prophetofDoom

Members
  • Content count

    529
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Time Online

    225d 47m 5s

Community Reputation

314 Excellent

1 Follower

About prophetofDoom

  • Rank
    Wired

Recent Profile Visitors

1,233 profile views
  1. I have played that a couple of times and never had a problem. Remember that there is also a secondary mission which might get some troopers out. I also don't think what you describe results in a horrible game or that it is necessarily a great strategy to approach the mission this way. I will think about your idea, though. You guys could join my 20x20 facebook page and download the latest testversion of 20x20. Help is always appreciated. This feedback was very useful. I am happy to read that you like my missions.
  2. I will. I just found the way back to this forum. Version 4 has taken more turns than expected, now it is 5 new missions! I hope to get some testplay in. I'd send you the text if you like so you could look at it and maybe try a new mission?
  3. rolling for 20x20 missions randomly is just an option. The system is not necessarily meant to play that way. i usually decide with my opponent which primary mission to play and only roll for the secondary one. Distribution of weapons like D-Charges is less of a problem in 20x20 because you can destroy the beacon with all weapons in the primary mission. In the secondary mission Demolition one trooper gets a d-charge for free. I went through all armies before coming to that decision. And that still is not good enough for me, the next version of 20x20 will lower the necessity to have d-charges even more, while still rewarding the use of d-charges. I think 20x20 is better than ITS when it comes to be fair about skills and equipment. This problem is prevalent in ITS. Many weapons and skills are necessary, while some armies don't have them or only in small numbers. You have to go out of your way to include them. Even then they may not be necessary because you just don't draw the required classified card. This and the random effect is something that really bothers me about ITS. I like the new version, but I don't feel it is fair to expect armies to have skills and equipment that is rare for them and does not help much apart from maybe enabling them to score more points. CHA is a good example. No tags, and no use for a hacking device. Even the d-charges are not as affluent as in the rest of Ariadna. Sure, you can still play and win, but it is more of an effort. You are also deprived of being able to score maximum points in the missions that require TAGs. On the other hand, I see it as a strength of Infinity as a wargame that each mission requires certain troopers. This way the lists vary more. The problem is just that for some ITS missions it feels a bit too tight when I build my list. Don't get me started with tournament requirements. interesting ideas. Should be tested. This would be much less frustrating to play, but could be exploited to just use the best. I guess CB had the opposite in mind when they designed those darned cards. My best idea so far was to not use the classiified cards at all. (Ironically, I have won every time i was forced to play Highly Classified. ) that really depends on what faction you play. In many factions such elements do not get into the lists in a natural way at all. Try CHA, as an extreme.
  4. yeah, and we came to an agreement. In the new version, there will be clearer mention of the size of the objectives because they vary. I intent to make 20x20 even more for pick up games because I feel ITS is becoming less for pick up games. I still want to keep the level C missions for the more narrative games. I do like the army list preparation aspect of Infinity, but I think it can be a bit too much of a burden sometimes. I am about to finish the draft soon. Would you like to proofread? Your help will be very much appreciated.
  5. are the hits automatic or do you have to roll for successful attacks? I thought I had read in the rules that attacks against scenery hit automatically, but now I can't find it anymore.
  6. First off, thank you very much for the work you have put into giving me this feedback. I have copied and pasted your suggestions into a word document and will keep them in mind as I rework 20x20. Mild suggestions are in GREEN - Strong suggestions are in RED 1. Border Clash (p.8): "1 OP for the player whose total is lower than that of the opponent, but has at least one active trooper in the opponent’s table half" change into 2 OP 3. Secure Building/Centre (p.12): "6 OP for the player who has active troopers inside the target zone and no enemy troopers are inside it." change into: 5 OP "+1 OP for the player who has his/her trooper with the Lieutenant skill active and inside the target zone." change into: +2 OP "4 OP for the player whose total points worth of active troopers inside the target zone is at least 5 army list points higher than the opponent’s total points worth of active troopers inside the target zone." change into: more than "2 OP for the player who has active troopers inside the target zone, but their army list points cost is 5 or more below those of the opponent." change into: are less than 5 than those of the opponent "+1 OP for the player who has his/her trooper with the Lieutenant skill active and inside the target zone." change into: +2 OP Also the army point differences in these Victory Conditions are too small I think. Probably it should be closer to 10 point differences for them to count. Figuring out the OP system is a very complex task. I have to weigh in the secondary missions as well, for example. Both of those missions already have their OP system reworked, but not the way you suggested. I will give it a third thought. The way the night aspect works in Border Clash has been changed as well. 4. Triangulation (p.13): Exclusion zone seems to me a bit restricting. Something like this would make more sense: Units that choose to deploy with a beacon cannot make use of HD, IMP, AD ..etc as the beacon hampers their ability to do so. I disagree here. I think the way Exclusion Zone works in ITS is much more frustrating. In Triangulation, you get to move your infiltrators up to the table half without having to rely on luck. More would be detrimental to the mission. The change you suggest would hamper the use of such troopers, leading to frustration which is at least equal to what my exclusion zone does. No exclusion zone would make the mission too easy. I have played this mission often enough (or have it seen played) to know that it works quite well. 5. Data Recovery (p.16): Intercepting Data Recovery is a game breaking mechanic that encourages spam of hackers and repeaters. I understand your concern and have seen the strength of hackers in this mission. I do not want to remove this mechanic because it would make the mission bland. I want people to use hackers and repeaters. I would be very hard to spam them. I have changed the WIP modifiers to make it easier for non-hackers to download data packs when a hacker Is intercepting. "1 OP for a player who has downloaded less data packs than the opponent, but at least 1." change into: 2 OP I have considered exactly this before, have dropped it and now I have put it in again. As I said, OP are hard to calculate. 6. Intercept Enemy Communication (p.17): Complete Rework or Removal: I dislike this mode very much and I avoid playing it. Sorry, I love this one and it will pretty much stay as it is. 8. Escape with Dropship (p.22): Victory Conditions are somewhat strange and need clarification. To be honest i never played this mode because i could not figure out how exactly points are scored and the rules are somewhat hard to understand. This is probably just me. I know that others have played and understood it. Wording is hard for me as a non-native speaker. What do you find confusing? 9. Escort Warcor (p.23): This needs a huge rework, probably instead of killing the enemy warcor we should only be able to immobilize and stun or move into BtB and capture him or even instead of a Warcor it could be a spy starting in IMP and we must find who he is and discover/incapacitate him. Interesting idea with the immobilization and stunning. This may be more acceptable now that ITS has done something similar. I will consider it. The mission works as it is if people understand that they need to protect their warcor. 10. Seize Hardware (p.26): Interrogating Civilians: Add special operative to the list Civilians may still be interrogated after the crates (OMs) have been opened as they also reveal other useful information: I think this is useless. Sorry, but I will not follow you on this one at all. I want LTs to be more active and not allowing scoring OP for interrogation after opening crates would be unfair. 11. Wetwork (p.27): A little bit strange: Maybe change how civilians come into play and/or victory conditions. I am ok with 20x20 being a bit strange at some points. It was hard to figure out how the civilians should get on the board. One of the points behind this mission is that the deployment zones should be where the main part of the game takes place for a change. I don’t see a problem with the victory conditions either. I find that secondary objectives need no changes. Some will be changed.
  7. sure,this helped. I will go through all your recommendations. For now: Collect Debris, Teseum Run and Recover Remotes will not be in Version 4. I love the Intercept Communication scenario. A twist on the usual.
  8. that would be awesome!
  9. Thanks for the feedback. What missions would need a better balancing?
  10. I have just started to play ITS Version 9 and I can say that I really like it. The system emphasises the need to bring certain troopers to certain missions. There are so many specifics that need to be met: You need a sturdy datatracker, a sufficient amount of specialists, a TAG, troopers with antimateriel ammo. I have not been to an ITS9 tournament yet, but I can imagine that it will be tough to write lists. Yes, the complexity of some ITS missions has increased, and it is certainly not a good idea to read the mission description 3 minutes before you start a game. The background stories of Infinity still do not come to life very much in the ITS scenarios. But on the whole, ITS 9 is good. So is there still need for a system like 20x20? I seriously asked myself the question and I have come to the conclusion that the answer is yes, but only if it does something different to ITS. So what could 20x20 possibly do that ITS does not? ITS requires players to bring specifically tailored lists, which I like. Still, I believe this is the part where 20x20 can be different. 20x20 should be a system that can be played in a more casual manner, with lists that have undergone less scrutiny when being made. I still like the idea of encouraging people to play with different lists, but my approach to do this should differ from ITS. Where ITS works with exclusiveness (a trooper can only achieve something if it has certain specifics) 20x20 should work on the principle of giving advantages to certain troopers. Every trooper can do mission-specific tasks, but certain troopers can do it better. Of course, 20x20 should also be a system that reflects the background a bit more than ITS. And yes, I believe that it is easier to read and understand a 20x20 mission than an ITS mission. I will work on improving that aspect, if possible. What do you think? Is 20x20 obsolete? How can it be different from ITS in a positive way? What should be changed about 20x20?
  11. I could not find ammo type "antimateriel" for some reason. I guess that is because it is a trait, not a type. Infinity is so complicated. I don't think I would want to rely on my specialist troopers to first go to the panoply to get a d-charge and then destroy the AC2 with it. It is also important to note that you need 2 at least 2 orders to destroy it with a d-charge because the cc version of d-charge use is not antimateriel.
  12. my mobile Army builder has not done an update yet. Still no Cube Jaeger for example. Do I have to install again? On my PC it is looking for updates every time I start it. The message still is that there is no update.
  13. .That is not a concern of balance, but of enjoyment. I find it not so enjoyable to have to cram things into my list. the other question which arises is: Does the mission make sense below 300 points? Thank you very much for your feedback. I will factor it in as I am working on version 4 atm. I don't want to give you an indepth answer here, as it would be off topic. Suffice to say that in this mission I could not resist to put in a random table to add flavour, even though I felt it is conceptually wrong. Glad you liked it.
  14. I am a bit disappointed to see that Scarface is gone for some factions. The people who bought the model will be pissed off right now. Also, being deprived of options to score points makes me feel disadvantaged as an Ariadna player. More to the point of my original post, what about smaller games? It is hard to fit a TAG into a 200 pts list.
  15. Which one is that? If you refer to making WIP rolls for scoring objectives, that is within the norm of Infinity and allows to reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of the factions.