As the release of Infinity N5 in October draws closer, some more information is being previewed about what to expect. There was a mini-seminar on 24th August which showed the new rulebook cover and explained some small changes. Bostria, the Corvus Belli spokesman, also gave an informal interview to the Metachemistry podcast, well worth a listen here, which explains some of the internal decision making and hints at some more substantial future changes, particularly around factions. 

We are going to summarise the new information, comment on what we think is interesting, and then just expand at the end on our hopes (and fears) for the new edition. Credit for a lot of this stuff goes to the fine hosts of Metachemistry – we are just picking over their bones. Well done to them for getting Bostria on their show!

Confirmed Rules Changes

The seminar did show an explanation of two changes to nomenclature, which we were already following: firstly, Wounds is becoming Vitality. Perfectly simple, and ‘wound markers’ are still referred to, when they equal the model’s Vitality stat, the model becomes Unconscious. Structure is remaining the same term, the chance only seems to have been introduced because of the ambiguity between “wounds” as a stat and “wound markers”.

Second, weapon damage is changing to the same “roll equal to or under a target number” that other rolls in Infinity follow, effectively being replaced with the new Possibility of Survival (PS) stat. CB’s graphic explains it pretty well.

It’s important to note that the actual maths of weapons haven’t changed. Models have the same chance of surviving various weapon hits as before. This has been presented as a change to make the game more consistent and simpler to teach to new players. Bostria stressed all this in the interview, and mentioned that it had been considered, but rejected for the introduction of N4.

The other mechanical changes explained were to melee combat. Units rolling on a score over 20 will now count the low numbers on the D20 as critical hits. Again, here’s a graphic:

Out first impression was that this makes melee specialists even more likely to beat untrained models once they make it into Silhouette contact. A model rolling on CC 26 still has the same chance to crit. The crit results are replacing low rolls now, which we thought made CC >20 stronger – but a key facet is that skills >20 now don’t directly modify the number you roll. E.G. if a model rolls on a 26, 1-6 are crits. But a roll of 7 isn’t converted to 13. So mathematically it remains basically the same as before. 

• Genghis Cohen: I guess this minimises those feel-bad moments when you spend lots of Orders running your billy badass ninja towards a vulnerable target, only to roll a 1 and get punched in the face by a regular Joe Schmoe.
  
• Musterkrux: Yeah, I never felt like Billy-Badass lost fights often enough to warrant a correction but that’s all fine with me. Generally, I found that losing to schmucks happened just frequently enough that it was more funny than annoying when it happened. As an aside, I assume this will also count for Ballistic Skill crits over 20 (see: High BS Shotguns in Fireteams hitting on 23’s). 

In a further melee change, Natural Born Warrior is getting partially downgraded. It will now remove negative mods to the model’s CC stat (most commonly from enemy Martial Arts, or special rules) but will not remove the enemy’s positive modifiers. 

This makes the skill less critical in determining the outcome of fights; NBW is still a great skill to have if paired with Martial Arts, but it won’t give as decisive and advantage any more. Bostria mentioned in the interview that CB were tracking a community perception that NBW was being handed out more frequently, with accompanying frustration on how this interacted with elite, expensive Martial Arts unit who didn’t have it. 

The interview also discussed that Martial Arts levels would once again change effects. At least one level will allow the user to roll two dice, and pick the better result. So not quite natural Burst 2, but a greatly improved chance to land a critical hit.

• Musterkrux: More dice is more good. It currently feels like the breakpoint for Martial Arts is when you get +3 and inflict a -3 penality on your opponent. Having a tangible benefit stepping up additional levels of Martials Arts with Roll-Two-Keep-One really helps demonstrate the value of different levels of Martial Arts, which otherwise felt like MA1 and then all of MA2+. I’m keen!
• Robert Cantrell: this also reflects that skills like CC-3 or CC+3 make most of the current effects of Martial Arts superfluous. We may see some of those skills, which are plain to understand without referring to a table, being written in profiles more, with Martial Arts only covering the more esoteric effects.

Guided Missiles have also been confirmed as being changed. The only real new information comes from the interview. Bostria mentioned how CB are aware of it being problematic, but are wary of how much is perception – his point was that to beat a strong Sectorial like Steel Phalanx, using guided missiles, you still need to be a good player. Out takeaway is that CB didn’t see it as their biggest concern. But it will change. In the interview, Bostria’s example of a potential fix was something he recalled from a draft of the rules, he caveated that he couldn’t remember what solution they actually went with: to make Reset, at the current -3 mod, a FtF roll against the incoming missile, with success both avoiding the hit and removing the Targeted state. In the seminar, he also mentioned possibilities like making Guided shoot on +3, not +6, or for a single missile to burn up the Targeted state.

• Genghis Cohen: a bit of a reminder there that Bostria is a great spokesman for CB but is not a dedicated rules guy. It’s interesting for me just how he handled that topic in the interview. I didn’t get the impression he was holding back the info on new Guided rules; he genuinely didn’t recall what changes have been implemented. Which puts in perspective the scale of the issue. For tournament players that see the tactic a lot, it’s an important part of the anticipated changes. For CB, looking at wider sales and the distribution and popularity of the game as a whole? It’s a footnote.

There were some potentially much bigger changes to the game teased at the seminar! First of all, vehicle models will be introduced. This was swiftly clarified to not be tanks, APCs etc – Infinity is not becoming a mass combat game. Things like drones will be introduced, and they will have some rules which differentiate them from other models. We really don’t know much more about this yet. Our stance is ‘wait and see’. 

• Genghis Cohen: Some new players I have introduced to Infinity were surprised that existing Remotes don’t work that differently to human troopers. There’s no intrinsic difference in the core rules (beyond maybe a Remote can’t be your Lt). We are used to seeing some characteristic things in Remotes’ statlines, like 6-4 movement, Remote Presence, a lot of onboard Repeaters, but all of those are malleable and have exceptions. Even TAGs are just models with some good special rules, and exceptional ARM, Structure and Silhouette values. I don’t expect this to be like older editions of 40k where vehicles were a whole different section of the rulebook. I expect we will simply see new categories of units representing things like drones.  I could be wrong and these will not be troopers, but separate categories of model which other troopers will interact with in some way, like riding on them temporarily. Exciting times.
• Robert Cantrell: based on the seminar, which mentioned pilots mounting and dismounting vehicles, and that hoverbike silhouette, I think we may see some expansion of the current motorbike rules.

The other new addition teased is a use for Command Tokens: Speedball. This was explained as spending a token to immediately upgrade a model on the battlefield with new equipment (possibly changing it into an alternative profile for the unit?). That could certainly be a way for players to change the table situation and get themselves out of a bind. Bringing in an upgrade to long range firepower, when your key model is pinned down by an unassailable long range ARO, is the scenario which springs to mind.

• Genghis Cohen: I welcome this because the current Command Token usages are close to solved. Almost everyone spends to dock their opponent’s Orders when going second. Some players spend to hold a second model deployment back when playing first, it depends on the list and table. Beyond that, Command Tokens are almost always used to stretch Orders further. Coordinating unopposed movement, converting unused Irregular Orders, and in the current ITS Season 15, the dominant usage of simply spending them to generate more Orders (O-12 Prestige) are what we see constantly. But despite my hunger for something new, I do wonder if this ability will make it even harder for the Reactive player to create an effective defence. The Active player can find it easier to create or leverage an advantage in the current game. If, as we assume, this is an ability for the Active player (we don’t see how it would work otherwise) it will just make any direct ARO defence, as opposed to null deployment or hacking, even harder.
• Musterkrux: Mixed feelings on Speedball. I think it’s going to end up as a bit of a Feels-Bad mechanic. If the incoming weapon is determined by RNG you’re running the risk of the Active Player feeling like they lost a game because they didn’t roll a HMG for their line trooper (despite having already lost the game due to earlier decisions/interactions) or the Reactive Player feeling bad for having their otherwise successful defence broken by the Active Player just hard-rolling a Sniper Rifle to outrange their well placed ARO piece. My initial response was: Why isn’t this an optional ITS extra? It seems fun but why not at least test it as a tournament extra for a season before sticking it into the game, CB? Why?

Faction Changes

So we now know the release battle box for N5 will be built around two new Sectorials, part of PanOceania and Japanese Secessionist Army (JSA): the Kestrel Colonial Force and the Shinden Butai. This raises a lot of questions about how the current range of Factions and Sectorials will be updated into N5. What Bostria has confirmed in this interview is that not all Sectorials will be updated to the new edition. Our surmise there is that Sectorials which are ‘not updated’ will remain in Infinity Army, remain legal for tournament play, and have their profiles made coherent for N5 (eg changing Wounds to Vitality, rules like BS Attack +1 Damage would become PS-1 or something). It would be outside of their past form for CB to actually remove them from the game. 

We think it is more likely that these unlucky Sectorials simply wouldn’t have their rosters, Fireteam options or signature units revised or reviewed to make them more interesting or synergise with any new concepts brought in during the edition change. Not the end of the world, but perhaps likely to make them less popular. This is historically a mixed bag with Infinity. It’s not like Games Workshop’s offerings, where the recency of rules updates roughly correlates with strong, interesting rules, although not without exceptions. Infinity Sectorials which have been ‘left behind’ without real rules reworks for many years range from Merovingians, frequently derided as one of the weakest Sectorials in the game, to Tohaa, which are one of the stronger factions, with several variations in between. Bostria did clarify that any Sectorial which is not updated, would hopefully receive its time in the sun in the future. 

Bostria confirmed that some of these cuts would certainly fall on the non-aligned armies (NA2); as mercenary forces, they could all have some of their identities merged into existing faction Sectorials. We surmise that probably none of those mercenary armies will be fully updated into N5, and they’re the only strong possibilities for being removed from the game, at least for now. No miniatures would become homeless/invalid, since all the mercenary armies draw from two or more other factions’ units. 

• Genghis Cohen: I would be sad to see my White Company retire, but ultimately I understand this is going to be the easiest way to cut down some of the burden of balancing and updating army rosters. Give me Hawkwood in some factions and I’ll be happy! Seriously, this could be perfectly fine if a few more Sectorials get some cross-faction units and mercenary troops added in.

What was really interesting in the interview is Bostria’s comments on the motivation behind these decisions. Basically, reworking the rules behind a faction offers no profit for the company in terms of driving miniature sales. A big splash release, e.g. of an Action Pack, as for Military Orders, Morats or Bakunin, is very profitable. So that may be the trend for any Sectorial reworks going forward. Potentially disappointing for those established players whose first interest is in new rules – this would clearly limit the pace for reviving older Sectorials. But fully understandable.

In the interview, this discussion led to Bostria and the hosts basically agreeing that the game’s 43 current factions (counting vanilla factions plus all Sectorials) wasn’t sustainable; that many doesn’t allow for all to get the high level of support CB wants to give them. We don’t think that’s controversial, the game is pretty damn big as it is.

• Musterkrux: I think it’s plenty controversial. CB can wrench Ikari Company out of my cold, dead hands after the SWAT Team has swept my wooden cabin in the woods for booby traps.
• Genghis Cohen: One point which wasn’t challenged in the interview (no shade to the Metachemistry guys at all, they did a great show): if the number of factions is too great, why introduce a sixth(!) Sectorial for PanOceania in this new pack? JSA I get. Clearly the sales market is there and the art/miniatures design has scope to expand their aesthetic. They would naturally get Sectorials added and I support that too. Can’t argue with the bottom financial line. But would a rework of Acontecimento or Neoterra Sectorials not have been just as profitable as introducing yet another? Either it won’t have much of a unique identity, so why bother, or it will have some really impactful new units, which is great but means older stuff will be further back in the queue for renewal. I shouldn’t be an old grumbler, and will reserve judgment. I’m sure the new models will be excellent, so why complain. But it seems quixotic to identify a problem of too many factions, and then go about adding to them. Perhaps there is strong market research saying that a renewed older Sectorial won’t sell as well as a brand new one.
• Robert Cantrell: my understanding was that Kestrel Force was replacing Acontecimento, but we will have to wait and see.  

Beyond trimming the number of Sectorials, the biggest faction change, which was extensively discussed in the interview, was changing how vanilla factions work. Bostria’s words were that they would become Sectorials themselves. I.E. more of a curated grab bag from each of their Sectorials, than their current ‘almost everything’s access. He confirmed that they will get access to Haris teams to redress some of the loss of flexibility, but implied this would be in some way limited. We here at Goonhammer are fully on board with the decision to trim vanilla unit rosters. They were getting unworkable and featured too many also-ran, trap choices for each unit role. Overwhelming for new players to get their heads around. Haris teams are potentially a big win, but it all depends on what units can be formed up. Duo teams, for example, came into vanilla last edition. They have some great options in PanO and Yu Jing, although hardly meta defining. In Nomads they are a joke, because the unit options are so lacking in synergy. If vanilla really is curtailed to rosters the size of current Sectorials, then hopefully their Haris options are at least flexible – lack of access to Core Fireteams will be a much larger handicap in that context. Something we are eager for more details on.

Fireteam rules themselves are confirmed to be changed in some way, possibly in what bonuses they offer. Bostria was not specific but some kind of simplification on the bonuses for ‘pure’ and ‘impure’ teams seems to be coming. This was mentioned as a change to make things easier for new players to understand the Fireteam bonuses. 

Steel Phalanx came in for a bit of flak from Bostria during the interview, being brought up as a counterpoint to Guided being targeted as an example of a faction which in casual play is much more likely to smash face and create negative play experiences. We did already point out that he’s not primarily a rules guy – he went on to mention Military Orders as another such straightforwardly powerful faction – but this does seem like solid confirmation that the Homeridae could have their wings clipped slightly. 

Final Thoughts

Some really intriguing changes, especially to factions and how vanilla will balance with Sectorials. In some ways, the biggest nailbiter for us, as mostly competitive players, isn’t so much changes to the core rules, as it is changes to Sectorials’, and especially to vanilla factions’, Infinity Army rosters. Those could do more to shake up the meta than any tweaks to Guided missiles or points increases on current hot units.

The straight up new additions to the game – Speedball, drones and other vehicles – could also be the most dramatic changes. Which is very sneaky of CB after modestly claiming that his edition would mostly be polishing the previous one! Our anticipation here is sky high and we are on tenterhooks for more details. 

Have any questions or feedback? Drop us a note in the comments below or email us at contact@goonhammer.com. Want articles like this linked in your inbox every Monday morning? Sign up for our newsletter. And don’t forget that you can support us on Patreon for backer rewards like early video content, Administratum access, an ad-free experience on our website and more.