We had a great chat going on about this, but the thread got off topic and looks like it definitely has a lock incoming. So in the interest of keeping the conversation going, I am wondering all - what do you think about balance and gameplay in the new edition? Are there some strategies, units, factions, composition styles, skills or anything else that seem overpowered or un-fun? Or is it the opposite - is everything is better than ever? I went through the first three pages of that thread and snipped what I considered to be the deepest posts and put them here; Spoiler Three personal opinions to get things started. Really, really dislike forced 15 model cap. It homogenizes armies and really takes from the uniqueness of different factions and playstyles. Would rather something like the "15 order cap" suggested (only generate 15 orders max no matter how many models) or a scaling points increase as you take more models in the second group. Uninteractive strategies are becoming more prevalant, and that is not a good thing. Missiles have little counter play. Walking into hacker zones can be a chore. Repeaters appear some place and hack/missile your shit, with little counterplay. Tohaa guy can melt your face through a wall, good luck with your dodge roll. My other preference is in reference to the "rock paper scissors" gameplay people mentioned. I would like for equipment for "gear checks" should be much more widely available and much cheaper. For example, MSV on a basic combi rifle Fusilier for 1 point, or a sensor on a doctor or engineer. Make it easier for each faction to have the tools for a given job, and make the game into 'gear application' (can I get my tool into position) as opposed to "gear check" (could I afford the tools to answer a problem) So whats your take? Feel free to post it up here! And please, lets keep this strictly on-topic.
This is definitely a conundrum. I'm leaning towards having a healthy amount of faction-defining gear just to keep faction identity intact and not homogenize the game even further. On the other hand, avoiding insurmountable matchups is just as important. "gear application" is already a relevant requirement, and getting rid of "gear check" altogether could be too much, so I suppose the ideal solution would be to identify said match ups and supply underperforming factions with the necessary gear on key units/profiles.
I think 15 orders cap was by far the best change the game ever had. While not entirely perfect, I think it greatly helped list diversity. You can easily a bloated, niche profile without severely hurting your list. Which you absolutely could not in N3. A 30~ point niche profile in N3 meant that you were giving up on at least 2 regular orders to fit it in. With the cap being order based, you're still reaching your 15 orders, but you're just draining points out of other troopers. Building N3 list was pretty boring imo, I made a few memes about how to build a proper list, and all you really did was sort by cost, max out the AVA of everything, then max the AVA of all your camo troopers, then take a couple heavy hitters. Orders are way too good, and giving up on them was too much of a loss to ever be a consideration. - - - - - I saw a lot of mention of Rock-Paper-Scissors, and I think your application of the analogy is better than the previous ones. I don't think the matchups are Rock-Paper-Scissors as much as each faction brings rock, paper and scissors to the table. (Sorry if this devolves into too deep of an analogy) Your lists are never going to be 100% Rock versus 100% Paper. But you could skew your list one way or the other. N4 forces you to make sure you really lean into the 20% of scissors you brought if you bring face a paper heavy faction. I'm personally a big fan of skew lists, but I also come from a background of trading card game, where poor matchup are a thing and you want to target your meta with the correct matchup. I also think that having factions that can heavily skew in one direction is interesting for faction identity. - - - - - I really like the suggestion of putting counter-elements on cheap filler troops. This would be a very good implementation of what I tried to explain in the previous point. If MSV are Paper and camo is Rock. Being able to add "Paper" to your filler troops (which don't really skew hard since they're low impact) would be a good way to patch up a matchup. Not changing how the top-end of the faction gets access to the tools would be a good way to keep the faction identity. - - - - - Most uninteractive stuff are annoying, but I don't think they're particularly oppressive. They tend to be extremely order intensive and usually have pretty poor odds compared to just shooting stuff directly with your gun. I agree that they can create a least interesting game, but I'd also be cautious about trying to make everything interactive via rolls. I like that the game offers you ways to counter other stuff, I much prefer that over "let's roll dice and hope I win". I think a change I could see being decent that would help with most uninteractive thing that are currently present is changing how guts work for comms attack / equipment. I'd love to see it change where after you're attacked (wether or not you fail) you get to move a certain amount. So you can eventually position yourself out of the threat range. (This would help fight off Targeted and Pheroware) by fighting via positioning. This could also perhaps be implemented by giving the Reset a repositioning ability. (I did not take the time to think about which wording implementation would impact the ruleset the least)
I don't know what to think about the order cap. Some days I hate it, some days I don't. Personally it affected me, because I played USARF and I didn't know how to play them without at least 18 orders. So this new rule actually cause me to sell the army. But I didn't really try that hard to make it work before quitting, so this might be just me making rash decisions. All other armies I played with 15 or less orders in N3 , so didn't affect me much there. No one in local meta also played with 15+ orders before and I also haven't played against 15+ order lists at IP 2019, so I don't have experience playing against heavy spam lists. Maybe those were real issue in some metas and that is why they put hard cap on 15 orders, I honestly can't know.
I don't think the 15 order cap is bad per se. But right now it's absolutely hamfisted in application. Some factions still very much exist in a 2 combat group world but have to take randomly expensive things. Heavy infantry and TAGs got massive buffs. But sucks for you if your faction doesn't have a decent tag or heavy option. In a balanced design, these factions would lean into countering these units more... In principle I like that heavy units are attractive, but along with other changes has made the ones which were already good more oppressive and the counters even more necessary and even more deadly.
Which ones? I feel like the factions that were using over 15 models as a playstyle rather than because order spam was the best strategy got largely overcompensated for the change.
Ariadna, ISS, ikari, and to a lesser extent Yu Jing of the ones I'm familiar with. Yu Jing is an interesting one, as a vanilla army it has a lot of tools, and definitely isn't the poster child for this point, but it's the army in most familiar with so it's a bit easier. For many of the popular meta options, high end tags for example. Yu Jing have very suboptimal options for dealing with these challenges. This isn't a problem on itself except when you're limited to 15 orders - having to spend 2 or 3 times as many orders to effectively counter an opponents piece - whether by avoiding it or neutralizing it puts you at a pretty large disadvantage. For lots of games, you might not notice this disadvantage due to dice and player skill difference but I think as more competitive events are played, these things will become more noticeable - which I think is what zewrath is getting at
Ariadna struggling in N4 because they're stuck with a 2 group world is one hell of a hot take. I think they're one of the best faction in the game at the moment. I can't comment on Ikari, I haven't seen them fielded in N4. YJ gets access to 2 of what are regarded as the strongest archetypes in the game. They get excellent camo and arbuably the best T0 repeater coverage in the game.
Faction specific gear can exist without it being the main counter-tech for core elements of the game. Like if one army had all the smoke and told the others to shove it - no thanks. But certain armies getting Eclipse smoke is faction specific and fills a similar role. Likewise with deployable repeaters etc - interesting, faction specific, but not necessary or the primary form of countermeasures to a dominant strategy. Gear application is a factor, but its the most interesting factor and I feel the element of the counterplay that is the most enjoyable. Would be ok for me if it took up more of the counterplay paradigm (could not think of a better word) at the expense of checking/affording specific gear. feel that every faction needs reasonable access to the core counter tech or for the powerful aspects of the game to not need so much specific tech to counter them. An alternative to more widespread gear is to reduce the reliance on gear. For example, if you consider MSV the primary counter to mimetism, how direct templates or CC are 'soft counters'. There are lots of other changes that could happen to. For example, if Discover +3 or simply a wider range in WIP was more applicable, then sensor or visors etc become less necessary to fight camospam. If mimetism has conditions on its use (like if it applied beyond a certain distance or while in cover) it would have soft counters built into it. Thats an even better way to negate a particular gear check in the game, though I think spreading the countermeasures out and making them cheaper is probably an easier fix. Fingers crossed, but I find that once a thread starts talking about culture war stuff, thats the new topic of the thread. Hamfisted is a better description of my position than "its bad, period". Game certainly needed something to reign in spam, and something to make random bloat models better - I just don't like the decision of "fifteen for everyone, full stop.". My favorite take is a tax - given that army building is digital, there could quite easily be a 'tax' system for models beyond ten. Like the 11th model is +1, the 12th is +2 etc. Armies would find their own natural sticking points if you use a more granular system like that. I think its just a question of at what scale the "meta matchup" elements take place and none is inherently better though personal preference is certainly a thing. MtG etc do it at the design level - when you build your list. A version of infinity where everyone gets higher access to counter tech and has to focus on its application in-game would do it at the tactical scale. Current infinity is in the middle - you build specific tech in but have soft counters to things too. I don't think I like the MtG model for this myself - it works because a "bad matchup" of a game like that can be over very quickly, but it could be 2 hours of losing with no way out in a wargame. - - - - - Yep. Give PanO the crappy MSV2 fusilier combi and a sensor/sniffer on their engineer. Yu Jing gets only MSV1 on their Zanshi, but gets a launchable sensor on their engineer because ties to ISS. Meanwhile, MSV3 access is unchanged. Heaps of room for faction identity in a system like this. - - - - - I think its mostly about feelbads. You might have a higher chance statistically of winning a game where they GML than the same game where they play 'normally', but in one you sat and made ARM/DODGE rolls and the other you made decisions and played the game. I know which option I'd take. I thought you could move via guts from comms attacks anyway? Maybe thats just if it takes you fully out of the area. Simply making Guts into a simple "get hit? free move" mechanic would certainly be a step in the right direction for that.
That could be interesting for sure. Yeah, Magic can afford to have much higher matchup skews. Especially with sideboard. But I also don't think any matchup of infinity has "no way out". I think bad matchups are very winnable in Infinity, but in MTG you could have some nearly auto-loss matchups. You can only move if you can exit the zone, yeah. And if you win the Reset, you don't get access to guts.
It’s great. The game is different, and some of my old habits from N3 don’t fare so well, but that’s fine. CB made some interesting choices to make players make different choices, which is good. We have to stretch our creative muscles and problem solve in a new dynamic.
I'd say that the potential is there for great balance in N4. The core rules are improved, but it's held back by the ridiculous Fireteam salad charts (really, someone has had to make diagrams to explain those to newer players, and a bunch of them are pretty unfairly strong), outdated Fireteam rules (which are on CB's fix list) and some teething issues with certain mechanics being way, way stronger than intended (Hacking, certain alpha-strike strategies, Guided). I think we'll see a lot of these fixed with time but it's pretty bad right now.
Ahh, why not. Here's long laundry list of stuff I'd personally put on my 'balance and gameplay kvetches' list. I am married to none of this and will adopt the pathetic centrist defensive stance if challenged. Noteworthy issues: I'm a little concerned about the power of just about every TAG with ARM8 or higher, which I think the community is badly sleeping on, and in CB's shoes I'd have an adjustment locked and loaded just in case people start cottoning on en masse. Not sure what the actual adjustment would be, though - points rebalance is probably, because notwithstanding my hot take on their power level, you can't deny that TAGs actually function really well right now. They're just a bit too impactful for cost. Nerf the avatar. There is no other model I outright dislike the balance of but Avatar is a main battle TAG that's highly resistant or immune to many of the game's usual tools to engage MBTs - in an edition already subject to some reasonable complaints about gear checks, the Avatar is the raid boss. Hacking is very slightly too strong. Oblivion vs carbonite is slightly too easy a choice and could use a thumb on the scales, for example by leveling both out to DAM14 (anecdotally, having played with DAM14 carbonite thanks to the Charontid, it's much more attractive a program with the slight damage increase). I'd also keep an eye on Targeted but don't presently think I'd suggest a change - basically, Targeted is the only hacking effect that doesn't require any BTS roll, so it should be balanced accordingly, but it's also good for hacking to have a worthwhile impact even against an otherwise unhackable enemy force. Just generally I'd want to be really careful to not heavily nerf hacking. The ability to play an asymetric game vs conventionally powerful opposing forces is one of Infinity's best aspects and hacking is an important part of that. I am deeply suspect of anyone who calls for significant nerfs to hacking. On that note, I don't personally feel that guided is too strong but it is non-interactive in a game that's otherwise built on interactivity, so a very light tap to signal players to use it less would probably overall be solid for game health. My personal take would be to replace the +6 modifier from guided the basic +3 modifier for targeted (e.g. most GMLs would now hit on 15s, not 18s). The point here would be more an incentive to shift player behavior than any real power nerf - you might not need to touch it at all if the targeted state was changed. The 15 Trooper Thing This is a tough one because the more I play N4 the more I agree with the conclusion that playing infinity is best with about fifteen troops on the board and fifteen orders in the pool, but building lists for infinity is a little worse for it. Not massively worse (Diphoration makes some good points about our rose-coloured glasses regarding N3 list building), and the trade-off is overall a positive one that vindicates CB making it, but as an inveterate powergamer I yearn for solution-resistant granularity in list construction - i.e. the part of the game you get to enjoy when you aren't actually playing a game. I've suggested before that I'd like to see how a limit on how many orders an army can spend rather than how many troopers they can include would go, but I also can't guarantee that it'd actually produce a better play experience and I wouldn't be surprised if it was an option that ended up on the cutting room floor during testing in favour of the simpler, nuclear response. Minor/gamefeel issues: D-charges specifically combined with martial arts creates a class of CC specialists that feels a little silly. SAS in particular. Probably remove the ability to combine D-Charges with martial arts; let these specialists choose between their native high CC and d-charges or martial arts and their normal CCW. Jammers were over-nerfed. There are a bunch of balance reasons why making technical weapons not benefit from links is probably overall best, but that + being able to reset out of ISO + the mutt profile rebalances was easily enough to bring them down to earth. Basically, feel like they should remove disposable. Endgame pheroware could use consideration. Even if the actual power level is low, a lethal ZOC attack breaks one of the game’s core expectations in a specific way much like guided missiles and complaints about that are fairly reasonable. I’d keep Endgame but replace it with something that inflicts a state - DAM14 stun ammunition, perhaps. This would still be very powerful (remembering that stun is two saves and stunned models are extremely vulnerable) but there wouldn't be an incentive to dump orders into it until success unless there was some interactive follow-up plan. Super-jump’s movement paths are slightly too inefficient for 4” MOV troops or 6” MOV troops with fat bases. Also, I have and always will continue to hate how it doesn’t function consistently with the way climbing plus does with regards to the Move short skill. There should be a way to adjust super jump so it lets you perform jump movement as part of your normal movement, and therefore also allow vaulting while super-jumping so you can have efficient movement paths onto and off rampart’d buildings. There are dozens of profiles in the game that could use small ups and downs but I’m fine waiting on this while a data set using Army and OTM is built and analysed, which is the work of longer than the edition has currently existed. The camo panzerfaust daylami nerf (+2pts, otherwise unchanged, still viable) was a great change even if it was them just correcting a formula fuckup. As a vanilla player I don't feel I get to comment on fireteams but every sectorial having lots of wildcards and counts-as has definately made fireteam formation feel both more confusing and more homogeneous between armies. Fireteams themselves are definately not overpowered even with the changes, though.
I'd broadly agree with this list. Generally it's niggling things, rather than anything that breaks the entire game. I still think jammers are good as part of a defense even if we could justly call them over nerfed. Internal balance within hacking could be better, both between oblivion and carbonate but I think active turn trinity vs other KHDs is too strong. It feels too easy to beat up other defensive khds with your own offensive one.
There was stun pheroware in 3rd edition and I felt it was the best offensive pheroware of the lot. Sure, it can't kill weak targets through a wall, but it can render a strong target easy prey for a traditional attack. I reckon returning to this pheroware may make the whole pheroware thing actually stronger - but, given that it requires the traditional approach to actually do the damage and doesn't just sidestep most defensive measures (such as models defending the target, mines etc) its certainly more interactive.
I've ran into problems when using too many heavy TAGs (read: more than one) because hacking and since Guijia doesn't have MSV have problems with strong mimetic ARO pieces like Q-drones or TO snipers. I think the key to balance here is to make hacking as a means of slowing TAGs down be more attractive to more factions; while the key to solving the rest of the problems with hacking is to make spreading hacking area much harder. Nerfing guided is I think uncalled for as this also nerfs FO and that's already not all that good a tactic even if it is a legitimately interesting one. Not to mention that the Guided REMs are kinda meh on their own. Basically, make Carbonite stronger and the preferable program over both Total Control and Oblivion to defend with, nerf pitchers, and keep a hard eye on parrots. I don't think the hacking programs should be equal with different effects, I think the two hard-deny should be nuclear options and could probably still do well at as low values as DAM 13 (though Total Control probably needs B2 and be switched to AP), but Carbonite needs to go a tiny bit higher. I remain of the staunch opinion that units that risk more should be rewarded more, meaning hackers that go to the mid-field should be stronger than hackers that stay at home in the fight to take said mid-field. I'm also of the opinion that there are other ways of keeping Nomads strong in hacking compared to others than giving them exclusive access to things like pitchers or HD+. You know... a bit like how Pan-O doesn't have exclusive access to weapons that shoot 32"+...
I haven't gotten as much experience with N4 as I would like, but across the factions I play, the games I play, and the time I've spent putting lists together, I definitely feel a really depressing power gap, even in just brainstorming lists. Sectorials in general are in a weird spot, where they're largely outclassed in overall effectiveness by vanilla factions, but fireteams themselves can get pretty degenerate since pretty much any model can be in any fireteam for some factions. In general though, in my list building experience, some factions are just a lot more fully thought out, easier, and more enjoyable to build for than others. ISS used to be my favourite faction, but I simply won't touch them again until they're readjusted/redesigned. They cannot really properly build to handle the breadth of threats that N4 brings their way, and it causes them to be extremely unfun to build for. I'm not making sacrifices in order to make a gameplan come together, I'm choosing between which of my hands I'd prefer to cut off just to get the army off the ground. Similarly, trying to help a friend learn with Starmada, and they're somehow even less coherent to build around (said friend gave up on Starmada and is going back to vanilla O-12, I don't blame him in the slightest). When I compare that to some of my other armies, it's night and day. Shasvastii almost builds itself at this point (although is disappointingly narrow due to some terrible internal balance). Vanilla YJ suffers from some narrow bottlenecks in its design space, but is overall adaptable enough to work through them with enough variance and versatility on the other side. CA is a freaking ocean. And that's just the factions I play. Yes, part of this is a sectorial vs. vanilla problem, but plenty of sectorials also offer a lot of options that don't feel like they're constantly giving things up on a conceptual level just to exist.
