I Loathe ITS

[Tevesh]

Well, time to test the swear filter and demonstrate a poor reason for releasing brand control. I'm super mature.

Infinity is a game that takes place well past Defcon-0 or whatever is within your culture's collective. Infinity is the code name for contact with hostile alien forces. Each civilization's respective intelligence force pulls the binder within their equivalent to the Pentagon and goes forth with whatever is thought to be the best course of action. This means that certain things become acceptable. Nuke an entire outpost of one million souls to stop a Shavastii infiltrated incursion. Pull the seal on a whole brand of bioweapons that were left unnamed so they wouldn't attract the attention of terrorists. Silence particular dissidents because unity is as important filling the ranks of Kuang Shi. Order miners to their deaths for particularly rare material.

These scenarios and more are what I envision in the dystopian future of Infinity. It's interesting.

Each game that is played is for a particular reason. There is no 'usual' mission. The fate of humanity of that particular race, creed or allegiance as they know it is up for whether they succeed or not. Looking at Paradiso, each mission was necessary to lead up to the discovery of Tohaa emissaries and the lost secrets Extrators. We're entering Space Opera levels of importance.

The missions are of extinction level of importance. If they weren't, we wouldn't be playing Infinity. The level of importance is on the brand. Once the necessity of the mission is discovered, the correct operatives are sought out in a crowd-sourced fashion. They grab the best they got within the vicinity of the action, which is quite a few options with the availability of Cubes.

My problem stems with ITS and YAMs and other random scenario generators is this level of prep/fluff. You've gathered your exemplar choices to do a mission of vital importance, which consists of.... I don't know, you'll find out when you get there by rolling these dice. If you wanted to use these experimental drugs so bad, or you needed to murder their Lt. so badly... Then why didn't you crowd source from your large pool of extraordinary individuals to do so? Why is there a random assortment of soldiers for a random mission and random classified?

That bothers me endlessly.

Hot Potato is one of the best missions for a combination of just the right amount of complexity and rewards. The information on the 'football' is important. You know what you need to do so you go and do it. Furthermore, it's scoring sequence is great. You can look at scores and immediately know the shake down and/or determine 'major victor' or 'minor defeat' that is so popular. The scores are either 5 for utter victory, 3 for minor victory, 2 for minor defeat or 0 for major defeat. Now, I know most scenarios can't have that level of readability of what happened; however, I only play scenario based games where the soldiers and missions make sense.

Anyway.... Rant over, y'all have a good day.

*Edited topic title for use of swear words - Arachas*

[MarcoSkoll]

If you wanted to use these experimental drugs so bad, or you needed to murder their Lt. so badly... Then why didn't you crowd source from your large pool of extraordinary individuals to do so?

"Conflicts now explode and develop with greater speed than ever before and an army must be organised on such a way that it can answer any challenge immediately." - page 108, 2nd Edition Rulebook.

Infinity doesn't represent just high stakes combat, it represents a very rapidly changing warzone where there simply may not be the time to reorganise the roster for a mission.

Sure, your initial mission might have been ensuring the recovery of a high value hard drive from a weapons testing facility, but even that was thrust on you at short notice. Maybe you had enough time to call in some units from other bases in the nearby region, but you hardly had infinite choice - there just weren't that many Asawira or Az'rail in the area.
So when it's discovered that the force bearing down on the facility is under the command of a wanted enemy officer, you're already in the dropship and you'll just have to make do with who you brought along when it comes to killing or capturing him.

Infinity is a game where objectives should have the chance to catch players off guard; it's not an environment of carefully laid plans drawn up weeks or months in advance.

[McNamara]

Well, time to test the swear filter and demonstrate a poor reason for releasing brand control. I'm super mature.

My guess is since this forum seems much more moderated you will be added much more than on the old one.

Even though your point seems valid and understandable, MarcoSkoll's point is pretty spot on.

I actually haven't much to add. I am always conflicted because I tend to imagine my group as that cinematic A-team, where no one ever dies, but they actually die every game.

[Spambot]

Not the biggest fan of ITS right now myself. Classifieds are terrible and feel like 40k's ridiculous new objective system (we need less like Experimental Drug and Test Run, and more like Sabotage or the YAMs objectives), and retreat is a bit shit as well. Hopefully N3 changes the auto-include nature of camo/infil/specialists too.

[Mistake Not]

Random ITS missions.
Two lists. Roll off for mission for entire group. Pick list, assign opponent, go.
Just add more missions, all conditions fulfilled. Right?


Also what is 'Hot Potato'?

[Penemue]

My problem stems with ITS and YAMs and other random scenario generators is this level of prep/fluff. You've gathered your exemplar choices to do a mission of vital importance, which consists of.... I don't know, you'll find out when you get there by rolling these dice. If you wanted to use these experimental drugs so bad, or you needed to murder their Lt. so badly... Then why didn't you crowd source from your large pool of extraordinary individuals to do so? Why is there a random assortment of soldiers for a random mission and random classified?

Ditto, actually. I know I might catch a lot of flak for not liking YAMs, but I don't. I really don't. Both ITS and YAMs seem very random, very haphazard for a Spec Ops mission. It's all too...simple - and random. At least ITS has its primary objectives out in the open, but in YAMs, you're basically playing a guessing game at the same time as you're trying to accomplish objectives and screw with your opponent. To my mind, it runs more like two parallel games with some intersection than a scenario both players are actively planning for.

In ITS, you are using the secondary secret objectives to supplement your score; in YAMs, the secret objectives are the mission. All too random, and - to paraphrase you, Tevesh - too low-level of an operation to match the extravagant fluff.

[Hypna]

I don't doubt that there are a lot of ways to improve ITS but I'm still blown away by the fact that the game is not about killing the enemy. Instead it's all about the objective. That to me is a very modern and fresh take on combat.

[Hero of Man]

As a random mission generator, I prefer YAMS solely because I'm not a fan of General Required Specialists; especially when somehow a Paramedic or FO can do the job of a Hacker or Engineer. Honestly, I'd like missions requiring specialists to require... well, specific specialists, known before hand. Like, for example;

*A Ship has crashed with a vital VIP, and you need a Doctor/Paramedic on your team to revive them
*FO needs to mark a high value target for an airstrike
*Hacker needs to hack or swat down an airstrike^
*Engineer needs to fix a comms beacon

You know, things that make sense for the specific specialist would go a long ways with me. I know this would have its own problems, but it would help my immersion.

[Penemue]

I don't doubt that there are a lot of ways to improve ITS but I'm still blown away by the fact that the game is not about killing the enemy. Instead it's all about the objective. That to me is a very modern and fresh take on combat.

This is definitely one of the good things about Infinity. Here in Ottawa, we've been running a monthly slow-grow league with fresh scenarios every month, each with their own fluff and purposeful specialist requirements. The objectives aren't random, aren't hidden, and aren't "small-scale" - but they're still not about tabling your enemy, either.

[Tevesh]

Sure, maybe Classified for random fun but then again, you might get screwed out of a job. For example, if you have a scenario that is all about using Doctors, and then roll for FO or D-Charge on the classified... What was your XO thinking when assembling this team? Furthermore, I find fighting for objectives already distracting enough without a random checklist to accomplish.

I also like that Infinity is not about killing your enemy but accomplishing your objective. It's Paradiso that changed that dynamic and it is awesome.

The Hot Potato Scenario was the first batrep I read on the Infinity forums but unfortunately, it has fallen apart since. Here's the Scenario:

Scenario: Hot Potato
The ancient vessel has been critically damaged, neither security or the attacking forces have time to put repairs on before grabbing the intel. Once the ship has stabilized, our specialists can analyze the data but a copy is just as useful as the real deal.

Objectives:
Conquer the Terminal Room (3 VP)
Dispute the Terminal Room (1 VP)
Have the Data (2 VP)

At the end of four turns, count up VP.

Conquer the Terminal Room:
If you have a non-Ghost: Sync, non-Marker model alone in the terminal room when the game ends, you have Conquered the Terminal Room.

Dispute the Terminal Room:
At the end of the game, if both players have models inside the Terminal Room, the player with the most points is to have Disputed the Terminal Room. G: Sync models do not count, but Markers do.

Have the Data:
The Data can be extracted from the Terminal by a model in base contact with the terminal. Hackers and Models with Repeater must succeed a Short Skill Normal WIP-3 roll while Engineers and Forward Observers may succeed at a Short Skill Normal WIP roll.

The Data cannot be copied, it can only be “Cut and Paste.” Its behaviour is like the ball in a football match. The Data can only be transferred to another Hacker or Model with Repeater if it is in a ZoC, always spending a Short Skill. The Data can be stolen from an enemy Hacker through a successful Anti-Hacking Protocols or enemy Repeater through a successful Immobilization

Engineers and Forward Observers may not pass the data unless it is in base contact with a friendly model; however, their data cannot be stolen through Anti-Hacker Protocols or Immobilization. Passing the Data in this fashion is a Short Skill.

G: Servants cannot extract or pass the data.

Deployment:
Troops with Impersonation, Infiltration, Mechanized Deployment and Airborn Deployment may not be deployed within 4" of the Terminal Room.

The IFF on Mines and Crazy-Kaolas does not function within 4" of the Terminal Room. They will detonate on any Orders or AROs performed by any models.

[chromedog]

I play ONE ITS tourney a year. ONE. At most. Maybe 5-6 games all up.

Meh. The rest of the time, I'm usually coaching the noobs, giving demos or small stuff like that. Tourneys for me are really NOT about the games, but usually about losing to other people that I don't normally get a chance to. I'm in no doubts about my tournament skills. They suck. I turn up to roll dice and kill shit. Nothing else at the game level.

[Poseidal]

What were the old its missions like in comparison?

[Mistake Not]

ITS has always been like this.

But before there was ITS it was like you play YAMS or you just line up and kill each other's forces (or at least here it was).
Which means that stomping all over your opponent first turn before they get to do anything would get you a full victory. And that's always so much fun, I mean, 100% guaranteed wins as long as you go first. Nice neat short games where you have a turn and your opponent just doesn't. That's a lot of fun for everyone. Apparently.

Might as well just roll the initiative die then shake hands..

We've lost a couple of players to this. They want to line up and kill. Or just kill and have it win them the game despite them refusing to even make a single WIP roll on an objective (and then complaining they can't win, externalising their problems (bad system, yeah right)). But that doesn't really work with an Order system that allows Rambo'ing.. ITS restrictions stop this somewhat, if you put your opponent into Retreat game is over. Which is an 'artificial limiter' because you should be able to wipe your opponent off the board before they go and just win full points by denying your opponent the chance to even have a turn. As is probably obvious, I disagree. I like the new dynamic, spend some orders pressuring some orders on Objectives and actually play the game for three turns so you can score full points. I love it. It's interactive, tense at times, tactical.

I don't like getting TAG-rushed top of one because what the hell am I going to do? 'Git gud' at rolling initiative? Get lucky? What?

Frustratingly, I am the only person here who really likes the system. Bring on E3!

[White Harlequin]

Why on earth are you bothered by ITS? Nowhere does it say you HAVE to play those missions. It's like being bothered by lemon ice cream.

Nothing is preventing you for doing your own missions, making a new one every time you play. ITS is for tournament games, and there need to be standardised missions for that. I think the scenarios are fantastic - Secret objectives might be a bit simplistic, but overall they're very well designed.

[Magno]

I think Tevesh's frustration is that the ITS system and the tournies are interpreted by most folks to mean, only play ITS missions.

I have played in a crap ton of ITS events this year, and it bothers me to no end that surprise!, they're the same damn missions over and over again.

Before it was nice, we could run a YAMs event, or even run tournaments where we would give players 10minutes to make a list prior to that round. Or campaign style tournaments.

Nope, not now because many folks start throwing hissy fits that the whole ITS breaks down if you use something other than ITS missions outside the ITS format.

[Penemue]

But before there was ITS it was like you play YAMS or you just line up and kill each other's forces (or at least here it was).
Which means that stomping all over your opponent first turn before they get to do anything would get you a full victory. And that's always so much fun, I mean, 100% guaranteed wins as long as you go first. Nice neat short games where you have a turn and your opponent just doesn't. That's a lot of fun for everyone. Apparently.

And the answer is...

Nothing is preventing you for doing your own missions, making a new one every time you play. ITS is for tournament games, and there need to be standardised missions for that. I think the scenarios are fantastic - Secret objectives might be a bit simplistic, but overall they're very well designed.

We needed neither ITS nor YAMs to have a fun, non-combat-centric game. There were always one or two players making up scenarios, and - failing that - we jammed one out on the spot. It's a ) not difficult to do, and b ) they can be archived for future LGS use.

And yes, I appreciate that tournaments require some measure of standardization, and that's what ITS is for. It just needs to be handled by a TO that is aware of (and willing to amend) the problems inherent in ITS.

[Mistake Not]

We needed neither ITS nor YAMs to have a fun, non-combat-centric game.

I'm glad your group has that, it sounds great. We didn't and don't, some people love to just Rambo and kill you first turn and win.
Because the game doesn't stop them. And they feel the game should reward them for such behaviour.
I disagree, but what's the point? I can tell them it's no fun for me to play that way, and I can ask them to try to play to the mission, try to help them win even, but if they say 'no this is how I have fun I don't have to listen to you' then the conversation is over and I'm in Retreat before I have a turn. So I spend my only few orders of the game grabbing an objective and win. They declare the game sucks, mission sucks, they should win because they tabled me. Despite ignoring the mission..
If they just wanted to play with themselves they should've stayed home.
They play Warmachine now, and good riddance.

[Machinist]

Certain scenarios in ITS favour board control over elimination. Such approach is fine, if you have infiltrators and fast speed bumps. I however struggle as much of my army is designed for reacting and direct confrontations rather than running around, sacrificing and flipping switches. I do not like the current dynamics, yet I prefer such scenarios over YAMS and few other fan scenarios I've played.

[PsychoticStorm]

I would like to remind everybody that there is no need to test the swear filters, you can state whatever you want without invoking swears.

Now on the subject, Infinity's main issue for years was the lack of scenarios, particularly pick up friendly ones, YAMS kindly filled unofficially this gap and ITS did so officially, disregarding their importance for the health of the system is wrong, accepting them as the sole way to play the game is also wrong, maybe even more.

Nobody is forcing you as a player to play only YAMS or ITS missions and nobody prevents you to forge your narrative and play missions of your own devise, I would be glad to see people experiment with ITS modify it and forge their own scenarios, or even better see really original scenarios, well done and balanced.

[Errhile]

Tevesh, you want to test swear filters, or rather test the limits of how far you could push the moderating team?

You are an old and respected regular of the Infinity community. Please do not waste that respect by using foul language with absolutely no reason. The meritum of your post is interesting and valid, the way of headlining it is unacceptable.

Please consider this official.

[Lampyridae]

I've just cleaned up the dozen or so cusses that were copied in the thread replies' subject lines.

Yeah, I find ITS to be kind of meh. Dire Foes scenarios on the other hand are a lot of fun, with replay value. Combining missions with tournament formats is always going to be kind of hard.

[Ben Lehman]

Wow. Your take on the Infinity fluff is the exact opposite of mine.

One of my favorite things about Infinity is it is not "in the darkness of the far future there is only war." Rather, it's a really realistic take on modern espionage / military / black operations, with a nice SF setting attached.

Barring the Combined Army of the EI, all of the powers in Infinity are nominally allies. PanO citizens go on vacation in Bakunin, buy cheap goods from Ariadna sold by Haqq merchant groups, and might well be employed by a Yu Jing corporation to operate remote servers via ALEPH. On a government level, governments share even military technology (although generally not the top-flight stuff) and the O12 places restrictions on open conflict.

This doesn't mean that there isn't conflict, of course, but it means that the conflict has to be small, low-stakes, and deniable. The reason you have a little team of 10 soldiers and not an entire division is because, whatever your mission is, it's not worth open conflict between your governments. No one actually wants PanO and YuJing at war with each other. Heck, no one wants the even the fairly piddly* Nomad Nation at war with them. War sucks, and it's bad for business.

So, instead, small operations, industrial and military espionage, sabotage of research facilities and never, never conflict in the open.

Unlike a lot of folks in the Infinity fanbase, I'm not really a combat geek. I am, however, an international politics geek. This aspect of the Infinity setting is super-cool, and it's one of the only science fiction settings where I look at it and go "wow they got it exactly right." (The rightness ogoes a lot deeper than just what I'm talking about here: like for instance which weapons are banned by O12.) The small, low-stakes, highly deniable nature of Infinity missions is a big part of this (as is the seemingly random, last minute changes in mission objectives from high command).

That all said, I do think that ITS missions are a bit bland and generic. I prefer the somewhat more colorful missions in Dire Foes. I do understand why the tournament missions are fairly generic, though, simply because you'll probably be playing them a lot, it's just not the direction I would have chosen.

yrs--
--Ben

* I can say this, I'm a Nomad player.

[Machinist]

Now on the subject, Infinity's main issue for years was the lack of scenarios, particularly pick up friendly ones, YAMS kindly filled unofficially this gap and ITS did so officially, disregarding their importance for the health of the system is wrong, accepting them as the sole way to play the game is also wrong, maybe even more.

The current ITS shows there are problems with it. Everything goes is more fitting for an RPG system or a campaign where narrator sets the missions according to the players and narrative. Clearly designers designed units with a specific game in mind, everyone playing their own version puts a lot of strain on the system and in the end every group will play a different game.

Games Workshop has adopted "forge narrative" stance, which is effectively "everything goes" taken even few steps further. Privateer Press on the other hand has clear rule sets, you can dislike the system, yet you cannot deny what PP is doing on the scenario front. I am rather envious of the support they have in this aspect for many reasons.

It's up to CB to decide what they plan to do. I do not think they can remain undecided, not if they want to box with Privateer Press in their own ring.

[Berjiz]

Doubt many people would miss classified objectives. For me they feel they are mostly there to shoehorn players into picking a broader selection of specialists. I would likely go with a higher amount of FO specialits if classified didn't exist. I don't think removing classified would be a loss. They are too random and sometimes requires too specific things to happen while others are almost too easy(sabotage+ad with d-charges will succee almost always).

Adding more fluff and possibly putting the ITS scenarios in some sort of campaign would make them feel better. There is also so much unexplored game effects around different terrain types and other special rules that could be used in scenarios. Some more bland scenarios is fine but I hope the next batch of them contain more variation, fluff and interesting mechanics. Maybe an hazard terrain covering a middle valueble objective, do you go for the more dangerous middle or go for the safer but less important outliing? Could be interesting.

Whatever people play do it's important to that the players stick to actually playing what it is. If you play a ITS scenario, YAMS or such then going for first turn wipe and ignore the objectives is just rude since it ignores the whole idea behind it.

However I also do think that deployment might be a bit too important as it is but not sure on how to change it(6x4 tables maybe?) and that it's common for things to be decided very early and the rest is just playing it out.

[Willowran]

I don't have a problem with ITS at all. I mean, when you look at ITS, compare it to any tournament system.

In soccer, every single game of soccer is the same, it is the team that is different.

In League of Legends, every single game is the same, it is the teams that are different.

In a Judo Tournament, everyone is using Judo (as opposed to a more striking-oriented martial art).

ITS is the official tournament setting for Infinity. The games are varied enough that no one faction has an extreme advantage over another, and everyone is playing the same sets of scenarios so that one region (playing their home made scenarios) cannot win infinite objective points and so skew the global listing. For its intended purpose, ITS does exactly what it is supposed to do.

Fluff-wise i see no problem with ITS- no more than i would in any other miniature game. You can always write your own little narrative as to why these terminals/antennas are important for your particular faction, just as how a Warhammer player might write their own narrative as to why army x wants army z dead. First and foremost i'd say it is important to remember that ITS scenarios are designed for TOURNAMENT play- not campaign play.

Can ITS scenarios get a bit stale after playing them a zillion times in a row? Sure. So far as getting stale is concerned, i would rather play from a selection of 10 missions 100 times rather than simply kill everyone 100 times. And if you're not in an official tournament, what's stopping you from playing any number of home made/dire foes/non-ITS scenarios?

Also. The swear filters have changed your thread title.

[White Harlequin]

However I also do think that deployment might be a bit too important as it is but not sure on how to change it(6x4 tables maybe?) and that it's common for things to be decided very early and the rest is just playing it out.

I actually observed the opposite. Sure deployment is important and if you don't do it well you set yourself up for an early loss. But unlike, say 40k, I find that games are never decided early on and you're just playing it out. It's one of my favourite aspects of Infinity that a game isn't over till the last man drop a lot of the time.

I've managed to snatch draws from what my 40k mindset reckoned would be a terrible loss (such as after losing my Asura to a stray ARO before she does anything),and lost after spending a turn rolling nothing but crits.

[Penemue]

However I also do think that deployment might be a bit too important as it is but not sure on how to change it(6x4 tables maybe?) and that it's common for things to be decided very early and the rest is just playing it out.

Whoa, whoa, slow down! 6x4? 4-2 units would be even MORE useless, and I think that's saying a lot. The game would tilt sharply to the advantage of Infiltrators, AD troops, and 6-4 units...and that's already seen as an issue for some scenarios. Let's not exacerbate the problem.

[Tevesh]

@ Mango: He gets it in one!

It's like you read my mind... Or did you stuff a microphone in that Odalisque? Have you been listening to all my private thoughts this whole time?! Time for some aluminum foil.



@ Mistake Not:
I don't know if you're For or Against Scenarios but I dislike the cookie cutter random dice roll that is ITS/YAMS/Shoot-Each-Other-In-Face. After being handed a Scenario Generator that is Paradiso, it makes me upset that we then get bland missions that I feel are more appropriate if there were more troops on the table. I expect Frontline or Quad Ctrl to be a Ambush Ally/Flames of War type of Scenario... Not something 8-10 (whom am I kidding, up to 20 man) team can handle.

Which is precisely why I migrated one of my list of fun scenarios from the old forum here. I slapped two other scenarios on top that we've discovered to enjoy since. Link here: viewtopic.php?f=28&t=1799

@ Mod Team:
Fiiine. There's just something lost when you remove the swears to equivocate how much you feel about something. I won't put my swears in titles as it may offend people who dislike Hot Sauce but am I prevented with a random curse? I mean, it's one different to say "I hate them" to "I think they're a C U Next Tuesday... If you know what I mean."

I'm not mad I'm just... belligerent?

Holy shit. I just realized that there might be actual moderation on this forum. Alert the media. The end is nigh!

@ Lampy: Yeah, the Dire Foes are an awesome scenario to run. The issue I have is that they seem very slanted towards their counterparts (which to be fair, is the whole point). But that's why I posted a whole list of scenarios as above.

@ Ben Lehman: Oh, everything you state is also true. That's why I like the fluff. The entire conflict is invisible. No one knows what the hell is going on because of the inordinate clearance required. Everyone who goes on an Infinity mission is completely disavowed, if not with their Cubes disabled as per Prowlers. I'm sure that if a captured soldier completely turns, goes on a super polygraph to admit that their government sanctioned their mission then the government has contingencies to show that branch or particular officer had gone rogue.

No one moves in the open. Think of any mundane news event within the last week... "Bridge Flooded" to "Airplane Crash" could be the potential of an operation that was carried out. The tinfoil wearing hats level of paranoia of governments and conspiracies in Infinity is a fact in the far future. That's why it's a dystopia. The population is coddled and attention addled with the increasing violence and sex so that they're not paying attention to each hyperpower making plays without drawing any attention.

Hell, you could say that if someone wrote a novel about today's life 60 years ago as 'sci-fi' then it could be written as dystopian sci-fi. That's what I like about the Infinity setting as well. All information is through some sort of channel. There is no objective glance at any faction or unit, it's either propaganda praise or intelligence opposition. And that's the real world as well. One of my favourite quotes of recent memory is from a Richard Morgan book 13 (he did Altered Carbon): "Patriots are thugs or haven't studied history enough."

ITS as the end all, be all, do not use any other scenarios at all, is my primary concern. These missions are bland and do not fit the parameters of small scale operations. Take and Hold is WW2 level, most modern combats seem to be 'take out bad guy, do not destroy infrastructure'. Abductions, assassinations, cracking secure data and the like. That's more of an Infinity feel and I'd like players to give that a shot than 'So yeah, you form your team and are dealt an objective at random'.

@ Berjiz: Deployment and going first is the bug bear of all table top games. Going first has a significant advantage but if you use Score at End of Game Turn (i.e. both players turn), then it feels like 2nd player 'goes first' with the player who won Initiative gets to set up random miniatures sprinkled all over the table. I do disagree with larger tables because we're already having tubby models unable to keep up with all the gear they're carrying. The Scots Guard can only run so far before dying of exhaustion.

@ Willowran: You saying I only play Shoot-Them-In-The-Face or what? I don't even know if you're forming a Straw Man. Yes, I could always play with myself in any fashion I like but that doesn't contribute to my disliking of YAMS/ITS due to:
1. Arbitrariness - Random Scenario, Classified, or entire Objectives in YAMS format
2. Dissonance - The types of scenarios are not congruent with the fluff of Infinity
3. Diversity - Due to randomness and sometimes complete lock down of abilities (i.e. Ariadnan Infiltration lists), you're forced to 'water down' your list to be as diverse as possible without thinking of how you want to play

Shouldn't there be a method that is less arbitrary, without disrupting narrative that would allow players to compete within their style instead of forcing an adaptation to make sure all the checklists are filled? Personally, I'd like to see if "ITS" could be "These are the 3 scenarios in the various rounds, make your best list".

And that's enough verbal diarrhea from myself for tonight.

[farseerixirvost]

Variety is the spice of life. So I enjoy the many varied ways to play Infinity. No one system is perfect, though, so we just have to live with that.

But getting back to what I felt was the point of the OP - that ITS doesn't reflect Tevesh's view of the grand importance of why the fight is happening...

I can see Tevesh's point. I can even almost agree with it. EXCEPT... in every minis game I've played, I always envisioned that what was on the table was but a fraction of the overall war. Even in Apocalypse 40k, that 60-80-100-200k on the table was just that battle - elsewhere on the planet, and/or solar system, other smaller and larger battles were raging.

So in Infinity, I like to envision that the skirmish at hand is just one piece of an epic puzzle that needs solving. There's teams all over working on their particular puzzle piece. Searching the crates will hopefully turn up the missing widget needed to detonate some explosives; hacking the computer will turn up the info needed on how to use the widget; jamming the comm relays will prevent our enemies from getting word out that we have the widgets.

Each part is fundamental to achieving that epic exterminatus-level plot twist, but in and of itself isn't what will ultimately achieve it.

[FatherKnowsBest]

So in Infinity, I like to envision that the skirmish at hand is just one piece of an epic puzzle that needs solving. There's teams all over working on their particular puzzle piece. Searching the crates will hopefully turn up the missing widget needed to detonate some explosives; hacking the computer will turn up the info needed on how to use the widget; jamming the comm relays will prevent our enemies from getting word out that we have the widgets.

Each part is fundamental to achieving that epic exterminatus-level plot twist, but in and of itself isn't what will ultimately achieve it.

Where's the "Like" button?