Data Sphere

What is it? I'm still quite new and while I know what ITS is, I have no clue what yams is (are?).

Thanks!

Kinsman wrote:What is it? I'm still quite new and while I know what ITS is, I have no clue what yams is (are?).

Thanks!

YAMS was probably one of the best mission systems ever devised for Infinity. It was created at a time where CB didn't have the common sense to provide missions for Infinity. It was quite baffling, honestly, how long CB took to actually create missions for the game.

So YAMS was dreamed up by some fans and it basically works by using cards to select what you need to do for your mission. Usually you'd pick a set number of cards and be able to discard some. These cards would then be what you have to do on the table to win the game.

People got very bored of it after a while, but in many ways it was a much better mission system than what we have in ITS 2013 and 2014.

http://wargamingtrader.com/yams

Thanks man, much obliged for the response.

We're the cards basically printed at home? Or are they purchasable?

Edit: never mind, the pdf is pretty straightforward

Kinsman wrote:Thanks man, much obliged for the response.

We're the cards basically printed at home? Or are they purchasable?

Edit: never mind, the pdf is pretty straightforward

I recommend printing them on cardstock. I have several YAMS decks that are still very usable after years of playing because they were printed on good cardstock.

I think it's worth a try, especially if you don't have a catalogue of missions to play. The one thing I'd caution about, though, is that YAMS is all secret. You have no idea what your opponent is planning on doing. If you're going to play YAMS, I'd suggest modifying it the way Malifaux modified their scheme system: draw X cards at the start of the game, and allow both players to select secretly from those objectives. That way, both players still have a hidden agenda, but at least you have some inkling as to what the other player might be doing.

Penemue wrote:I think it's worth a try, especially if you don't have a catalogue of missions to play. The one thing I'd caution about, though, is that YAMS is all secret. You have no idea what your opponent is planning on doing. If you're going to play YAMS, I'd suggest modifying it the way Malifaux modified their scheme system: draw X cards at the start of the game, and allow both players to select secretly from those objectives. That way, both players still have a hidden agenda, but at least you have some inkling as to what the other player might be doing.

We differ !
I love that I don't know what to other player is trying to do. When you have been playing YAMS for a while, and know the missions well, you can guess fairly accurately what the other guy us doing...unless of course he's bluffing! Which is a great aspect of YAMS. Also, don't forget «Double or Quits» that reveals one card on each side for the benefit of gaining 2 points. In my corner of the world we tried Paradiso, we tried ITS (Dire Foe) missions but we always go back to YAMS.

The other variation a lot of people have been doing recently is to draw five, discard down to three and then nominate one of those as joint objectives.

So you end up with two objective cards that apply to both players plus two for each player that are kept secret.

Obviously you can alter the numbers as needed.

P.S. viewtopic.php?f=28&t=242 is the main YAMS topic on Datasphere.

When I think of YAMs I just think of TAGs, Pretas, and other really unsuitable models not only kicking ass but taking the objectives too. Is this an issue with the format, or is it not as bad as I think?

I think that whether or not you view that as a problem is down to the individual.

Personally I think it's less balanced than ITS but others much prefer the less restrictive nature of list building.

Whilst the yams format might favour some factions more than others the same could be said of ITS.

Spambot wrote:When I think of YAMs I just think of TAGs, Pretas, and other really unsuitable models not only kicking ass but taking the objectives too. Is this an issue with the format, or is it not as bad as I think?

Every faction has it's models which are able to kick ass like hell. So, the problem isn't really one as anybody can bring his TOP5 models to score.
Which is one of the things I like about YAMS - I can use my Sogarat link, or my Hsien link, or my E/Mauler Zero, or my Peacemaker REM, or my Zerat with Mines, or my...

Spambot wrote:When I think of YAMs I just think of TAGs, Pretas, and other really unsuitable models not only kicking ass but taking the objectives too. Is this an issue with the format, or is it not as bad as I think?

This is probably one of YAMS greatest strengths because you had a lot of flexibility in list creation. One of the reasons I quit ITS 2014 is because it's the exact opposite. There is an extremely narrow band of lists that will be successful. With YAMS, you could still take models you thought were cool and win. It also made what happened on the table the ultimate factor in winning. ITS 2014 has become too much like Warmachine and most other miniature games where list building is more important than what happens on the table.

My group of players started of with YAMS. I always recommend it to beginners. I really agree in the strength being in listbuilding freedom. Now how ever it feels a bit dusty and imbalanced, think it needs a makeover, perhaps after N3.

Like the idea of common mission card, will try that out though.

An alternative system (still under development) is by Levitas and Ravager Zero:

http://infinitygamedallas.freeforums.or ... -t484.html

These are narrative missions one can play either secretly, or in the open. I think they are somewhere between YAMS and ITS, and also have the advantage of allowing one to pick pretty much any list, but with some bonuses for picking specialists.

I really dont like YAMS. I think that after Paradiso, it is oudated. I have got a number of reasons:

YAMS gives different random mission cards to both players, and all missions give an equal amount of VP disregarding the fact that the missions have a different degree of difficulty.

YAMS is secret. An open system facilitates strategic play.

8 missions to keep in mind (4 of which you are not sure about) is a lot to keep track of. Infinity is already complicated enough.

No special role for specialists makes the list building bland and encourages players to put everything into firepower. Engineers will rarely be seen on a YAMS battlefield. This also does not emphazise the science fiction background of Infinity.

YAMS was definitely a way forward when it came out. I am thankful to the people who designed it. There was no mission system back then. But nowadays, I am happy when no one gets out those cards. I rather play ITS missions or Paradiso.

For reference, the 'people who designed it' is me.

As far as the secret nature goes, as mentioned up-thread a very popular variant these days involves a common pool of public objectives plus a few secret ones.

Specialists are very tricky with YAMS. I've looked at ways of adding them several times but doing so in any kind of balanced fashion gets tricky - and even more importantly it removes the main distinction between YAMS and the ITS missions - you don't need to write a list specifically for YAMS!

One idea might be to add missions where taking certain specialists makes the mission easier, but not impossible. For example, if you had to sabotage an objective, an Engineer could do it with a straight WIP or WIP+3 while non-Engineers were at WIP-3. Adding those missions cards like that into the pool doesn't guarantee that you'll get the missions all the time. If desired, one could still run fire-power heavy lists, but would have a harder time completing specialist objectives, potentially wasting extra order to succeed instead of shooting...

I agree with the Highlander. I have incorporated this method of awarding using specialists into my own mission system.

YAMS has the big advantag of the flexibility of use. You may play it open, without random and using how many cards you want.

Maybe I should just convince the people I play YAMS with to drop the random and the secret elements which annoy me so much.

As for narrow build lists with ITS missions, I do not agree that this is true. However, I dont think it is such a great idea to make it that only unspecific specialists are able to fulfil objectives. Once those are shot, there is only so much you can do.

Prophet_of_Doom wrote:I really dont like YAMS. I think that after Paradiso, it is oudated. I have got a number of reasons:

YAMS gives different random mission cards to both players, and all missions give an equal amount of VP disregarding the fact that the missions have a different degree of difficulty.

YAMS is secret. An open system facilitates strategic play.

8 missions to keep in mind (4 of which you are not sure about) is a lot to keep track of. Infinity is already complicated enough.

While it is perfectly fine to have an individual opinion on stuff, I'd like to point out that:

1. Infinity tends to be more tactical than strategic game.
2. You usually know at least one of the opponent's missions (unless he forgo Double-or-Quits).
3. Most of the time, minding your own objectives is enough.
4. Contrary to ITS 2014 and especially Paradiso, YAMS games scale well - I can play them at 300points just as Paradiso and ITS, at 200 points (which Paradiso isn't meant to do) and at 150pts, which would place many armies on the edge to create a working ITS list.

Also, YAMS with its 24 cards provides way more options than ITS with its 5 scenarios.
...well, which is one of the reasons why my meta plays YAMS extensively and why I've written a text about this system

Errhile wrote:...well, which is one of the reasons why my meta plays YAMS extensively and why I've written a text about this system

Going up tomorrow!

@Errhile:

1. knowing about your opponents missions is about strategic play. The grand plan.
2. Many people, me included, forgo double or nothing.
3. Not so sure about that. As the expert, I guess you are right, but I'd prefer a game where I do mind about my opponents objectives.
4. Agreed.
5. Well, you can always come up with more scenarios!

Just looked at the YAMS cards again ... really have a hard time getting over the issue with randomness and the fact that the missions have different levels of difficulty. Most of the missions are fine, but it would be more to my taste if both players had the same objectives or would know abouteach others objectives.

But there is no need to burst into flames here, as this is really a matter of taste. And I much prefer to play YAMS than annihilation.

Strategic play does involve figuring out what objectives your opponent is going after.

Likewise, it's a strategic move to reveal your objective, forcing him to react to a revealed objective in greater force, since it is now worth double.

Not saying YAMS is perfect, but both ITS and YAMS could use more refinement.

ITS might rely a bit too much on specialists if they're the only one that can do things. it's scifi, that means access to tech and training, or tech that replaces training, or allows a specialist to look through the helmet can on a grunt and tell him what to do.

ITS might rely a bit too much on specialists if they're the only one that can do things. it's scifi, that means access to tech and training, or tech that replaces training, or allows a specialist to look through the helmet can on a grunt and tell him what to do.

that is the biggest problem with ITS. What do you do when your specialists get shot up? It is not really a good setup if I need to have half specialists in my force (exaggerated)

Strategic play does involve figuring out what objectives your opponent is going after.

Likewise, it's a strategic move to reveal your objective, forcing him to react to a revealed objective in greater force, since it is now worth double.

agreed, I do not put that in doubt. My question to that is how complex you expect people to think in a game with an already complex set of rules? Ok, it is possible to handle all this, but is it desirable? Less is often more.

To everyone his own
What I really like is that we have so many options available in Infinity. We can play YAMS, or we can play ITS, or we could try Dire Foes or one of the Paradiso missions... and then there are other, fan-made systems

You could always homebrew the YAMS system for your local meta. Here's what I propose:

-Get together your local meta
-Assign a value of points ranging from, say, 1 to 3 to each mission
-Organize these missions by point value into separate "stacks"
-When playing, draw 4 cards from the 2 point stack
-Each opponent (going in turn order) removes one card from the pool
-Each player then draws 2 cards each from the 1 and 3 point stacks
-Each player then discards 1 card from both the 1 point and 3 point pools
-Each player should then have 4 objective cards (2 secret worth 1 and 3 points, 2 open worth 2 points each)

Savvy?

Sounds like a solid idea.

I prefer ITS, but YAMS (in whatever variation groups prefer) is at least better than kill-'em-alls.

I like the variation Spektr (and others) came up with, with open objective cards. It makes the games much more 'screw your opponent' than 'focus on objectives' which leads to constant and glorious hilarity.

Mistake Not wrote:I prefer ITS, but YAMS (in whatever variation groups prefer) is at least better than kill-'em-alls.

I like the variation Spektr (and others) came up with, with open objective cards. It makes the games much more 'screw your opponent' than 'focus on objectives' which leads to constant and glorious hilarity.

Especially if I and my opponent each have different objectives, I like the aspect of hidden objectives. I'm not a fan of 'try to screw your opponent'. Whenever I play any game, I try to play to the scenario, not just make a hard way to go for my opponent. They are there to enjoy the experience, too.

In the case of separate objectives, they should be hidden in case on player gets a short straw (objective are hard to complete for the list they brought, etc.). If the objectives are open, I think they should be shared (as an example for YAMS, each player draws 4 objective cards, and then reveals two for shared objectives…).

I'm in the YAMS camp and my group when we get together we play it almost exclusively. I feel that ITS pushes you too much into a monotone mind set and list building. With YAMS you can have more diverse lists and still win games.

There's room for both. ITS missions, as far as I know them, are pretty direct, closer to classic direct confrontation scenarios seen in many games.

YAMS is more like a random mission generator.

I think YAMS could benefit from a single big randomly drawn direct confrontation objective, no choice in the matter.

Meanwhile, ITS' strange and arbitrary specialist requirements are a bit odd. Why is a paramedic suddenly better at checking a box? Why couldn't a specialist look through the helmet cam of the soldier, or any other uses of digital communication. I do understand the need to limit lethality and promote the taking of models that aren't just good at killing.

It could also use some better random objectives. The secret stuff they have now kind of pales to the interesting randomization elements in YAMS.