but that's a pretty decent track record.
     
  10. CabalTrainee

    CabalTrainee Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    495
    Likes Received:
    740
    I guess i'm in the minority here but i think they should remove more for the health of the game. Having lots of never updated old profiles hanging around is not really helping. If the idea is to release new sectorials all the time i'd like them to cut some of the old ones.

    Edit: Well I'm waiting on N4 and Code One.
     
    Mahtamori likes this.
  11. McDevil

    McDevil Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2018
    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    111
    Yep healthy for game. But sometimes can hurt. I have not much time and I paint slow. Cutting out Lilith and Mr Graves from Neverborn was one of big reason why I lost interest in new edition of Malifaux. Even if thats was just only two minis and I have tons of other unbuild, for that system.
     
    colbrook and Golem2God like this.
  12. Errhile

    Errhile A traveller on the Silk Road

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2017
    Messages:
    2,272
    Likes Received:
    3,915
    Personally I can live with units being retired (it would be nice to get a in-universe explaination for it. IIRC, that was what happened to Haramaki Zensenbutai, who got almost wiped out in the Uprising, and got reformed inot Tanko), but I'd hate to be left with useless models again.

    It hapened to my QK during the 2ed -> N3 transformation, as I owned 5 Azra'il models, including a converted Spitfire. For those who don't rmrmber these days of old, the Azra'il were normal sized (S2 equivalent) "light HI" with loadouts of Spitfire, AP Rifle + Panzerfaust and Feuerbach. They got turned into current "superheavy S5 HI" armed with either a HMG or Feuerbach. Effectively making my 5 models - 3 of them converted - mere decoration. "Proxies allowed" is all fine and dandy, as long as you have anything you could proxy with a S2 HI with Feuerbach in QK... (I ended starting StarCo and converting them into Riot Boyz, who do fine in place of Riot Grrls normally availablefor that sectorial).

    How CB could avoid that? Well, give it some thought, and make a list of what existing model that they are going to retire they recommend to use as. Keeping with Haqqislam, the 1ed Halqa - long discontinued - are obvious stand-ins for Ghulam Infantry.
    This generates no new SKUs, no new units, no actual costs for CB - except for the time and effort they need to make a list of what can be used as what.
     
    prophet of doom and Golem2God like this.
  13. Red Harvest

    Red Harvest Day in, Day out. Day in, Day out. Day in, DAY OUT

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    553
    Likes Received:
    1,231
    ^^^Already made that suggestion on the first page. The response was a quote of the generic proxy policy. :neutral_face:
     
    #93 Red Harvest, Feb 8, 2020
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2020
  14. Knauf

    Knauf Transhumanist

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2018
    Messages:
    1,615
    Likes Received:
    2,290
    I feel this would give "those guys" justification for contesting your proxy more than anything else. Under the current Proxy rules, you have all the freedom you want to use older sculpts and nobody can contest them, if you inform them beforehand. I don't quite understand what benefit an official "counts as" would have. What am I missing here?
     
    chaos11 and A Mão Esquerda like this.
  15. Errhile

    Errhile A traveller on the Silk Road

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2017
    Messages:
    2,272
    Likes Received:
    3,915
    Please note the difference between "your old model counts as..." and "we suggest you use your old model s..."
     
    Berjiz and prophet of doom like this.
  16. Red Harvest

    Red Harvest Day in, Day out. Day in, Day out. Day in, DAY OUT

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    553
    Likes Received:
    1,231
    Orphaned minis. As Errhile pointed out, what are his Halqa now? The counts as re-purposes them as Ghulam. This ought to cut down on some of the "Muh minis were squatted" complaints that are sure to come. It is, if nothing else, a way to soften the blow of losing units, since the minis are not useless, and are still part of the game, and not as proxies, but as different units.

    It does not negate the general rule on proxies. The minis re-purposed are not proxies at all if/when used as their newly designated units. Maybe counts-as is the wrong term.
     
    Golem2God and Errhile like this.
  17. Knauf

    Knauf Transhumanist

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2018
    Messages:
    1,615
    Likes Received:
    2,290
    So it's more of a sentimental than a practical thing, then? You'd like them to remain officially relevant instead of "just" being a proxy?

    Halqa still have a unit profile in Haqqislam, don't they?
     
    chaos11 and A Mão Esquerda like this.
  18. Errhile

    Errhile A traveller on the Silk Road

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2017
    Messages:
    2,272
    Likes Received:
    3,915
    The Halqa do.
    The S2 Azra'il don't.
     
  19. Dragonstriker

    Dragonstriker That wizard came from the moon.

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2017
    Messages:
    808
    Likes Received:
    1,329
    1. Exrah weren’t made by a different company, so you’re talking out your ass.
    2. They’re shelving sectorials so they can add 3 more, duh.
     
  20. prophet of doom

    prophet of doom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2017
    Messages:
    486
    Likes Received:
    438
    I very much welcomed that cb reached the point where almost all sectorials from the fluff are in the game. It would be sad if after a year of this state, we d lose it again. If cb is unable to update all the sectorials at once, I d prefer it if they could slowly give us updates on sectorials just like they did with MRRF. I celebrated the update, fully knowing that cb will never produce a merovingian model ever again.
     
    Golem2God and A Mão Esquerda like this.
  • 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