Infinity Tournament Season 17 (ITS17) is here, and it’s the most dramatic change to Infinity organised play we have seen for many years. This isn’t particularly through additional models or rules, as seen in previous seasons – although there are some new things – or through any changes to the Tournament Point scoring or options for Extra conditions for events. No, the changes to this season are in the missions themselves, which through ITS16 had mostly been in rotation for a long time. Almost all the old missions are gone. The deck has been whittled from 20+ choices down to 10, of which 3 are the relatively-new options from recent seasons, 1 is the Provisioning mission released for the last Interplanetario event, and 6 are brand spanking new (we are excluding the 5 Direct Action missions, which aren’t significantly changed, but in our experience aren’t particularly popular as tournament picks). Missions use most of the same language and structure of previous presentations, which helps to make sense of them, but there are definitely some major shake-ups to the game here.

We have been saying for a few seasons that missions were in need of just such a shake-up, so our initial reaction was an enthusiastic “hell yeah!”. Let’s dive into the details now and see how well that reaction holds up. There’s plenty to chew through, since most of the new missions play around in some way with new shapes of Deployment Zone, or player agency in positioning Objectives, or even, in one case, fully asymmetrical Objectives.

 

Formatting

This seems like a weird and minor thing to highlight, but CB seem to have put meaningful thought into how they lay out the missions. The format is still recognisable and familiar from previous years, but they have sorted out page breaks: every mission has one page with the objectives, force sizes and map up front. Then subsequent pages have the scenario special rules. As petty as this sounds, it saves a lot of flipping back and forth if you’re not familiar with the mission, and the information is presented in an order which matches the way most people think about setting up and then playing the game. Line breaks and the details of the layout have also been revised and the whole document seems a lot clearer. Well done on this front.

Core Rules

All the preamble of how to run tournaments, scoring, sizes of events, rules for civilians, CivEvac, CasEvac, HVTs and so forth seem unchanged. We do note that the long-standing rule that Characters count as Veteran Troops (important for many Classified Objectives) remains. But several rules from the previous seasons are gone:

• No more Journalists (usually War Cors) counting as Specialists.
• No model being nominated as Stealth Ops.
• No more Border Skirmishes rule; parachutist/combat jump models don’t get that once-per-game guaranteed landing on the edge of an Exclusion Zone.
• There are no more QAZones or QAZ creatures. We are quite glad to see these gone as they were just a pain to remember and apply in the random missions in which they appeared.
• Where they remained, legacy rules like picking a Hazmat Ops or Master Breacher have disappeared, by virtue of the missions containing them disappearing. Those mechanics sat oddly alongside the previous season’s Stealth Ops, and it was probably just a mistake that they even persisted beyond the seasons they were initially introduced in.

Treasure Hunters

In this season, all players, in all games, will deploy a 25mm Treasure Token, which has exactly the same deployment rules as an HVT. Essentially, players can secure the token in the same way we are used to doing the Secure HVT Classified Objective, and it scores in the same way, counting as having accomplished one of the Classified Objectives at the end of the game. We had to read through carefully to realise this, but it is exclusive with Secure HVT. So in most missions where you have 2 (or more) Classifieds, you can theoretically Secure HVT for one, or Secure Treasure Token for one; you can’t secure both elements to score both points.

Additionally, the token can be essentially mined for an additional Booty/Panoply roll for a Sacha, if your list includes one (see below). 

Genghis Cohen: I’m not a huge fan of this to be honest, because I think accomplishing cards is a rare example of something you might have to spend Orders on at a competitive priority with killing enemy models, if you want to secure Objective Points (OP). Adding another ‘get out of jail’ clause which means scoring can be done positionally at the end of the game is a backward step, to my mind. It just deepens the long-standing (minor) issue that a mission has X number of Classifieds, you actually only need to worry about covering (X-1) cards – Securing either the HVT or Treasure token is almost guaranteed to be an easier option.

Sāchā

For this season, all armies can take a cheap Sacha, an Irregular model which is honestly a pretty great deal. Not necessarily an auto-take (unless you have an Inspiring Presence Lieutenant) but a damn good thing to have access to, even aside from the extra Booty roll type shenanigans of Treasure hunting. 

Genghis Cohen: Man, I’m so glad Joan of Arc got buffed. There was hardly any reason for vanilla PanOceanian players to take her! I was worried, when some cheap Irregular models were cut from the faction in N5, that players wouldn’t have the chance to use one of their dozen different sculpts of this iconic, and in no way over-pushed, French lady.

Musterkrux: Do I detect the faintest hint of sarcasm? I don’t think Genghis is wrong, Joan doesn’t need another Irregular trooper but, honestly, I wasn’t maxing out Irregular Troops with her in most of the lists I was writing either. Helots x2, WarCor, then maybe one of either: Motorised Bounty Hunter, Tech-bee or Sacha. That’s my usual Irregular loadout with Joan, anymore and you’re taking up valuable ‘Do Work’ slots in your army. Also, point of order, there’s only seven sculpts (and I have six of them…and a problem. I have a problem).

Back to Sacha, though. Seems fine, I guess. A specialist for 6pts seems OK but it’s also one that starts in your DZ, has no mobility skills and no marker-state or other survival mechanisms, so it’s about as good as you’re going to get for the wallet-breaking cost of 6 pts.

However, the Sacha does interact specially with the Treasure Token. First, it can spend a short skill to get another Booty/Panoply type roll from it. That is cute, but honestly not a good use of Orders on a model without much other special fighting capability. Perhaps there will be one game in a hundred where it rolls Mimetism-6 from its own Booty, then an HMG from the Treasure Token. Second, more importantly to our mind, if you can get the Sacha into Zone of Control (ZoC) of the enemy Treasure Token at endgame, you Secure it, regardless of whether your own Token is clear of enemies. That is a pretty good bump to the ease of Securing a potential OP in close games. We’re interested to see how popular it becomes, but Sacha should crop up in a fair number of lists, at least in those factions which don’t have too many cheap Irregulars of their own.

Tactical Support Cards

This rule is unchanged from ITS16 Part 2. Each scenario will indicate how many Tactical Support cards you’ll need to draw after selecting your list (three scenarios require you to draw 1 card, three scenarios require 2 draws). So while the rule itself is unchanged, it is going to be a more common factor just because a slight majority of missions include it. The ITS document also doubles down and states that the generation mechanic ‘must’ be with the Operations Deck. They really want you to pore over those arcane symbols on the cards and compare them to the PDF on your phone. Look, there are 12 options, and they did at least put the table onto a single page this time. You can roll a D12, Corvus Belli won’t send people round your house.

Tactical Support options still range from getting an automatic success on a Scenario Objective roll (absolute god send, 11/10 perfect card, no I haven’t been traumatised by failing a critical WIP roll three times in a row to lose a game before, why do you ask?) through to the slightly less useful…a Specialist Trooper gets an Adhesive Launcher Rifle. Generally, these results are random and aren’t present within every scenario, so don’t make any serious plans around them in list building, but they’re a nice-to-have. Our only concern would be having confidence that the RNG of these draws doesn’t swing games hard in favor of one player over another.

Genghis Cohen: I was critical of this mechanic in our initial review of last season, when it appeared, and I’m still very down on it now. I’ve had at least one game where making a key unit (a Su Jian in that case) a Specialist was a critical winning factor for me, while my opponent received a useless Gizmokit. I’ve had numerous games where one of us rolled the inane ‘remove one of your opponent’s results’ result, making the whole mechanic pointless. Basically, I like the core idea behind the alterations of Scenario Rolls. I don’t see why the other random options are there (it’s because they needed 12 options to match 12 card symbols).

Operational Learning Replaces Specialist Bonuses

In two core and two Direct Action missions (Evacuation, Provisioning, Superiority and Uplink Centre) there is a new rule, Operational Learning. When a trooper fails a Scenario Roll, e.g. activating an Objective, if the player spends another Order on the same trooper to try the same thing again, the WIP roll is at +3, then at +3 with a Special Dice for the next and subsequent rolls, if they are still failing. This is a neat fix to the often-bemoaned negative play experience where a player, who could/would win the game, is baffled by a series of failures on Normal objective rolls.

The interesting design change is also in what isn’t in ITS17 – there are no more missions where hackers, engineers, forward observers or other Specialist types receive bonuses to the Scenario rolls. It looks like Operational Learning, by greatly reducing the possibility of multiple repeated failures in uncontested circumstances, is meant to cover the need for reliability which motivated those rules in the first place. That’s interesting, because last-minute objective grabs will require a few more Orders to reliably work, and suicidal plays are far less reliable – can’t benefit from Operational Learning if you die in a hail of AROs during your first attempt.

Genghis Cohen: I always liked tailoring my lists to the specialist-bonus, it made me feel like the tactical genius I am not. But happy to see something fresh here, especially as it flattens out factions’ aptitude for specific missions.

Musterkrux: Give me that sweet, sweet pity mechanic. My soul needs this.

Some [Not Very] Old Friends

B-Pong

Tactical Support Cards: 2

Suitable for Reinforcements: Yes

Good old Beer Pong. It’s still a scenario about pushing a scenario piece back and forth across the table. Just now you have 2x Tactical Support Cards and Treasure to Hunt. Still no Retreat rule here. The map also makes clear that it is a 16” Deployment Zone (this was in the text of ITS16 Pt2, but not on the map), and the 4” Exclusion Zone remains.

Genghis Cohen: I actually really like this mission in its current iteration. Yes, there is still a second turn advantage. Some missions need to have that! Lord knows enough of them have first turn advantage. I also need to point out what a dramatic update this is, that B-Pong is now the mission we turn to in search of a familiar old face. 

Evacuation

Tactical Support Cards: 2

Suitable for Reinforcements: Yes

Evacuating an HVT is now worth no more than any other civilian (1OP each), while the two classifieds are worth 2OP each. This really changes the scoring priorities – there’s less reason to fight through to evacuate models from the enemy table half, and Securing one of the HVTs will often be one of the easiest ways to secure OP. Overall, this mission seems more likely to generate Major Victories, but the Classified Draw will assume a greater importance to the outcome. Note that Operational Learning replaces the Forward Observer bonus.

Genghis Cohen: My Moran Masai! Nooooooo! Just kidding, I’ll still take them. I liked Evacuation before and I still like it now. If anything, I didn’t mind the slogging after CivEvacs, I feel the mission is less unique with the bigger emphasis on Classifieds. But it will still be fine. 

Last Launch

Tactical Support Cards: 2

Suitable for Reinforcements: Yes

This is unchanged from ITS16 Pt 2. Still a bit of an odd one with its push-pull mechanic of removing your own models from the table to win the game.

Musterkrux: I still don’t like how resource intensive scoring is in this scenario is, but nobody is forcing me to play this scenario (except the TO of my national championship event, I guess).

New Scenarios

Akial Interference

Tactical Support Cards: 0

Suitable for Reinforcements: Yes

Well, here’s your new Countermeasures, except both players are bringing their Classified decks, you bring 4 HVTs and there’s an Antenna in the middle of the table that lets you cycle the revealed Classifieds or cancel your opponent’s successfully completed ones (if you have also completed one of the same category).

Musterkrux: Mixed feelings on this one. I’ve always enjoyed Countermeasures and Highly Classified but my kneejerk reaction is that the Akial Antenna Interference mechanic will either be a Feels Bad/Negative Play Experience when it gets triggered or will spend the entire season being largely ignored by players who can’t be bothered factoring it into their plans.

Genghis Cohen: It’s hard to tell all the potential uses for the two antenna functions (cancelling opponent’s previously-achieved cards and swapping out current cards) until we’ve played it. But I like that, in theory, there is some interaction with the opponent rather than just racing to grab cards against each other.

Corporate Appropriation

Tactical Support Cards: 0

Suitable for Reinforcements: Yes

This scenario feels a little bit like Frostbyte or Mindwipe with a hint of Capture and Protect, you’ve got these assets that your opponent wants to steal (but also blow up theirs) while you are trying to steal theirs (and deny yours to the enemy).

It’s a pretty cool dynamic, selling the narrative of chasing down a crashed prototype weapon that you see in some military thrillers. Blowing up your own Prototype can only be done in the second round, which means both players will get at least once chance to scoop it up and run it back into their defensive line.

We may be mistaken but it also looks like you can farm your DZ panoply for items but that just becomes a question of which player is willing to commit more orders to securing …checks notes…one Objective Point.

Musterkrux: My evaluation is that Player One has a strong play at securing the mid-field to either pull back the enemy Prototype as well as secure a cordon around theirs, so they can pop it first thing in Round 2, potentially accomplishing both if they’re lucky. Setting up the table state to force Player Two into making some very aggressive/risky plays feels like it advantages Player One but not overwhelmingly so.

Genghis Cohen: I agree; the second player’s only counterbalancing advantage is picking which prototype belongs to which player, and unless the table makes that a huge deal, it still feels very dangerous to be on the back foot. But this looks like one of the most interesting objective sets to interact with in the whole pack. Super keen to see how people try and defend in this one.

 

Critical Intervention

Tactical Support Cards: 1

Suitable for Reinforcements: Yes

Oh, bless my stars, is this an Armory (Ed: Objective Room) scenario that is also asymmetric? We’ve got Attackers and we’ve got Defenders, each with different scoring systems. Wow. 

The Defender can also spend a Command Token to either deploy a turret in the Server Room or up to 65 points worth of troopers (not requiring any Superior Deployment skill to get up there). The first is cute but the second is wild. I am terrified of the combos people will invent for filling that room with Hate.

Requiring a WIP-6 roll unless the Attacker Unlocks the Console first by interacting with the Inhibitor Antenna (which, to be fair, sits inside the Server Room) is a pretty big ask.

Musterkrux: Asymmetrical scenarios are really cool and novel but their greatest strength (being unique and interesting) is also a weakness, as they run the risk of being perceived as ‘unfair’, because the two players aren’t playing the ‘same game’. Bravo CB for putting this scenario into the Season pack, I say: Let’s see it played at events!

Genghis Cohen: Hear, hear! I really can’t guess at this one without playing it, which I am dying to do. There’s so much going on. A lot of players’ initial reactions I have seen focussed on what they could or would put in the room with 65 points. I’d be very wary of ever doing so, except in real edge cases like appropriate Hidden Deployment units – a good opponent simply has so many offensive tools that can reach the table centre in Turn 1. My instinct is the room is a trap, but maybe in certain match ups, when you suspect your opponent doesn’t have an answer to your busted-exploit 65pt defensive suite, there is an opportunity. 

Crossing Lines

Tactical Support Cards: 0

Suitable for Reinforcements: No

We think this might be the craziest mission in the pack (yes, crazier than the asymmetric objective room mission!) with the biggest impact on list building. Take a look at the shape of these Deployment Zones:

Each player can put up to 75pts in that forward strip, inside the enemy table half, and potentially starting the game with their opponent’s up to 75pts behind them. No units can use Forward Deployment or Infiltration in this mission. Impersonation is still allowed, but because of the Exclusion Zone everywhere that isn’t someone’s DZ, they have to roll WIP and deploy in the opponent’s DZ to gain much advantage. Similarly, Parachutist troopers are incredibly heavily restricted here unless they have Parachutist (Deployment Zone), and Combat Jump suffers as well.

Our initial reaction is that this setup will result in immediate carnage in many games, and will force some extremely dramatic changes in what defensive tools are taken in a list. The immediate thought is that offensive short and mid-ranged power units will become much more valuable. Think about starting Sheskin or Joan of Arc just inside the enemy table half. But conversely, defensive suites like midfield repeater nets (ideally with Combat Instinct/Sixth Sense hacking) are open to many more factions in this DZ set-up.

Genghis Cohen: While my initial thoughts were about how challenging it would be to go second in this mission, I think it could present a lot of new issues for both players, and the scoring could heavily favour the second player, if they avoid getting totally rolled. Another one I am very keen to play. The strategic logic of Infinity is so tied up with the shape of the table and (traditionally) two DZs facing each other across no-mans-land. Using this sort of deployment fundamentally alters the value of different units. But then again, only 75pts can position forward, so perhaps we are giving that too much weight.

Musterkrux: Can’t comment right now, too busy searching Army Builder for models with Minelayer and Deployable Repeaters.

Hardlock

Tactical Support Cards: 1

Suitable for Reinforcements: Yes

This is basically the ‘capture the flag’ of old-school Capture and Protect, for up to 4OP across the game, scored at the end of each Round. This is combined with 3 consoles across the centre line, which apply the most traditional ITS mechanic of activating them for Player A, and Player B ‘flipping’ them back to their control if they activate them, for a maximum of 5OP, scored at the end of the game. This is interesting because the mechanics are dead simple, but there are two unrelated sets of objectives (and 5 items on the board) in play at once. The scoring does theoretically favour the second player, but the bulk of the points are allocated at the very end of the game, so the danger is this is one the first player especially has to play a la Annihilation.

Genghis Cohen: One of the less arcane missions in the pack, while still being a refreshing twist on old versions by combining two themes. I think this will be a popular pairing with the more intricate stuff, to balance out events.

Provisioning

Tactical Support Cards: 1

Suitable for Reinforcements: Yes

Holy radial Deployment Zone batman! This is new-look Supplies, as trialed at the summative events of ITS16. The heretically circular DZs will throw many a player or organiser, coming to this fresh, for a loop. The key implications are that DZs are smaller in area than the traditional 12” deep rectangle; their front edges are closer in the board centre, comparable to 16” rectangle DZ missions; there is also more scope for depth with more gunfights potentially taking place at extreme ranges; Infiltration has a very different positional advantage in accessing the flanks of the board, especially over-infiltrating; defence of the flanks in general is very difficult and challenging.

Beyond the DZ shape, this mission makes it much harder for the second player to regain control than in traditional Supplies. Getting to that central objective with its 2 boxes is crucial, ideally with units which can efficiently carry both (a Duo where both are Specialists is ideal). Note that Operational Learning replaces the Forward Observer bonus seen previously, which will free up list construction a bit. But once multiple boxes have been dropped into a defended Safe Zone, there is a real Order debt for the player trying to remove and relocate them. Put another way, it’s much easier for a player (typically the first player) to plan and execute taking the boxes from the objectives and moving them to their own safe zone, than it is for a player to take boxes from an enemy safe zone. Because of this, players’ decisions on where to place those zones, relative to the boxes and the opposing zone, has massive implications.

Our top tip to TOs (or anyone setting the table for this): as well as the obvious considerations for the DZs, placement of cover, fire lanes etc, consider where it is valid to put down Safe Zones. They can’t overlap terrain, and we have seen many otherwise brilliant tables where players would be essentially locked in to very few options for where to actually place a zone, some of which would have been punishing to play.

Genghis Cohen: While I like some elements of this mission – great to see experiments with DZ shape, and it’s certainly not something that can just be played as annihilation – I think the scoring is flawed. Grabbing boxes and racing them to one’s Safe Zone seems to be the dominant strategy, and I think that leads to a strong first player advantage, albeit one which plays out differently to a classic alpha strike. 

Zone of Interest

Tactical Support Cards: 0

Suitable for Reinforcements: Yes

Another radial deployment, identical to Provisioning, with the same implications. Just as interestingly, again the players place circular templates which affect scoring. These are the eponymous Zones of Interest, with the first player placing two, including the ‘special’ one, ie. the one which matters disproportionately to scoring, and the second player only placing one. This is made up for because the scoring features a whopping 6OP allocated across the end of the Game Rounds (1OP each round for holding the special zone, and 1OP for having an antenna in the centre activated). There are two conflicting advantages at play here. The first player can (and in our opinion usually should) place the special zone, and their other pick, as close as possible to their DZ. The second player has a lot of better chances to score the zone and antenna in each round. 

Genghis Cohen: This is another one I find hard to call without playing it a few times. I think my choices on winning the initiative roll might come down to the table, particularly where it’s possible to place the zones. My instinct is that the first player has more advantages in most table states.

Musterkrux: Who thought it was clever to swap over which corners get deployed on between Provisioning and Zone of Interest!? I promise you, there’s at least one TO planning to put these scenarios next to each other in the play order for an event, just to mess with their players.

Genghis: Oh my lord, I didn’t catch that! Cruel and unusual indeed. One thing to point out: It doesn’t actually make any difference whether the opposing players are in left or right corners. You have to decide before setting up the terrain, so you can envision the DZs, and in Provisioning it determines which diagonal the objectives go along. But there’s no logical reason you couldn’t just treat both missions as having the same DZs, and in fact that would be the sensible way for TOs to plan to include both. But players should note that it’s not free-choice. The player who keeps deployment can pick from one of two opposed corners; they can’t just pick one of the four table corners and sling their opponent into the opposite one!

Direct Action Missions

Annihilation

It’s the same. Not saying this is baby’s first mission for cowards, but we aren’t that interested. Also, Tactical Support: 0, Reinforcements: Yes.

Battleground

Tactical Support Cards: 0

Suitable for Reinforcements: No

This is still like Frontline, but with a bigger swing in the zones, and points for killing, or at least threatening, a nominated Key Ops model which gets +3 Dodge and Tactical Awareness. Honestly, we don’t think it is as good a mission as Frontline, the zones are a big swing and the Key Ops mechanic isn’t that interesting, because the model is just one with a target on its head – the owning player isn’t incentivised to do anything with their Key Ops, they just need to keep it alive to deny points to their opponent, so those 2OP depend heavily on who has the more defensive model.

Cutthroat

Tactical Support Cards: 0

Suitable for Reinforcements: Yes

Similar to old Firefight and unchanged, for our money this is actually a much better mission than its departed cousin. It’s fun to play without the Loss of Lieutenant rules, and open identity, when killing the Lt is an objective. Plus, the Key Ops mechanic here has an interesting push-pull where players have incentives both to be aggressive with theirs, to preserve theirs, and to kill the enemy version.

Genghis Cohen: While I don’t really care much about the Direct Action missions, and it’s nowhere near as interesting to me as the new stuff, I was getting bored and frustrated with Firefight. It is perennially popular in the UK, as a sort of palette cleansing, smooth-brained mission for the final round of an event. I consider Cutthroat actually more fun, so if I am made to play a straightforward mission nearly a third of the time, at least it might be this better version. 

Superiority

Tactical Support Cards: 0

Suitable for Reinforcements: No

Unchanged and still heavily second-player favoured. The introduction of Operational Learning over the hacker bonus does make it less biased towards factions that list superior-deployment hackers amongst their top units.

Uplink Center

Tactical Support Cards: 0

Suitable for Reinforcements: Yes

Another unchanged mission, which is arguably second-player favoured, but can be won by the first player if they really charge hard into playing Annihilation (but not putting the enemy into Retreat too early). The kind of mission it’s good we are moving past.

 

Our Thoughts

Genghis

I’m a massive fan, on first impressions. I’ll have to actually set to playing games, but as someone who has regularly played ITS events for the last 10 years, it is enormously refreshing to know that I probably won’t play any of the old standby missions (e.g. Supplies, Unmasking, Firefight) for a year. It was time for a change.

On a more technical level, I’m delighted to see the design team playing with alternative Deployment Zones, in new shapes and with points-limited split areas. Because movement costs Orders, Infinity is so defined by the DZ layout (and units are defined by access to alternative deployments). It will be amazing to see what strategies players develop to go first and second in something like Crossing Lines. I am also glad to see the player choice of some objective zones in Provisioning and Zone of Interest. While this could make games a lot more unpredictable and terrain-dependent, it keeps the mission fresh and gives a lot of player agency. I’m glad they moved that mechanic to central objectives rather than the unnecessary cruft of previous blizzard/decompression/QAZ zones. 

On the wider cross-season special rules, I love the experiment with Operational Learning, even at the cost of specialist bonuses – more evenhanded and less of an obvious steer to list-building. I’m not a big fan of Treasure Tokens or the Sacha, they are the kind of extra bonus rules I just don’t feel is necessary, when the core rules system and objectives are deep enough already. But it’s a lot more restrained than some previous seasons’ extra units or special rules. If anyone remembers ITS10(?), Xenotech, in every mission players were all given an Extra irregular civilian and had to plant a kind of token with it, forward of their DZ, at a WIP-3 check, or they lost an OP from their final score. Now that was painful. You kids today don’t even know how easy you have it. 

Musterkrux

I’m mildly (but only very mildly) conflicted. On one hand, I’m super happy that CB have mixed up the scenario offerings enough that the game will feel very new and exciting compared to previous transitions between seasons which have always felt: Same old Malibu Joan, but she has a new AP-Spitfire. That said, there’s value in small, incremental changes in as much as you don’t risk tipping the balance of the game on its head and give some factions an egregious advantage into some scenarios. However, we’ve established that wargamers hate two things: Change, and things staying the same, so disregard my old man whinging.

There’s some good rubber-band/catch-up mechanics, like Operational Learning as well as some scenarios that sell the narrative justification really well (ie. Corporate Appropriation) that will make playing games an absolute joy. Overall, I’m excited!

Quick note, for the TO’s out there that draw sustenance from the suffering of their players, the definitive ‘Worst Possible Scenario’ line up (in order) is: Zone of Interest, Critical Intervention, Provisioning, Evacuation, Last Launch.

Genghis: I would unironically enjoy that event. It’s a challenging line up. Who doesn’t want to be challenged? I think the one which even I find a bit alarming is Crossed Lines. I suspect it may end up being the new Biotechvore – a stupidly aggressive mission which forces players to do things dramatically differently to conventional games.

So get amongst it, you animals. Play some games, have some fun, another season of ITS is upon us!

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.