Data Sphere

I'm finally getting over my INFINITY burn out that happened in November. After discussing with my non-competitive mates we decided to use the following format to «refresh» our games :

- Limited Insertion : We originally started this game because it was a low model count environment. With the meta now at 12+ with some armies at 15+ its not the game we want to play. We want the Spec-Ops vibe.

- No Link Teams : List building had become predictable because of Link Teams. Pick the best link team of your faction and add other models around it. Seems we always played the same lists. No one played vanilla because of that.

- Home made missions : ITS works well for meet ups between store opponents and tournaments but for casual players who play with the same people once a month we need something more detailed and asymmetrical. Closer to a RPG.

This is not a critique of the game. I love INFINITY and promoted it aggressively for 5 years. But now we want to make the game our own.

Have you made changes to better suit your needs or are you playing the game «as is» ?

We've been playing limited insertion before it even became a thing.

Banning fireteams is lame and really seems like a to serious modification to the game itself. If you can't deal with a fireteam, you're doing something wrong. If you think taking fireteams is boring, play vanilla.

Darek_CTR wrote:We've been playing limited insertion before it even became a thing.

Banning fireteams is lame and really seems like a to serious modification to the game itself. If you can't deal with a fireteam, you're doing something wrong. If you think taking fireteams is boring, play vanilla.

We can deal with Fireteams. We are just bored of them... anyway we play in our basements and there is a consensus.

Taking fireteams away just makes playing sectorials completely pointless.
Everything works better in vanilla if there are no links.
Everyone will just play vanilla after some time.

Our local meta has just gone towards more and more Limited Insertion.

But because ITS is popular it remains at 300/6 play levels.

The problem with limited insertion is that it actually encourages the use of high value assets like TAGs and HI/MI Fireteams - because how else are you going to make 300pt lists out of 10 models?

It also seriously hinders some armies (Caledonians spring to mind) with low value troopers.

That being said, I find 10-trooper games to be generally quicker, simpler, and more fun.

alexb83 wrote:That being said, I find 10-trooper games to be generally quicker, simpler, and more fun.

That is what we are aiming for. We may go back to allowing link teams later on.

But for now we seriously need a change. When you play the same game for a long time, with mostly the same opponents it gets old... I played several other games since November but nothing has the same level of mojo than Infinity.

My first game of INFINITY in six months last night.

We did Limited Insertion with vanilla armies only. My Yu Jing against Aleph. We didn't have time to create a homebrew mission so we rolled between 3 pre-selected missions of the ITS. We each brought 1 list to be played regardless of the mission selected.

The missions were :
A) Biotechvore
B) Engineering Deck
C) Antenna Field

We rolled and Biotechvore it was! With only 10 models it was super stressful to get out of the bio zones, kill as many opponents and score our objectives. A fun (and short) game all in all even if I lost badly 8-2. Having only 10 models and no link teams brought back the Spec-Ops feeling of our first 2E games before Human Sphere. This is the game style I was looking for. Mission accomplished.

Glad you found the fire in you again

Good to see you back,

I echo some of the sentiments about playing Limited Insertion before it was cool. But thats just cause well like yourself I've being at it for 5 or so years so the concept of a force with 10 troops isn't NEW I didn't start with the possibility of switching orders between groups it wasn't a thing in N2 and link teams weren't as universal as they are now with HARIS limited to QK and Duo a pipe dream.

I've had a thought because I've had a couple negative experiences lately as a TO running ITS and swiss style "tournaments" so now I'm not going to be a TO any more I'm not running tournaments with ITS prizes and to the winner goes the spoils etc etc etc. The new ITS packs are rubbish as well they do not represent value for money and I'm adamant that an Australian will never be a the head of the ITS ladder unless they cheat/game he system.

So now I'm an event organizer I'm running an event which 3 or so rounds of organised play with a grab bag for ALL players of a good value focus on the hobby aspect I.E. painting, basing and theme.

I want to run an event this year in a couple of months that I don't think INFINITY has ever seen any where. Where players bring a force but may not even play it! Instead that force will be attributed to a table, you will be paired with another player and sent off to a random table and you will play with either of the forces on that table. So if its 3 round you might play 3 completely different forces and certainly 3 forces that are not the same play style since it was built by someone else!

So yeah I'm changing the format all right.

It's ... no idea what word to use... "not surprising"? that these kind of reactions happened. The game has exploded in complexity, so much that simpler alternatives are appearing. CB could also help with the kit prices, but when asked about VAT outside the EU, they just changed the shop text. They aren't a small company anymore, and they better not start being a dick, rules or commercial wise (who I am kidding... small TAGs had to come in pairs, because they will not fit in blisters... except for special release TAG, which does. And profiles without miniature are hard to release because they are overworked... but new miniatures with new profiles fit in the work schedule... and add a new table/rule, that is 90% like another one).

Try other mission systems? Play at 200-250? Why ITS "must" be 300? Why can't CB also ask for smaller limits, specially as horde factions are going to be tricky to fit?

We started up a 2nd community to play more casually rather than the usual n00b pounding that started to happen.

LI, 300/6 with 3 classifieds @2pts each and then points for more kills and more classifieds scored, just to switch it up a bit.

Some ITS missions can become a little list-hammery.

One extra way of counting victory points that I always wanted to do, even in 40k, was to count points for surviving models. Sure, life is cheap and we all have cubes, but it's still important to preserve troops for tomorrow's operation(s)!

ITS as it is right now is.

1st tier - Tournameant Points.
2nd tier - Objective Points.
3rd tier - Victory Points. (your surviving models values)

So it currently is kind of promoting the try to keep you boys and girls alive.

I add a 4th tier Opponents Victory Points to my document in tournaments. Since its a easy way to confirm that BOTH players actually filled there sheets out correctly. Since you should have the same values under different names more or less.

Still ITS is getting very same same and while net listing and what not isn't a thing. Your still starting to see some 'truths' being propagated on forums/facebook and in podcasts where people are spending more time math hammering and min/maxing to specific things which is fine I guess but also frustrating. Infinity is so much fun when you play what you like, use the rule of cool and play for fun rather than what statistically works the best.

The problem is that ever game has this to a less or greater extent. At least Infinity has some checks and balances, but ultimately you'll only remove it completely with a regular gaming group where people don't feel they have to bring kerb stomp lists.

Do you play 20x20, YAMS or anything like that?