I hope some of you at least know my stance about GW policies. I'm not here to talk about that. Let me do a quick recap so any advice can be usefull:
I live in Brazil
I have no group or store to go
I love painting, but never converted anything.
I will buy any game and collect it to be able to play with at least one person.
I would love to have a massive battle game with 2x2 or 3x3.
I love LotR I dig the High Elves and Warhammer Fantasy setting.
I'm starting my first foray at wargaming now. Never played anything besides boardgames.
I'll be paiting everything I buy. No one to help.
I can spend roughly 250 USD a month on the hobby
If I buy a stinker, chances are I'm stuck with it. There's no one to sell it to, trade it or whatever.
I'll play for fun. Want a more or less balanced game. I'll buy every army so power creep will be determined by my purchases.
I won't play at tournaments. Don't need to keep buying to make army fresh.
well, now that's out of the way. I'm looking at GW site everyday, trying to find a way to play WHF without going bankrupt. I find the model range beautifull. I hear 40K get a lot of fire for the ruleset. Is Fantasy better? or the same problems about balance exist? I could still use the minis in other systems, even if I do not play Warhammer...Unlike with 40K.
I also hear the Hobbit is a good , easier system to learn. But the prices also made me pause. Is it worth it?
I can't recommend any GW game as they are far too expensive and with rules that get in the way more than create fun.
Go for any other game that's out there and you'll have a much better time. You'll also have an easier chance of convincing someone else to join up if they don't have to pay $60 for a codex or $80 for a rulebook.
Edit: And Finecast is universially loathed because it's very brittle. You look at it wrong and something will break. Also, whatever process they use creates air bubbles that will ruin much of the figure's detail. I bought an assault chaplain (Yes, I used chaplains) and a large chunk of its back pack was missing. It was supposed to be cheaper than metal or plastic, but they ended up charging more for it.
Wow. Your list is pretty close to mine, except I don't live in Brazil and I won't allow myself to spend more than $60/month on the hobby.
I use movement trays with one or two models on it instead of twenty when I've played fantasy. That way, I can enjoy the game immediately while building the army up slowly.
I wouldn't advise someone to start a GW game unless they...
1. Like the background and models far more than other background and models on the market.
2. Have an established gaming group that already plays GW games and doesn't want to start a new system.
3. You really want to play large armies in a 28mm sci fi squad based games (opposed to skirmish games, smaller scales than 28mm, etc)
4. Some combination of the above.
I would be hesitant to start The Hobbit simply because I don't think GW are going to be supporting it long term. If you love the models and want to paint them, go for it, but I'd be very concerned that GW will pull the rug from under me.
As far as WHFB vs 40k... I prefer the rules for WHFB, I do tend to prefer 40k armies though, but rules wise I prefer WHFB. But it is all subjective. I find WHFB less unbalanced and less dependent on list building (not that it's not important, just less so than 40k).
Why is finecast so hated? Because the models often have missing details, bubbles which need to be filled, flash and nodules in places that are hard to remove, parts that are warped and need to be unwarped with hot water, the material is brittle when cool but when it heats up it may warp again, and it's really fething expensive.
I truthfully would have a hard time selling 40k if I was fair and honest and explained other systems as well.
I'd personally advise players to go for a Spartan Game, like Firestorm Armada. With Planetfall being released, picking a faction can allow you to play two radically different games for the cost of the GW starter set, rulebook and codex. Not to mention the Spartan Games are far easier to learn and offer more tactical depth, while remaining more engaging throughout the game due to the turn system.
As far as the OP's list goes, I think the combination of Firestorm Armada and/or Planetfall would fill that easily.
I'd actually suggest a historical game - maybe Hail Caesar, or even get hold of a copy of Warhammer Ancients and Armies of Chivalry. That covers everything from just after the crusades (C12 - C13) up to late C15 in just a couple of books. Sure, it's not the newest shiniest ruleset, but it's functional enough, and within each period the army lists are reasonably balanced. Especially late on, when everyone is basically using the same stuff in different clothes.
I'd only recommend GW games if it was the only option - like the local gaming group only plays 40K, or they have friends with armies who won't consider change.
In my view the only good thing about GW games are the popularity - it's the easiest thing to get a game of.
For completely new gamers I'd suggest they look at Bolt Action/Infinity for tactical skirmish games, Malifaux for Fantasy/silly stuff, Flames Of War for a big battle game or X-Wing if you want spaceships. Or all better games for less money.
Blacksails wrote: I truthfully would have a hard time selling 40k if I was fair and honest and explained other systems as well.
I'd personally advise players to go for a Spartan Game, like Firestorm Armada. With Planetfall being released, picking a faction can allow you to play two radically different games for the cost of the GW starter set, rulebook and codex. Not to mention the Spartan Games are far easier to learn and offer more tactical depth, while remaining more engaging throughout the game due to the turn system.
As far as the OP's list goes, I think the combination of Firestorm Armada and/or Planetfall would fill that easily.
I recently bought some stuff to start Warmachine. Also bought some units for Infinity, wating for Operation Icestorm now.
I also eyed Spartan Games. Planning to buy into one of them this year as well. Wich one is the best? They should be a nice break after painting a bunch of army men.
I made a list of games I find interesting:
DEADZONE
DREADBALL
MALIFAUX
FLAMES OF WAR DYSTOPIAN WARS
UNCHARTED SEAS
40K ARMOURED CLASH
PLANETFALL
GUILDBALL
WARHAMMER
And choose some to start in the next year:
DROPZONE COMMANDER
FIRESTORM ARMADA
WARMAHORDES
HOBBIT
INFINITY
BOLT ACTION
DREADBALL
Warhammer belonged to the second list, but the prices compared to the others are too much. The Hobbit is almost going under too....
GW's models are extremely expensive and you'll need a lot of them to play, so if you're buying them new and want to paint them all it will be a long and money-consuming process.
On the other hand, the models are really top-notch design-wise and the games they're used in are fun in their own way - most of the people complaining about the rules are people who want these games to be something they're not (i.e. balanced and strategically competitive systems designed for tournament play).
If you come in with a casual mindset and find like-minded people to play with, you will have a lot of fun.
On the other hand, there are lots of other systems out there that will provide the same amount of fun for a lesser amount of money and hobby/painting time. So again it really depends what you're after.
On the other hand, the models are really top-notch design-wise and the games they're used in are fun in their own way - most of the people complaining about the rules are people who want these games to be something they're not (i.e. good.)
Acephale wrote: On the other hand, the models are really top-notch design-wise and the games they're used in are fun in their own way - most of the people complaining about the rules are people who want these games to be something they're not (i.e. balanced and strategically competitive systems designed for tournament play).
I don't want a tournament play game. I just want a game that isn't a chore to follow and at least pretends to be balanced. Balanced well written rules are better for everyone!
Keraun0s wrote:
I also eyed Spartan Games. Planning to buy into one of them this year as well. Wich one is the best? They should be a nice break after painting a bunch of army men.
There is no best. All of their games use the same basic dice system (D6 with exploding 6's, all successes are on a 4+ unless modified otherwise) and general means of causing/tracking damage. The difference is really just the models and universe, as well as some of the more subtle aspects. I'm a big fan of spaceships so I have a soft spot for Firestorm Armada, and consequently am looking forward to Planetfall so I can tie the two together in campaigns.
While I'm not a huge fan of Dystopian Wars from an aesthetics perspective, the new version is apparently really quite solid, and a huge improvement from V1. That's the theme of Spartan lately; their first venture into the market was lukewarm with some mediocre rules and okayish models. They've lately upped their game with V2 of DW and FSA and the difference in quality is leaps and bounds ahead of what it was.
With Spartan, pick your universe and then buy the starter set for the game you want.
Acephale wrote:It depends, really.
the games they're used in are fun in their own way - most of the people complaining about the rules are people who want these games to be something they're not (i.e. balanced and strategically competitive systems designed for tournament play).
If you come in with a casual mindset and find like-minded people to play with, you will have a lot of fun.
Well, its probably pretty easy to dismiss the complaining by just saying the game is 'different'. It conveniently ignores things like the reasons people are complaining and why those complaints would make for a better experience for well, everyone.
Its also pretty easy to tell people to have a casual mindset, which is such a ridiculous statement. Define casual. I'm casual, yet I want a better ruleset.
I think you have to look around your local area. Unless you're happy just to paint, no game is much fun without other players. I'd avoid GW games myself because of the expense, but they are still widely played and popular. Maybe you could look into local RPG groups, as there is 40K roleplaying as well as the usual stuff like D&D which would let you buy a smaller number of more interesting figures to paint.
Absolutely not. Between the financial ruin that getting even a moderately sized force together would bring, the convoluted, clunky rules overly reliant on dice rolls to the point that in-game player decisions have little if any impact on the result, the hideous balance that plagues the games such that bringing what appeals or that is even background-appropriate can lead to inescapable curb-stomping, and the highly questionable (at best) and downright despicable (at worst) legal and professional behaviour of the company, there is little positive offered by GW's games that isn't better covered by a competitor for a vastly reduced cost.
Would I advise anyone to play GW games, sure. I've had fun playing them for nearly 30 years.
I begun playing 1st ed 40k and 3rd ed WHFB and never found them to be complex by the standards of wargaming and ingrasped them well enough as an 11 year old. Both systems are much more simplified now so adults really shouldn't struggle with them. Of course if you are used to 2 sides of a pamphlet board games they could appear more complex so YMMV.
The second point as to huge armies also doesn't ring true to me. I am a firm believer that 40k is best at 1000-1500 points. Why people play bigger forces on a 6' table is beyond me. Smallish forces and max terrain is where 40k is at. Of course over time you will build up bigger armies and want to use them but that's not really a consideration for a newbie.
I've not played the latest WHFB edition but it is ever so popular here with many tournaments almost all of which use the Swedish comp system. I mention this as it restricts the seeming dominence of large units and other toys. Also I see many experienced and regular WHFB players at my club playing 1200, 1500 and 1800 point so again huge armies are no necessity.
Finally I would direct you to Necromunda and Mordheim, all the flavour of the main systems with added elements like experience without model count. These rules can be picked free at gaming.Yaktribe.org
If you'd asked me 5-10 years or so ago, i would have said sure, and in all likelyhood talked up the system a bit.
These days, no.
They do nice models. Some of them are VERY nice models. They are just too fething expensive.
The ruleset badly needs some work. Doesn't help it's a bit schitzo, and they radically change it every release (just about) rather than refining it.
The game has balance issues.
There are quite a few other games out there that are less expensive, better balanced and so forth. The miniatures aren't quite as nice, often, but are far cheaper (generally, not always ) and you don't usually need that many.
The rulesets are often included with the models (Warmachine) , free to download or cheap.
Getting another player to play against can be tough (GW is pretty pervasive) but if you can talk someone inot trying something new it can be great, and that is much easier when the buy in is say 30-60 usd rather than 300-600
Personally I was really happy with the Warmachine 2 player boxed set. We had a ton of fun with that as-is. I've since added a couple models on each side and it still plays nicely.
The WHFB boxed set I purchased (Elves/Skaven) had some cool models and was decent, but when I started looking into adding onto those armies it got so pricey so quickly that I never really took it any further.
40k I couldn't really justify getting someone new into because of the cost. The DA/Chaos boxed set had some great models if you like the DA aesthetic, but the sides weren't balanced and I didn't really find the Chaos army faction to be compelling. I've also been disappointed with the last few 40k boxed sets because they don't provide any terrain or a campaign scenario like they used to.
Well, I'd recommend a few specialist games. Though can they be said to be GW games any more?
Pros: Generally well-written; free to download; community-driven development that at least attempts to swing towards balance and tightness rather than selling more and bigger toys; no frantic buying and rebuying to keep up with new edition metas; more and more people making pretty nice proxy minis.
Cons: Maybe not enough people making enough nice proxy minis; stigma among some gamers (I.e. Frantic rebuyers) about 'dead' games. ("Oh hey, they stopped printing copies of this highly interesting and engrossing book a couple of years ago - better stop reading it and throw it out!")
Which brings me to my pet peeve about 'box set' games. Not to say that most of the ones listed aren't good: I've enjoyed some of them myself. But it still seems... dull to limit your choices to them right at the start, barring an enthusiastic local community. These minis have to be used with these rules, and so on. Granted, some backgrounds and rules limit your choices - how many non-PP warjack proxies are there? - but with more generic settings things can be mixed up a bit. How many people think of using Bolt Action minis for Chain of Command, for instance? (A game I think I'd rather play, personally)
Or to tie in with the original topic a little more, Mantic, as an example. The usual cost-saving thought is to use their fantasy minis with Warhammer rules, but since they're not to everyone's tastes (including mine) I could also suggest using their fantasy rules with Warhammer minis. That, or other fantasy mass-battle rules like Mayhem (my own choice), Legions of Battle, God of Battles, or more. All of those examples have no less tactical savvy or balance than Warhammer; have arguably a lot more; have unit creation rules or easy proxy options to slot in Warhammer minis; and should represent an immediate, significant saving on Warhammer rulebooks. The savings continue as those games also use unit or element basing (allowing you to spread minis around), smaller units, and/or fewer units. The cost of entry that's often used against Warhammer round these parts, drops a bit just by shopping around for rules. The same can be done with 40K. Here's an interesting wee set, IMO...
OP - Shame there is no FLGS or group local to you where you could try before you buy.
You could end up loving 40k/Fantasy/The Hobbit-LOTR - no matter its problems.
It'll be a gamble whatever you choose to get, so in respect to your situation ask questions, check out company websites, fan sites and select something that you at least feel is interesting.
Long answer: I've been playing this game since 4th edition and seen a lot of people come and go through it. IMHO it was best in the 4th edition and earlier days. What you'll get now is a random assortment of random dice rolls for random everything. I had to nearly break a friend of mine in two (metaphorically, not literally) before he'd buy into the system and that was only as a Christmas present to himself plus pay raise. I wouldn't want to put anyone through that again.
Also seeing a 11 year old at the GW store the other day literally beg his father for 1 daemon HQ model that cost 20$ made me realize that this game has become literally too expensive for me. It left me feeling sick to my stomach listening to the blue shirt up sell this poor kid and his father.
Anyway, if you like the models go for it but reading over your situation i don't think i'd start a 40k or fantasy army without somebody else to play it with.
TheAuldGrump wrote: Sadly, GW seems to have dropped the free downloads for their Specialist games (unless they have popped back up and I missed them).
However there are fan versions of some of those games, including the fantasy skirmish game Coreheim.
I... actually prefer an updated version of Mordheim over Coreheim (specifically, I use Option A that showed up on GW's long dead forums...).
But Coreheim is free and still available.
In my opinion Mordheim was the most enjoyable game that GW has ever made.
The Auld Grump
NetEpic and NetE:A (Epic Armageddon; the game that showed me what a steaming pile 40K was, so I can thank GW for that, at least) can be got at the Tactical Command forums, Inquisitor at The Conclave, Warmaster and Battlefleet Gothic at the Specialist Arms forum... not sure about Necromunda and Blood Bowl, but I'd guess they're not difficult to google, especially given the huge popularity of the latter.
Specifically for the OP, I'd say go for it.
You like the setting and most importantly, you;ve got $250 a month to invest. Start small, and in 6 months, you could have 2 medium sized armies ready to hit the battlefield.
Specifically to your situation and choice of games, I'd say go with WHFB over LoTR. There's some rumblings that the days of LoTR/Hobbit might be limited, and there's even less chance of finding an opponent for LoTR than for WHFB.
For most other newbies I'd say no.
It's just to expensive and too much work. I prefer indie games and minaitures myself, but I'd direct a newbie toward whatever smaller game their local FLGS is playing. Ideally something like Malifuax or Bolt Action, but Warmachine (despite having really expensive models) is an option that can be relatively inexpensive to start.
If they stick with the wargaming hobby and want to take on the task of building and painting a big 28mm army, then they can make that choice themselves.
Long answer: I've been playing this game since 4th edition and seen a lot of people come and go through it. IMHO it was best in the 4th edition and earlier days. What you'll get now is a random assortment of random dice rolls for random everything. I had to nearly break a friend of mine in two (metaphorically, not literally) before he'd buy into the system and that was only as a Christmas present to himself plus pay raise. I wouldn't want to put anyone through that again.
Also seeing a 11 year old at the GW store the other day literally beg his father for 1 daemon HQ model that cost 20$ made me realize that this game has become literally too expensive for me. It left me feeling sick to my stomach listening to the blue shirt up sell this poor kid and his father.
Anyway, if you like the models go for it but reading over your situation i don't think i'd start a 40k or fantasy army without somebody else to play it with.
The lack of community here kinda holds me back as well. I'll do all the heavy lifting, so I need something that plays nicely, have at least some kind of balance, and is not too expensive.
Maybe I'll stick with Warmachine, Infinity, Dreadball and Firestorm Armada. At least in the next 5-6 months. Too many games to choose...And not enough money
I found some cool Batreps for Warmachine, but can't findo anything about Firestorm Armada or Inifinity.
So, I guess I'll wait at least the 9th edition of Warhammer to begin playing it, if it is any good. My elven army will arise one day...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vermis wrote: Well, I'd recommend a few specialist games. Though can they be said to be GW games any more?
Pros: Generally well-written; free to download; community-driven development that at least attempts to swing towards balance and tightness rather than selling more and bigger toys; no frantic buying and rebuying to keep up with new edition metas; more and more people making pretty nice proxy minis.
Cons: Maybe not enough people making enough nice proxy minis; stigma among some gamers (I.e. Frantic rebuyers) about 'dead' games. ("Oh hey, they stopped printing copies of this highly interesting and engrossing book a couple of years ago - better stop reading it and throw it out!")
Which brings me to my pet peeve about 'box set' games. Not to say that most of the ones listed aren't good: I've enjoyed some of them myself. But it still seems... dull to limit your choices to them right at the start, barring an enthusiastic local community. These minis have to be used with these rules, and so on. Granted, some backgrounds and rules limit your choices - how many non-PP warjack proxies are there? - but with more generic settings things can be mixed up a bit. How many people think of using Bolt Action minis for Chain of Command, for instance? (A game I think I'd rather play, personally)
Or to tie in with the original topic a little more, Mantic, as an example. The usual cost-saving thought is to use their fantasy minis with Warhammer rules, but since they're not to everyone's tastes (including mine) I could also suggest using their fantasy rules with Warhammer minis. That, or other fantasy mass-battle rules like Mayhem (my own choice), Legions of Battle, God of Battles, or more. All of those examples have no less tactical savvy or balance than Warhammer; have arguably a lot more; have unit creation rules or easy proxy options to slot in Warhammer minis; and should represent an immediate, significant saving on Warhammer rulebooks. The savings continue as those games also use unit or element basing (allowing you to spread minis around), smaller units, and/or fewer units. The cost of entry that's often used against Warhammer round these parts, drops a bit just by shopping around for rules. The same can be done with 40K. Here's an interesting wee set, IMO...
I'm not that big into converting or proxying...Is kinda silly, but I don't think I' would like to play like this:
"Here this elf lord on a dragon, but here he represents an vampire atop an elephant. And this spearmen(elves) are not carrying spears, they got bows. And ignore the shields. on those 3 there. This four beside them have shields, but also have the banner of a thousand grapes, and do not possess the talisman of crying out loud...
On the other hand, the models are really top-notch design-wise and the games they're used in are fun in their own way - most of the people complaining about the rules are people who want these games to be something they're not (i.e. good.)
Fixed that for you.
"Good" is a subjective opinion. One could easily argue that the GW games are good at what they attempt to do - provide casual entertainment for people who enjoy the GW models and the Warhammer settings and want to play some relaxed games with their friends.
That's the product GW is selling and they don't pretend it's anything else, but for some reason this doesn't matter; people will still complain about the games being unbalanced and broken and not suitable for tournaments and whatnot, comparing them to Warmahordes or Infinity or other systems that are designed and promoted in a very different way.
GW are doing a lot of things wrong from a business perspective and I hardly appreciate them as a company at all, but they're very open about what they're selling. If you adjust your expectations to that you can still have fun playing WHFB and 40k. But if you pretend that they're really selling something else - balanced games suitable for competitive tournament play for example - you're bound to be very disapointed. However, you can hardly blame GW for that.
upon advice from my friend, he suggested i add Heavy Gear into the mix of suggestions. For 130$ your could get a full army plus upgrades to expand your army.
For 270$ you could have two demo armies to play with you and a friend. That way you could expand your armies and have others potentially join in on the fun. War gaming is meant to be social. Having another person to play against is most of the fun.
the games they're used in are fun in their own way - most of the people complaining about the rules are people who want these games to be something they're not (i.e. balanced and strategically competitive systems designed for tournament play).
If you come in with a casual mindset and find like-minded people to play with, you will have a lot of fun.
Well, its probably pretty easy to dismiss the complaining by just saying the game is 'different'. It conveniently ignores things like the reasons people are complaining and why those complaints would make for a better experience for well, everyone.
Its also pretty easy to tell people to have a casual mindset, which is such a ridiculous statement. Define casual. I'm casual, yet I want a better ruleset.
It's different from games that explicitly cater to competitive players and tournament play. Does this mean that it's perfect in every way, even at what it tries to do? Of course not. I personally think the GW games would benefit greatly from a total re-making, but since I hardly expect that to happen I don't care too much about it. GW games are incoherent, imbalanced and poorly written, but they can still be fun if you don't take them too seriously.
If I want to play something that's coherent, balanced and well-written, I'll play something else, which is very easy to do nowadays since there are several great games on the market. Complaining that GW aren't producing the game of my dreams will not change anything.
As for casual: to me it's someone who doens't take the game too seriously, who plays with friends rather than at GTs or competitions and who cares more about the setting, models and general "feel" of the game than about its rules and technical balance. I.e. exactly the type of customers GW games are aimed at.
notprop wrote: Would I advise anyone to play GW games, sure. I've had fun playing them for nearly 30 years.
I begun playing 1st ed 40k and 3rd ed WHFB and never found them to be complex by the standards of wargaming and ingrasped them well enough as an 11 year old. Both systems are much more simplified now so adults really shouldn't struggle with them. Of course if you are used to 2 sides of a pamphlet board games they could appear more complex so YMMV.
The second point as to huge armies also doesn't ring true to me. I am a firm believer that 40k is best at 1000-1500 points. Why people play bigger forces on a 6' table is beyond me. Smallish forces and max terrain is where 40k is at. Of course over time you will build up bigger armies and want to use them but that's not really a consideration for a newbie.
I've not played the latest WHFB edition but it is ever so popular here with many tournaments almost all of which use the Swedish comp system. I mention this as it restricts the seeming dominence of large units and other toys. Also I see many experienced and regular WHFB players at my club playing 1200, 1500 and 1800 point so again huge armies are no necessity.
Finally I would direct you to Necromunda and Mordheim, all the flavour of the main systems with added elements like experience without model count. These rules can be picked free at gaming.Yaktribe.org
Pretty much this. If I was going to recommend a GW game, it would be the ones they don't actually make any more; Necromunda, Mordheim(especially), Battlefleet Gothic, and GorkaMorka are all fantastic games with, for me, the perfect combination of scale, size of forces, background fluff, and aesthetic. They're balanced enough for casual play of the sort you'll experience as a beginner, and the imbalances they do have are manageable enough that you can solve them with a few easily-understood house rules once you have a handle on the system(whereas if you want a similar level of "competition-proof" play out of 40K you'll end up having to virtually rewrite the game - not an issue for me as I'm not even remotely arsed with competitive play, but it is what it is). The fact almost all the rules are available free online(legitimately) is a bonus as well.
notprop also has the way of things on the size of 40K games - 1500 points is the sweet spot, allowing you enough points to really emphasise and explore a theme or style of play, without resulting in an army so huge that every game amounts to both sides lining up and advancing towards each other across Planet Bowlingball. Of course with the way GW makes everything cheaper(in points, not money) with every codex/edition change, that number might have to go down soon.
Off the top of my head I can think of one game that has come out and explicitly stated its based around the notion of competitive, higher-level play, and that's WM/H. Dozens of other games provide tournament fit rules without the intention of doing so, for one simple reason.
A balanced, well written game is both viable as a tournament level game, and as a super casual, ultra narrative, campaign centric game.
Oddly enough, a poorly written game with ambiguity, rules bloat, lack of balance, and a general tedious-ness in its mechanics doesn't cater to any of that well. In fact, I'd argue many people are working against the game if they're trying to do, well, anything.
You can have plenty of fun with 40k, don't get me wrong, but doing some basic balancing and re-writing would be incredibly beneficial for all parties. Which is exactly why I don't buy this nonsense about the game not being for certain people or play styles. That's just it, its not good for anything. Literally the only thing 40k does better than any other system is providing existing rules for 40k models, which isn't even true anymore with community projects to adapt other rules for the 40k universe.
While complaining may not directly impact anything at GW in particular, the community responds and we have things like a petition with close to 10k signatures last I checked. Whether or not GW will take notice is unknown, but it shows that many people aren't buying anymore, or at least buying less. This does impact GW, as when the pretty black numbers on their reports turn into angry red numbers, they might have to re-think a few things.
Further, other companies listen to this sort of feedback and change their products based on information from the community. GW is the exception.
As for your definition of casual, I fit all those categories, except I also want a rulebook that feels like someone read through it twice and maybe rolled some dice to see how it worked before publishing it. Especially for the cost.
I care very much about settings, aesthetics, fluff, models and the ever ambiguous 'feel'. Really, I do. I've spent hours writing fluff for 40k things and have immersed myself in the lore. None of the precludes me from looking at 40k and scratching my head thinking it could be a lot better.
At the end of the day, I can't even say 40k is a good tool for creating battles in the 40k universe. The mechanics, rules, and balance all run counter to much of what's in the fluff or what you'd expect to find reasonable. That's a problem.
Its not about taking anything too seriously, its simply about asking for a quality product for a universe and game we've all invested lots of time, money, and effort and care about quite a bit.
Another option, if you really like the fluff and models from Warhammer Fantasy is to use them with Kings of War.
I know one person that has a pretty decent (High) Elf army for Kings of War that he made using several of the starter boxes for the latest edition of Warhammer Fantasy Battle - keeping the elves and selling off the skaven, except for some that he kept for playing WHFRP.
If you already have the fluff and the models then Kings of War is a pretty safe experiment - the main rules and the army lists are FREE.
Kings of War is not as customizable as Warhammer - but the rules are a lot more consistent and balanced.
I was the person that painted the models for him - and even I have to admit that the High Elves that come in the box are pretty good - thought the skaven are pretty bad... fur isn't triangular!
If you have no store and no community in your area I'd suggest starting with 2 player starter sets for several games, WarmaHordes, Infinity, Flames of War or Bolt Action, and Dystopian Wars or Firestorm Armada would be my first choices.
You need to find some people, get them to try some games and then talk them into buying in.
GW starter sets are awful for that and buy in will scare too many away.
melkorthetonedeaf wrote: Wow. Your list is pretty close to mine, except I don't live in Brazil and I won't allow myself to spend more than $60/month on the hobby.
I use movement trays with one or two models on it instead of twenty when I've played fantasy. That way, I can enjoy the game immediately while building the army up slowly.
You might also want to look into Kings Of War from Mantic Games. Very similar to Warhammer Fantasy with the big difference being that the units are based on the tray, and not the individual models themselves. The models are a wee bit smaller than Warhammer Fantasy, but they are priced quite competitively. I myself bought their big bundled Undead army to use for Warhammer Fantasy, but it works well for both games. They have both printed and freely downloadleable rules.
I'm not trying to recruit for Mantic, your comment about using a few models per tray just made me think of it.
Pyeatt wrote: GW games are untouchably the best! If you want a tight ruleset with good balanced armies, go with their Lord of the Rings line.
And the best way by far to do this is to get books used (maybe off eBay or a used book website) and use historicals for all the armies that they are appropriate for. You can often get metal historicals for less money than GW plastics.
Two Towers rulebook for $6.33 after shipping? Sounds good to me. You can get so much gaming fun out of that one book and a handful of miniatures.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I wanted to add something:
The best approach for any beginner is to be invited into existing games that are going on. A direct invitation into the hobby as it is actually happening.
So if anyone is actually looking to engage with beginners in the hobby of miniature wargaming, get two small forces painted, get the terrain ready, make the best play aids you can to make the game work better and host the game for the new person.
If they are interested in painting, invite them to do that. There are nice cheap miniatures on the market these days that paint up great. Reaper Bones are great "painting class fodder" for example.
And then don't ask for too much of an up front investment. A reasonable sized game with a moderate model count is ideal.
Basically do everything GW used to do during the 90s when they grew from a UK based importer of D&D into an international miniatures company.
frozenwastes wrote:And the best way by far to do this is to get books used (maybe off eBay or a used book website) and use historicals for all the armies that they are appropriate for. You can often get metal historicals for less money than GW plastics.
So if anyone is actually looking to engage with beginners in the hobby of miniature wargaming, get two small forces painted, get the terrain ready, make the best play aids you can to make the game work better and host the game for the new person.
Yup. Me, I'm finally starting to scrape together some resources for LotR battles, but mostly ignoring the movie version and it's game spinoffs, and primarily using, as mentioned, Mayhem. (Which I am trying to recruit for. I think the polydice mechanic is very interesting and the game greatly rewards command, strategy, tactics and maneuver over tooling up your characters with the sword of crutchiness and the talisman of plusplus. And it's ten quid for the book with the basic game and the stronghold expansion. Less for the download.) I was going to go with 10mm for proper battles, but the GWLotR orcs and dwarves are pretty nice (fortunately a lot of those are littered all over ebay) and the explosion of luverly historicals, particularly cheap plastics, largely takes care of the humans. For instance, I'd like some dunlendings to go with my uruk-hai, but am I paying £4.10 for each, for mass battles? Am I fairy cakes. Some mussed-up vikings will do nicely.
So as Frozenwastes suggests, I'm trying to get small forces of uruk-hai and rohirrim built up for demo games. After that, let's see where it goes.
Pyeatt wrote: GW games are untouchably the best! If you want a tight ruleset with good balanced armies, go with their Lord of the Rings line.
And the best way by far to do this is to get books used (maybe off eBay or a used book website) and use historicals for all the armies that they are appropriate for. You can often get metal historicals for less money than GW plastics.
Two Towers rulebook for $6.33 after shipping? Sounds good to me. You can get so much gaming fun out of that one book and a handful of miniatures.
Thanks for the heads up, I've been looking to pick these up for a while though, the deal is actually even better. I found it on that site from a couple of different dealers for $3.50 with free shipping!
I just got all three books (one from each movie) and a 2 towers compilation for less than $15 shipped!
Vermis wrote:but the GWLotR orcs and dwarves are pretty nice (fortunately a lot of those are littered all over ebay) and the explosion of luverly historicals, particularly cheap plastics, largely takes care of the humans. For instance, I'd like some dunlendings to go with my uruk-hai, but am I paying £4.10 for each, for mass battles? Am I fairy cakes. Some mussed-up vikings will do nicely.
So as Frozenwastes suggests, I'm trying to get small forces of uruk-hai and rohirrim built up for demo games. After that, let's see where it goes.
I think the social aspect of the hobby is often more important than the rules or miniatures you choose-- up until the point that the miniatures or rules create some sort of barrier. What really ended LOTR locally was when the miniature boxes got halved in terms of figure count for almost the same money. People were buying and painting and playing here and there and then boom-- dead. The Hobbit came and went and none of the people who used to be regular LOTR people seemed interested.
If you can lower barriers and let the social fun part of the hobby shine through, it's a lot better for beginners that demanding a huge cash payment in advance.
Thanks for the heads up, I've been looking to pick these up for a while though, the deal is actually even better. I found it on that site from a couple of different dealers for $3.50 with free shipping! I just got all three books (one from each movie) and a 2 towers compilation for less than $15 shipped!
Wow. Shipping to Canada is usually a bit more, but the LOTR stuff was so popular back in the day that the used book stores seem chock full of copies. If you don't care about the new Hobbit movie specific stuff (and really, who does?), it's way, way better to get them used that pay $100 ($85 USD) for the Hobbit hardcover.
Thanks for the heads up, I've been looking to pick these up for a while though, the deal is actually even better. I found it on that site from a couple of different dealers for $3.50 with free shipping!
I just got all three books (one from each movie) and a 2 towers compilation for less than $15 shipped!
Wow. Shipping to Canada is usually a bit more, but the LOTR stuff was so popular back in the day that the used book stores seem chock full of copies. If you don't care about the new Hobbit movie specific stuff (and really, who does?), it's way, way better to get them used that pay $100 ($85 USD) for the Hobbit hardcover.
Yeah, the prices for new Hobbit stuff is a non-starter for me. I picked up the original metal Fellowship boxed set last month for a song and that got me thinking about getting the rules and maybe running it from time to time. $15 is about right for a time-to-time game rules, something I may pick up used figs for now and then and might bring out when my son is older. $85 is just not going to happen.
To answer the question "Would you advise a beginner to start any GW game?" I would say:
Of the currently sold games, only LOTR and only if you go 100% second hand, discount bins and 3rd party miniatures. And don't play overly large games where you just fight as they break down into an exercise of dwindling down to just a few key models. So all you're doing is playing a game to find out what models you'll have in your army when the actual game that matters finally starts. The scenarios they published at the time of the first three movies are all mostly functional and fun. And the big games in those tend to be really heavy on the scenario elements rather than just being meeting engagements (though it has been a while).
Of the out of print games, yes. You can find rules for pretty much all of them with a search for the name of the game and PDF. And in many cases other companies have really stepped up in terms of making appropriate models. I think there's currently a better selection of stuff good for Epic:Armageddon than when GW was actually supporting it. Same goes for Bloodbowl, Warhammer Quest type games, Necromunda, GorkaMorka, etc.,.
Then again, if you look at how I'd recommend approaching LOTR, it's pretty much the same as how I'd recommend approaching Bloodbowl.
To answer your question, no, I wouldn't advise any gamer that cares about playing a good game, beginner or not, to start a GW game.
It is about going into it with eyes wide open. I would make sure the person knows something of the history of the game 40k and the poor rules (from edition to edition so many things are screwed up and many dexes poorly written and not playtested). The models are usually of good quality but as from your post we are talking about the game itself.
I would warn a gamer that 40k is far too expensive and that their money would be better spent elsewhere. The company does not care about customers (that you just spent hundreds of dollars on their product) and often bring out new rules that make many units/wargear useless forcing you to rebuild or buy other models (examples to numerous to mention). GW could easily correct many problems with the dexes or rules but does not. Often rules for new models are poorly done - you'd think that GW would want a new kit to have decent rules but GW is hit and miss.
So if the player cares about a quality game and a company that cares about the quality of the game and that its customers have spent lots of money (more than they should since the quality isn't there for the cost) they should steer clear of anything GW.
The sooner this company disappears the better - even for 40k.
I would not recommend starting ANY game unless you have people to play it with. Find out who will play what with you and then play that game.
If you have 250USD of discretionary money to spend on a game then you have enough money to play Warhammer or any other miniature game you choose. So it comes down to what you enjoy the most and what your friends will play with you.
GW makes the side items cost too much. When you need a hundred bucks in books before you can really do anything, and then you throw on the models too, it gets hard to grab anyone's interest.
For comparison, X-Wing is incredibly easy to get people into. Simple and tight rules system (my friend plays with his 9 year old son), models that while not exactly cheap, come in cheap bite sized portions.
I'm not saying GW needs to try and copy x-wing, but they should consider the rules and codexes a loss leader, not a profit area. but then they're not a games company more, they're a "collectible model" company.
There was a swap meet at a local hobby shop (East coast of USA, near DC). About 40% of what was for sale was 40k. Assembled (some painted) Land Raiders for $15, painted armies ranging from $75 to $500, unpainted or badly painted for a song. It was quite revealing. You could have your choice, Elves, Marines, Guard, Orks, didn't matter. The do one of these every few months, the last one had similar selections and prices.
Kajamo wrote: There was a swap meet at a local hobby shop (East coast of USA, near DC). About 40% of what was for sale was 40k. Assembled (some painted) Land Raiders for $15, painted armies ranging from $75 to $500, unpainted or badly painted for a song. It was quite revealing. You could have your choice, Elves, Marines, Guard, Orks, didn't matter. The do one of these every few months, the last one had similar selections and prices.
Kajamo
My local store just had a swap meet as well (Near Richmond, same place?) And yes, that's about how it was. Lots of people selling 40k stuff that nobody wanted. One guy was selling WM/H stuff, but he sold all the stuff I wanted before I even got there. :(
I'm not that big into converting or proxying...Is kinda silly, but I don't think I' would like to play like this:
"Here this elf lord on a dragon, but here he represents an vampire atop an elephant. And this spearmen(elves) are not carrying spears, they got bows. And ignore the shields. on those 3 there. This four beside them have shields, but also have the banner of a thousand grapes, and do not possess the talisman of crying out loud...
......
Hell, this is how 40K and WHF feel like to me.
There are different ways to "proxy". I don't play WHFB anymore, but now I play Kings of War, and proxy models that "fit" into my forces - because I like the models. For example, Ogres (in KoW) can have "red goblins" mounted on wolves. I don't want goblins in my Ogre army, so instead I use these as my proxies - I feel that my Ogres would be more than happy to have these wolves (without goblins) as their pets.
Having said that, I don't go the "these guys with swords actually have spears" route. I do rule of cool and "the official model for this shiznit looks awful, so I'm going to proxy this awesome model in instead"
Kajamo wrote: There was a swap meet at a local hobby shop (East coast of USA, near DC). About 40% of what was for sale was 40k. Assembled (some painted) Land Raiders for $15, painted armies ranging from $75 to $500, unpainted or badly painted for a song. It was quite revealing. You could have your choice, Elves, Marines, Guard, Orks, didn't matter. The do one of these every few months, the last one had similar selections and prices.
Kajamo
My local store just had a swap meet as well (Near Richmond, same place?) And yes, that's about how it was. Lots of people selling 40k stuff that nobody wanted. One guy was selling WM/H stuff, but he sold all the stuff I wanted before I even got there. :(
At the local shows here the demand for used gw stuff has plummeted too. Used to get snapped up at 60% rrp but now barely shifts unless it's under half that. It's not even a supply/demand thing as there's less of it available. It all points to a huge drop in interest in the last 2 years.
1. Like the background and models far more than other background and models on the market.
2. Have an established gaming group that already plays GW games and doesn't want to start a new system.
3. You really want to play large armies in a 28mm sci fi squad based games (opposed to skirmish games, smaller scales than 28mm, etc)
4. Some combination of the above.
I would be hesitant to start The Hobbit simply because I don't think GW are going to be supporting it long term. If you love the models and want to paint them, go for it, but I'd be very concerned that GW will pull the rug from under me.
As far as WHFB vs 40k... I prefer the rules for WHFB, I do tend to prefer 40k armies though, but rules wise I prefer WHFB. But it is all subjective. I find WHFB less unbalanced and less dependent on list building (not that it's not important, just less so than 40k).
Why is finecast so hated? Because the models often have missing details, bubbles which need to be filled, flash and nodules in places that are hard to remove, parts that are warped and need to be unwarped with hot water, the material is brittle when cool but when it heats up it may warp again, and it's really fething expensive.
Also above 35 degrees C Finecast melts period, had some finecast mods that went from figures to blobs after on fine hot day that got to 46.7 C, yet my plastic and metal mods survived intact. Finecast was designed for Britain and not Australia summers.
1. Like the background and models far more than other background and models on the market.
2. Have an established gaming group that already plays GW games and doesn't want to start a new system.
3. You really want to play large armies in a 28mm sci fi squad based games (opposed to skirmish games, smaller scales than 28mm, etc)
4. Some combination of the above.
I would be hesitant to start The Hobbit simply because I don't think GW are going to be supporting it long term. If you love the models and want to paint them, go for it, but I'd be very concerned that GW will pull the rug from under me.
As far as WHFB vs 40k... I prefer the rules for WHFB, I do tend to prefer 40k armies though, but rules wise I prefer WHFB. But it is all subjective. I find WHFB less unbalanced and less dependent on list building (not that it's not important, just less so than 40k).
Why is finecast so hated? Because the models often have missing details, bubbles which need to be filled, flash and nodules in places that are hard to remove, parts that are warped and need to be unwarped with hot water, the material is brittle when cool but when it heats up it may warp again, and it's really fething expensive.
Also above 35 degrees C Finecast melts period, had some finecast mods that went from figures to blobs after on fine hot day that got to 46.7 C, yet my plastic and metal mods survived intact. Finecast was designed for Britain and not Australia summers.
I've really wanted to leave finecast in my car on a hot day for a while now, shame the cheapest of it is still like $30 au.
Acephale wrote: On the other hand, the models are really top-notch design-wise and the games they're used in are fun in their own way - most of the people complaining about the rules are people who want these games to be something they're not (i.e. balanced and strategically competitive systems designed for tournament play).
I don't want a tournament play game. I just want a game that isn't a chore to follow and at least pretends to be balanced. Balanced well written rules are better for everyone!
With a million and one special rules, some of which contradict each other, more still that are unclear in their wording, the game will be a chore to follow, especially at first. The game does not pretend or even remotely attempt to be balanced. The words "balanced, well written rules" and "GW" do not belong in the same sentence unless it also includes "will never happen"...
I used to try and sell GW's games to people interested within the hobby. Used to.
Frankly given the current state of things with GW and the crap quality/massive prices I would not advise them unless you are really into the fluff or have no other options.
Warmachine is far better. For the price of a GW army I can have 3-4 Warmahordes armies at tournament level. The rules are nice and concise and the action is quick and easy.
Due to Mordheim, I have a crapton of fantasy models to use for RPGs that look a million times better than the WOTC/Wizkids D&D models. I also have a much better understanding of WHFB due to using the system.
New gamers are typically eager to try the gateway drug before developing the full habit. GW would be recommendable for n00bs if they had gateway games.
master of ordinance wrote: Warmachine is far better. For the price of a GW army I can have 3-4 Warmahordes armies at tournament level. The rules are nice and concise and the action is quick and easy.
MoO
Such a fantastic and slick system. The lower (but not LOW) model count is nice too. I learned the basics of WM at GenCon in one demo game, and I still scratch my head at some of the basics for 40k.
There are different ways to "proxy". I don't play WHFB anymore, but now I play Kings of War, and proxy models that "fit" into my forces - because I like the models. For example, Ogres (in KoW) can have "red goblins" mounted on wolves. I don't want goblins in my Ogre army, so instead I use these as my proxies - I feel that my Ogres would be more than happy to have these wolves (without goblins) as their pets.
Having said that, I don't go the "these guys with swords actually have spears" route. I do rule of cool and "the official model for this shiznit looks awful, so I'm going to proxy this awesome model in instead"
That speaks to the heart of one of the best things about KoW. It's streamlined nature makes proxying easy and not confusing. KoW isn't bogged down by stats for what weapon a certain character or unit is carrying. So it's easy to proxy-in the figs you want to play and not worry too much about what the company would suggest you play.
Example, I wanted to field a unit of beastmen. There' isn't an entry for beastmen, but there is one for "Abbysal Bezerkers". Voila! My beastmen are now in play!
Eilif wrote: Example, I wanted to field a unit of beastmen. There' isn't an entry for beastmen, but there is one for "Abbysal Bezerkers". Voila! My beastmen are now in play!
I don't consider this a proxy. This is using the miniatures you want with the rules you want. I consider a proxy to be a temporary stand in.
That's actually a third type of proxy. Emphasis on "temporary". I've got to put together a couple of hefty conversions for my Ogre Warlord and standard (both on chariots), so in the meantime I've got an Ogre blu-taced onto an Orc Chariot, and a standard bearer who stands (again, blu-taced) on an Elven Chariot. They're fine, but they're temporary proxies in my own mind (and in my army!)
But that's still not the same as "swordsmen are really spearmen".
Azazelx wrote: That's actually a third type of proxy. Emphasis on "temporary". I've got to put together a couple of hefty conversions for my Ogre Warlord and standard (both on chariots), so in the meantime I've got an Ogre blu-taced onto an Orc Chariot, and a standard bearer who stands (again, blu-taced) on an Elven Chariot. They're fine, but they're temporary proxies in my own mind (and in my army!)
But that's still not the same as "swordsmen are really spearmen".
Considering I don't count permanently allocated miniatures as proxies, I'll go with "That's actually a second type of proxy". And yeah, the emphasis is definitely on temporary.
I have a hordes army made entirely of reaper bones miniatures and while I was figuring out what I was going to include, I borrowed an actual skorne titan and used it as the model it actually was. So I proxied a miniature that was the actual commercially available model
No one can state that you´ll have "a better time playing game X." as it´s factually a subjective matter.
I can easily recommend GW games for a beginner. It will cost a bit more money than some other games, and the rules will be a bit more complicated. If that´s not an issue then by all means, especially if you find the models beautiful.
The thing is, they are all proxies, to some extent at least. If I'm playing my Beastmen as KoW Orcs, the whole lot of them are proxied. I proxy Elven Wardancers for the TK Blade-Dancers... I guess the entirety of almost all of my KoW armies are proxied in a sense.
Actually, to break it down fully, the only non-proxied models in that sense across the 6 armies we have table-worthy at the moment are two units of Ogre Shooters and my wife's undead Balefire Catapult.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
RunicFIN wrote: No one can state that you´ll have "a better time playing game X." as it´s factually a subjective matter.
I can easily recommend GW games for a beginner. It will cost a bit more money than some other games, and the rules will be a bit more complicated. If that´s not an issue then by all means, especially if you find the models beautiful.
You're correct in terms of games being a very subjective thing. As much as I personally like GW's models even today, I could never in good conscience recommend 40k or WHFB for a beginner, due to both cost and increasingly arcane and messily layered rules from way too many scattered sources. No qualms about recommending games like Blood Bowl, Necro, Mordheim, Space Hulk, etc.
melkorthetonedeaf wrote: you don't HAVE TO play Mantic's terrible TERRIBLE models (they're so bad).
Come now, the aesthetic qualities are subjective, but the casting and sculpting quality is not. I happen to like a lot of their range - not all of it, but a large proportion.
I agree with this, though. What I like most about KoW is the ease of proxying, because all that matters for a unit is the footprint (and consistency across a force). To illustrate this, I'm currently cobbling together my old Hordes of Chaos army using units from the Forces of the Abyss, Orcs, Kingdoms of Men and Undead lists - and thanks to the ally rules, it's perfectly usable.
I would absolutely recommend it. It's an amazing hobby, with unsurpassed depth of fluff and some of the best minis around (there are competitors for that crown, but their stuff is equally expensive). The most important thing though, is if you have anyone to play with. If you don't there's no point. You need a gaming group with a similar mindset. I have one and I couldn't be happier with 40k right now (I could be happier with GW in general, but they seem to be improving). It depends on what you value most though. For me, the fluff is so important that I could never play a game with unengaging fluff. I love the 40k universe and the models, and the rules are secondary to me. That's why I've never considered playing Warmachine, I don't like the aesthetic and I don't feel intrigued enough to learn the fluff.
If you want to start small, play Necromunda. The rules are imo better suited to the playstyle than 40k, and the game lends itself amazingly well to spontaneous narratives. Such a flavorful game, and the fluff and atmosphere really is among the more interesting in the 40k universe. You don't need many minis either.
@OP - I would recommend something simpler and cleaner.
If you love LotR and dig Fantasy and High Elves, GW's Lord of the Ring Strategy Battles Game is not a bad choice for what you want. You could get the rules, along with a couple armies for not too much money. Elves & Men, against Orks & Uruks, and you'll have a grand time for years to come. It just becomes your fantasy battle game, and you won't have to worry about what others do. Keep it in a storage tub, and break it out to play - a big game in a big box.
If you really want higher fantasy with Warhammer Fantasy, that's always a choice, but I think it's a bit more overwhelming for novices. LotR ties directly to the movies and books that people may have seen and read.
For a novice in a gaming island, LotR SBG is a stronger choice. Best of all, it's largely out of print, so you can get the stuff used or clearance at pretty good prices on eBay, especially the plastic kits. Plus, there's lots of information on what works and what makes a good army.
____
In your follow-up, you note that you have Warmachine (steampunk) and Infinity (modern skirmish).
Of your follow-up list, Flames of War (historical) would be my top pick. It's an entirely different genre, so good variety there. Flames of War Open Fire is a great starter.
I would have suggested Malifaux, except you already have skirmish and steampunk covered via Warmachine & Infinity.
I see that you're looking at the various ball games. IMO, your having Infinity largely covers that skirmish-scale stuff.
You're correct in terms of games being a very subjective thing. As much as I personally like GW's models even today, I could never in good conscience recommend 40k or WHFB for a beginner, due to both cost and increasingly arcane and messily layered rules from way too many scattered sources. No qualms about recommending games like Blood Bowl, Necro, Mordheim, Space Hulk, etc.
I largely agree with this. My only disagreement is that the specialist games were killed off and harder to start because of this. Personally i think mordheim was where its at as far as skirmish warband games go.
Hopefully i can offer an impartial response (which btw, inquiring about GW games on this forum is going to bring out the whitest-white-knights for GW, and the most virulent haters who can't find a single solitary positive thing to say).
GW games can be very fun. They do not have the tightest ruleset on the market, meaning that there are loopholes, vague interactions, or just downright plain oddities. There's lots of reasons for this, but it can mostly boil down to this ; though the games are played "competitively" in their purest form, they are beer and pretzel games albeit in large format. Meaning you're not meant to take them super seriously. You can if that's your thing, but if you do, and then get butthurt about the fact that there's a loophole here and there, it's grousing for the sake of grousing. They even acknowledge that their ruleset isn't airtight (which none are, but GW's is further than most from being airtight) by giving the "roll off" method of resolving in game rules disputes. If you have a dispute with your opponent, and can't quickly resolve, they recommend you roll a D6, and on a 1-3 one person wins and the rule is played their way, and 4-6, the other person's.
Some people wring their hands at this, but most games have this somewhere in their rules or something like it.
If you're looking for an airtight competitive ruleset, GW games are likely not for you. If you're looking for the highest precision in internal and external balance... and will be upset if those things are not honed as much as possible, then these might not be the systems for you. If you like medium to large battle simulations with gorgeous quality models (mostly... there are exceptions... razorgore... looking at you!), and want a fun game to play with your mates to have some laughs and good times, and like very rich background and themed sci fi and / or fantasy, then you might get very good mileage.
They are very expensive. most armies, bought at MSRP will run you several hundred dollars. You can get them online cheaper, but it is what it is - even bought fully online, they are pricey games to play. If you're not sure that you will like wargames, a GW game might not be the best place to start, as to even make a 500 point list, you're probably spending a hundred bucks USD + the 80.00 rule book + the 50 dollar codex (unless you get a starter set which is about 100), whereas most other games you can get starters and starter rules for 50 bucks per person.
I have played Warmachine, Hordes, Dark Age, Infinity, Rezolution, mordheim, WHFB, 40k, and a bunch of other minis games. I really like WHFB - i've played it longer than any other game other than Warmachine which i played for many years. Both 40k and WHFB are good games for what they are ; fun medium to large army conflict games meant to have a good time with friends. What they are not is super duper air tight rulesets, or cheap. Some people feel they've been wronged by GW for either not keeping armies up to date, discontinuing certain models, etc., or a whole host of other reasons. They may or may not be right, but i suppose at the end of the day their perceptions are what count.
If you're okay with an expensive, but fun game, and you can get a couple other people in with you, then i would not try to steer you away from GW games. They are really really fun.
Keraun0s wrote: well, now that's out of the way. I'm looking at GW site everyday, trying to find a way to play WHF without going bankrupt. I find the model range beautifull. I hear 40K get a lot of fire for the ruleset. Is Fantasy better? or the same problems about balance exist? I could still use the minis in other systems, even if I do not play Warhammer...Unlike with 40K.
I would advise you to collect whichever you prefer the models and setting of more. If its guns and tech -40k, if its mythical beasts, swords and sorcery, go with FB.
Fantasy's ruleset is superior in that -dragons and magic aside - it tries to implement the mechanics of factual medieval warfare, specifically troop formations and movements, offensive and defensive strategies. 40k, while not devoid of those elements, is currently more akin to a shoot-em up than a proper war game, with a significant factor to winning the game being in knowing what guns to bring, and what to shoot them at. It's certainly fun, but if you're looking for realistic wargaming, the rulebook will leave you shaking your head in disbelief.
I had a thought the other day. I'd go further than not advising a beginner to start any GW game, I think that if I lost my GW collection and the insurance company gave me the full retail for it, I still wouldn't re-buy it. I'd throw all the money into Bolt Action and never look back.
If I lost my entire GW collection, no I wouldn't re-buy it - I just don't have time to rebuild and repaint everything. I'd go with a small set of games and call it a day.
A lot of people will tell you to look at the price point of the product you are getting. I feel that is a misnomer. As I talk about the GW starting product line I will interrupt myself as many "interwebs" people's would do in a "real life" conversation. This will be edited a few times for consistency. I am a fan of GW's products, but I also play a lot of other games. So I've already done the dumb thing of spending money I regret on other systems.
GW has three starter sets from different product lines. Yes rumors say that one of these may be ending due to the end of a franchise. Let's touch base on that one first. This is the truly newest starter kit that GW has released, the detail on each of these models inside show how well GW has figured out molding and plastic manufacturing, so all the other companies out there should say thank you instead of people trying to build lousy knockoffs with printing (sorry, tangent). So at a price of a "whopping" $125 ASD (American Standard Dollar), you as a new hobbist receive 56 models, a piece of terrain, a plastic folding ruler (kinda cool), dice, an easy play sheet, a 48 page story starts here booklet (or read the actual book), and a mini copy of the 112 page actual rule book, full color.
First competitor that many people will talk about is "Warmahordes." So let's look. At a "slightly" lesser price, $99.99 ASD, you RECIEVE eonugh stuff for two people to play. 17 plastic models. 17? Yes, 17! So you're telling me that if I save $25.01, I don't have to paint 39 more models, and I don't get terrain with it either. Sorry, that was a lot of sarcasm when I should have stayed the course. Yes, only 17 models, a set of stat cards for the models, a measure, a set of dice, a introductory guide, and a "travel-sized booklet (86 pages)." That quote is from Warmahordes website. Not full color.
Warhammer 40K has a starter kit like many of these others highly detailed plastic minis, a total count of 49, a intro booklet, a measure, a set of dice, a set of game templates for various weapons, and a 208 page full color rule book. All of these can be yours for $110 ASD.
Do you see where I'm going here. You get more for your money's worth! I would finish this but I have to work to feed my plastic addiction. Hah!
Spaz431 wrote: A lot of people will tell you to look at the price point of the product you are getting. I feel that is a misnomer. As I talk about the GW starting product line I will interrupt myself as many "interwebs" people's would do in a "real life" conversation. This will be edited a few times for consistency.
GW has three starter sets from different product lines. Yes rumors say that one of these may be ending due to the end of a franchise. Let's touch base on that one first. So at a price of a "whopping" $125 ASD (American Standard Dollar), you as a new hobbist receive 56 models, a piece of terrain, a plastic folding ruler (kinda cool), dice, an easy play sheet, a 48 page story starts here booklet (or read the actual book), and a mini copy of the 112 page actual rule book, full color.
First competitor that many people will talk about is "Warmahordes." So let's look. At a "slightly" lesser price, $99.99 ASD, you RECIEVE eonugh stuff for two people to play. 17 plastic models. 17? Yes, 17! So you're telling me that if I save $25.01, I don't have to paint 39 more models, and I don't get terrain with it either. Sorry, that was a lot of sarcasm when I should have stayed the course. Yes, only 17 models, a set of stat cards for the models, a measure, a set of dice, a introductory guide, and a "travel-sized booklet (86 pages)." That quote is from Warmahordes website. Not full color.
For about 10 USD I can get a plastic bucket full to the brim with plastic army men. Clearly plastic army men are much better than GW!
What on earth does the amount of models that you get has to do with anything if you can't even use them on a regular game?
"Congratulations on spending 125$ on your introductory set, now you just need to spend another 500$ to be able to actually play the game!" -> That is how a real life conversation on the game would go, you're welcome.
Spaz431 wrote: Are we not trying to a constructive community to possibly welcome e new player, viper? I interrupt myself clearly enough for 5-10 people.
I am trying to create a constructive community and I always welcome new players.
Of course welcoming new players, to me, means steering them away from mediocre systems that offer very little in terms of gaming enjoyment but instead seem to be designed for the sole purpose of taking as much money as they can from its player base without any regard for things like game balance, tactical play, army longevity, etc...
Lets say that my "job" is made extremely simple in the past couple of years, since the only new players that I've seen at the FLGS are playing X-Wing, FoW, Infinity, Malifaux and WMH.
I would recommend both Dark Vengence and Island of Blood as great starter sets into wargaming. The only thing missing is terrain. Some rocks or ruins printed on card can quickly solve that.
Personally yes i would recommend to start a new gw game, albeit with scarce or none GW miniatures(easier done in fantasy, thou also doable in 40k), i would simply use other ranges, bewtin mantic, perry brothers and so on, you have your pick of models for virtually any fantasy army, you can pick GW models for iconic things like may be The empire charriots or the Dark elves cauldron.
For 40k its harder but not that much depending on what you do, if you go imperial guard, there are a lot of sci fy plastic humans out there, you would only need the tanks from GW if you dont fancy scratch building them your self. The main think to keep in mind is that you respect WYSIWYG, meaning, that if a particular gun in a model represents say a lass gun, that gun can only represent a lass gun and has to be the same for your entire army.
Herzlos wrote: I had a thought the other day. I'd go further than not advising a beginner to start any GW game, I think that if I lost my GW collection and the insurance company gave me the full retail for it, I still wouldn't re-buy it. I'd throw all the money into Bolt Action and never look back.
Oh damn, that'd be awesome! I'd totally stack it neatly in the front room, put the dogs up, and leave the door unlocked if I could make this happen! Although mine would be Infinity.
I'd sooner start someone on crystal meth than a GW game. Totally cheaper and more fulfilling!
Personally, I say no, not really. The ruleset, in its current edition, is not very up to par in comparison to those on the market and requires a hefty investment of time and money with little returns in my enjoyment. This in being what might turn most potential beginners in miniature wargaming away from the scene. However, other games take the honor of being more beginner friendly (such as X-Wing and Kings of War).
This is just my personal feelings on that and what ever you pick....well, that is your prerogative. Being a little more objective on this, first, research into the game you are planning to start up then ask yourself a series of questions before getting into the game:
1. How much money are you willing to spend to start-up and then expand upon your force?
2. What are you looking to get out of the ruleset? Are you looking to play competitively or more casually? Are you looking for something in-depth or easy to get into?
3. How does your area look in terms of people playing a certain game system? This is big, since if you start up a game and no one plays it, then you have essentially sunk your money on a system no one plays. Unless you want to be prepared to buy a little more to have two playable forces in order to show the game, but this can be a slippery slope.
With this, use it to see if getting into 40k or any other system is good for you to get into.
deviantduck wrote: There is no better tactical strategy game involving miniatures than 40k. Dive in head first and enjoy.
You've missed the end of that first sentence there, "based on the two tactical strategy games I have tried; 40k and stabbing myself in the eyeball with a rusty fork"
deviantduck wrote: There is no better tactical strategy game involving miniatures than 40k. Dive in head first and enjoy.
You've missed the end of that first sentence there, "based on the two tactical strategy games I have tried; 40k and stabbing myself in the eyeball with a rusty fork"
I don't know, man.
I've tryed a lot of tactical stratgey games before and I think 40k is better than Battleship AND Mario Kart!
deviantduck wrote: There is no better tactical strategy game involving miniatures than 40k. Dive in head first and enjoy.
You've missed the end of that first sentence there, "based on the two tactical strategy games I have tried; 40k and stabbing myself in the eyeball with a rusty fork"
I don't know, man. I've tryed a lot of tactical stratgey games before and I think 40k is better than Battleship AND Mario Kart!
Herzlos wrote: I had a thought the other day. I'd go further than not advising a beginner to start any GW game, I think that if I lost my GW collection and the insurance company gave me the full retail for it, I still wouldn't re-buy it. I'd throw all the money into Bolt Action and never look back.
Oh damn, that'd be awesome! I'd totally stack it neatly in the front room, put the dogs up, and leave the door unlocked if I could make this happen! Although mine would be Infinity.
I'd sooner start someone on crystal meth than a GW game. Totally cheaper and more fulfilling!
You might want to keep your teeth.
OTOH, convert it into a party at the Mustang Ranch, and you'll have an epic story to tell.
Okay, i think there's a similar thread in 40k general discussion, but to answer your question briefly:
No, GW games are not a good idea. And here's why:
* Horrible, clunky rules. Dozens of random tables, special rules, and slow gaming pace when resolving combat. Be prepared to spend more time on determining how barrage weapons interact with passengers in open-topped transports than actually enjoying the game.
* You want to have all options open for your army? Well, you need the codex, two supplements, five dataslates, a campaign book, escalation, two issues of imperial armour, death from the skies and these three white-dwarf magazines. The dark gods help you, if you want to have an allied formation.
* Expensive models. You get 40+ solders and some heavy weapons in bolt action for the same price you'd pay for a standard 10 dudes in 40k.
* Lots of models. Not only will you pay too much, you need a lot of them, especially with horde armies. Other systems need less models, some are entirely playable with something between 10 and 40 models on the table.
There are only two things going for 40k - the setting and it's ubiquitous nature. The former is undeniable, the later may help you find a gaming group but nothing stops you from introducing a better system to said group, so there's that.
If you are dead-set on GW, try Kill Team. With only 200 pts of models on the board you dont spend much, the games are not too long and you still get the richt world of 40k to forge your narrative.
Otherwise, you'll have more fun at less cost and less time consumed painting with ANY other system out there.
Kosake wrote: There are only two things going for 40k - the setting and it's ubiquitous nature.
I'll add a 3rd thing to that list -a range of models that overall is (generally accepted to be) a grade or 2 superior to any other range out there. which as a modeller first and gamer second -is why I collect it.
Kosake wrote: There are only two things going for 40k - the setting and it's ubiquitous nature.
I'll add a 3rd thing to that list -a range of models that overall is (generally accepted to be) a grade or 2 superior to any other range out there. which as a modeller first and gamer second -is why I collect it.
Inferior to Corvus Belli, and likely a few others and some boutique manufacturers too.
Vehicle-wise, inferior to Bandai's modern ranges and many other sci-fi scale model kit producers (both injection plastic and resin) such as Kotobukiya.
Kosake wrote: There are only two things going for 40k - the setting and it's ubiquitous nature.
I'll add a 3rd thing to that list -a range of models that overall is (generally accepted to be) a grade or 2 superior to any other range out there. which as a modeller first and gamer second -is why I collect it.
That hasn't been the case for many years, especially since Finecast came out. There are worse mini's out there, but there are many that are better or equal to GW's in terms of quality. Most even cost a lot less.
Actually, the best thing about GW's headline games is the intro rules. If I need to get a newbie up and playing, GW does the learning scenarios better than just about anybody else in the business. Only BattleFront's Flames of War comes close.
Herzlos wrote: That hasn't been the case for many years, especially since Finecast came out. There are worse mini's out there, but there are many that are better or equal to GW's in terms of quality.
Respectfully disagree (except regarding the undisputable failings of Finecast). I've seen other models that are their equal in level of detail, aesthetic appeal or character, but rarely all 3 together. Especially character. The best way I can explain my opinion is that when I look at GW high elf elites or grey knight terminators I see something distinct and strongly designed. When I look at equivalent models from most other ranges, even good sculpts, I see a generic elf, and a generic soldier in power armour.
I will concede there are indiviudual models / units available elsewhere that give their equivalent GW model a run for their money, but I have yet to see an entire range of minis that I can say that for.
And obviously GW have made some hideously bad models, but by and large I think they retain a very good standard.
I'd hand them an X-Wing starter box, and paperbacks of the first three Horus Heresy novels.
The only thing about 40k that I'd recommend to someone new is the background. There are better games, with much better rules floating around. The miniatures are neat, but the financial barrier to entry for 40k is so high and the game designers are so hostile to the idea of writing good rules that I can't recommend their work to anyone.
Daba wrote: Inferior to Corvus Belli, and likely a few others and some boutique manufacturers too.
Spent a few minutes looking at the Corvus Belli models. There are some things I'm really impressed with like those wolves and wolfmen, are actaully better than anything in the SW range. The fur sculpting is superior, might actaully use a wolf one as a basis for a wolflord.)
And if the rest of their range hit that par, I'd agree with you...but I don't think they do. In particular I find the cloth sculpting on a lot of the soldier minis are substandard, as are some of the faces and the neck joins can be a bit choppy.
Realistically I would not recommend a beginner to start any kind of GW game unless they met some very specific criteria, namely:
* Plays 100% for fun and doesn't care if the rules are lacking and imbalanced
* Plays in an established group/gaming club and not just against whomever shows up at the game store's "40k Night" for a game
* Likes the models/fluff/etc. rather than wanting a balanced, well-written game
* Doesn't care about the price
In that situation, then sure 40k can provide lots of enjoyment.
I have been playing or involved with GW games for over 20 years and I have had loads of fun within it. I would definitely recommend it. You have a very healthy monthly budget. It is expensive but if you have a good budget to spend it is an immersive and fun world with a rich and deep back story. The game might not be perfect but no game is and you can adapt it yourself...... As long as your friends agree!
Daba wrote: Inferior to Corvus Belli, and likely a few others and some boutique manufacturers too.
Spent a few minutes looking at the Corvus Belli models. There are some things I'm really impressed with like those wolves and wolfmen, are actaully better than anything in the SW range. The fur sculpting is superior, might actaully use a wolf one as a basis for a wolflord.)
And if the rest of their range hit that par, I'd agree with you...but I don't think they do. In particular I find the cloth sculpting on a lot of the soldier minis are substandard, as are some of the faces and the neck joins can be a bit choppy.
I'm curious which models you're looking at here. CB are in the middle of resculpting a lot of their more goofy looking old models but if you're looking at newer stuff I'd really like to know what you find substandard.
I personally find GW to be the opposite, a lot of older models look pretty good and have held up well but the recent stuff is terrible.
Specifically the new nurgle stuff for WHFB feels very much like a toy with bad mold lines, very little actual texture but lots of boils pretending to be texture and a general 'wow look at how big it is' feel to it rather than any actual selling points on the model itself.
The space wolves failed on a conceptual level with murder murderson and his murder claws on the planet murder (not to mention the exposed face), grimnar claus, and that flyer that could have been an awesome space longboat but kinda missed all the points of a longboat other than being long.
Then there is the Knight, which has practically 0 possibility compared to the entirely posable dreamforge leviathans, which are around the same price but bigger.
And then there is the dual kits like the high elf shadow warriors. Same five models packaged twice in a box in game where you need a lot more than 5 guys. Absolutely dreadful.
If someone was considering a GW game, I'd have to give them the following caution:
Please be advised that Games Workshop games are old fashioned, 80's era war games. You'll be expected to embrace all aspects of the wargaming hobby. You'll be expected to collect your own models, assemble them, maybe do a bit of conversion on them, paint them, and also build, assemble, repair and rewrite the rules of the game just like you do with the miniatures. Other game companies are currently trending towards focusing away from expecting their players to become game developers.
Kosake wrote: There are only two things going for 40k - the setting and it's ubiquitous nature.
I'll add a 3rd thing to that list -a range of models that overall is (generally accepted to be) a grade or 2 superior to any other range out there. which as a modeller first and gamer second -is why I collect it.
In that case skip the rules, skip the rulebook, buy the models you like and paint, nothing's stopping you here. The question was whether 40k as a game is worth it and by now I must say "no, it isn't". And there are better miniatures than GW produces out there.
I have to chime in and say that Corvus Belli does have superior minis to GW. Some of the older stuff is a bit wonky, but everything in the past few years has been outstanding. But it's hard to judge a mini until you hold it in your hand.
PhillyT wrote: If you like the models and have other players near you, 40k is the best game on the market. Go for it.
If 40K is the only game being played near you, then 40K is the best game on the market. If people are playing anything else then go for that. Unless you really dislike the mini's/setting from everyone else.
If someone wants to get into GW games because of the background, I'd probably show them BFG first, personally. Then again, I have three fleets, so there's that.
Seriously though, 40k is nowhere near the best wargame, in any sense of being a game. Its a great setting, but a pretty weak game on all accounts and hideously expensive to boot.
Kosake wrote: There are only two things going for 40k - the setting and it's ubiquitous nature.
I'll add a 3rd thing to that list -a range of models that overall is (generally accepted to be) a grade or 2 superior to any other range out there. which as a modeller first and gamer second -is why I collect it.
I actually like a fair number of their models, but have to disagree. Mierce and many others straight up blow them out of the water. Years ago, Rackham's Conftontation was considerably better. IMO, its been a long time, if ever, that GW was generally considered to be top of the sculpting game.
If someone wants to get into GW games because of the background, I'd probably show them BFG first, personally. Then again, I have three fleets, so there's that.
Seriously though, 40k is nowhere near the best wargame, in any sense of being a game. Its a great setting, but a pretty weak game on all accounts and hideously expensive to boot.
I consider even Fantasy to be better, and that's not just my personal bias.
Like you can counter magic, anything can be wounded no matter how tough, modifiers in shooting, no giant things flying around that nothing can even touch. Half the armies aren't variations of the exact same thing.
Yeah it's not a great game either but it's still stronger in many areas then 40k.
And it's fluff advanced so it has that going for it.
Kosake wrote: There are only two things going for 40k - the setting and it's ubiquitous nature.
I'll add a 3rd thing to that list -a range of models that overall is (generally accepted to be) a grade or 2 superior to any other range out there. which as a modeller first and gamer second -is why I collect it.
I actually like a fair number of their models, but have to disagree. Mierce and many others straight up blow them out of the water. Years ago, Rackham's Conftontation was considerably better. IMO, its been a long time, if ever, that GW was generally considered to be top of the sculpting game.
Fair enough, to each their own. A large part of my preference is that aside from oversize shoulder pads and power fists, etc, I find the aesthetics of GW figures strong and it appeals to me a lot more than 90% of other models out there. Perhaps my earlier statement is contestable. I'd like to see a poll entitled "What is youf favorite model range." Tthat'd be the only way to tell really. It'd be interesting in any case.
I'm curious which models you're looking at here. CB are in the middle of resculpting a lot of their more goofy looking old models but if you're looking at newer stuff I'd really like to know what you find substandard.
I personally find GW to be the opposite, a lot of older models look pretty good and have held up well but the recent stuff is terrible.
Specifically the new nurgle stuff for WHFB feels very much like a toy with bad mold lines, very little actual texture but lots of boils pretending to be texture and a general 'wow look at how big it is' feel to it rather than any actual selling points on the model itself.
The space wolves failed on a conceptual level with murder murderson and his murder claws on the planet murder (not to mention the exposed face), grimnar claus, and that flyer that could have been an awesome space longboat but kinda missed all the points of a longboat other than being long.
And then there is the dual kits like the high elf shadow warriors. Same five models packaged twice in a box in game where you need a lot more than 5 guys. Absolutely dreadful.
I wasn't impresses with the cloth on the Kotail mobile unit and Reverend Morias. You're correct, the bad face was on an older looking unit, I can't find the name of it sorry. Looking at more of them now...PanOceania models. OK those Knights of Santiago are superb. So are magister knights and some of the IC's. But not mad on the asthetics of a lot of the other squads tbh.
That's funny about the Nurgle minis, I actually think they're excellent!
And yes, we're in agreement about the new SW stuff....and by extension GW's tendencies to slap wings on their tank designs and call it an aircraft. & if I ever run Murderson, he'll be getting a nice sarcophagus to cover that growling face! What were they thinking...
Eilif wrote:
Example, I wanted to field a unit of beastmen. There' isn't an entry for beastmen, but there is one for "Abbysal Bezerkers". Voila! My beastmen are now in play!
I don't consider this a proxy. This is using the miniatures you want with the rules you want. I consider a proxy to be a temporary stand in.
It's always good to define terms.
Anytime you use something to represent something different (i.e. Beastman for Abbysal Bezerker), you're using a "Proxy".
If you use a miniature that is of the same type (i.e. Mantic Maurader for GW apace Ork) and relatively similarly armed and equipped, you're using an "Alternate Model".
A Proxy can also be a "Counts-as". A term that is often used interchangeably, but generally implies an across the board substitution of one race for another or one weapon type for another.
Examples would be: "Squats Count-As IG" or " All Plasma Guns count as Meltas."
Alternate Models and "Counts-as" generally (though not always) have better connotations than "Proxy" which can range from the reasonable (Beast man for Abbysal Bezerker) to the ridiculous (Pop can for Warengine).
I do alot of proxying (often counts-as) in my Kings of War armies. Generally it's just a matter of taking a model you have, and looking at the various avaialble profiles and fitting the one that best fits the model. I find that if you start from the model and find stats that fit it gets a much better response from folks than picking out the stats you want and putting them on models.
Words are defined by usage and when people show up to actually play and say "this game I'm proxying unit x" they mean a temporary stand in, not a permanent one. Or when people are asking about what miniatures to get for an army next, people will tell them to "proxy them and try them out in a game first" so they don't end up getting something they won't like on the table.
I get it that people also use it more broadly, but when the representation is permanent, I don't consider it proxying. They aren't standing in for the miniatures you use, they are the miniatures you use.
I'm okay that people use words differently than me and that there are regional differences to consider as well. Though, I am just going to keep using the word to apply only to temporary substitutions.
OP: Sounds like you are one of "our people" trying out the full spectrum of the tabletop game.
WHFB is a much more tactical game and you are right that busting the bank may be possible.
The latest rule-set seems to have killed the game for now, even in my area no-one is hosting a night to play it because no-one is showing up.
So look around in your area and see if others play, just to be sure.
I would suggest against WHFB since it seems to have been left hanging by GW other than the recent "end of times" push.
40k, I am tempted to tell you to run screaming.
To avoid cost, buying online rules and a favored codex would be a start and then look at models.
It is such an insanely expensive hobby now I would be hesitant to recommend.
The rules for army selection is so open ended that game imbalance is a certainty.
I have played it so long and have so many models that new releases are no big deal to me but I would hate to start over.
Yes, read some 40k novels, the stories are quite good.
Then build an army (slowly) to what interests you.
Battletech is getting a dust-off with new rules so is worth a look and use fewer models but they do need to be assembled and painted.
X-wing needs no painting but is a VERY fun game.
The other squad based games I do not have experience with but recommend themselves well.
That's funny about the Nurgle minis, I actually think they're excellent!
I've seen a lot of people agree with you there actually but it just rubbed me the wrong way. I was painting a LOVELY great unclean one bust from Mpyrec (hope I spelled that right) when the nurgle stuff hit and I couldn't help compare the two. Admittedly that's probably not a fair comparison as it was a very limited run, high end boutique piece, but it made GWs stuff look very heavily CAD sculptured with little texture and very toy like.
frozenwastes wrote: Words are defined by usage and when people show up to actually play and say "this game I'm proxying unit x" they mean a temporary stand in, not a permanent one. Or when people are asking about what miniatures to get for an army next, people will tell them to "proxy them and try them out in a game first" so they don't end up getting something they won't like on the table.
I get it that people also use it more broadly, but when the representation is permanent, I don't consider it proxying. They aren't standing in for the miniatures you use, they are the miniatures you use.
I'm okay that people use words differently than me and that there are regional differences to consider as well. Though, I am just going to keep using the word to apply only to temporary substitutions.
Fair enough. You are correct that though proxy has a wide variety of uses, it does tend to imply something of a temporary nature. The Dictionary will back you up on that.
Thus the terms "counts-as" or "Alternate models" can also be used. For my proxy armies, I usually refer to them as " _____ run as ______" or "__________ using the _________ army lists". I tend to proxy armies or units that are pretty close to WYSIWYG in terms of size, armor and weaponry though, so counts-as or Alternate Models are applicable as well.
deviantduck wrote: There is no better tactical strategy game involving miniatures than 40k. Dive in head first and enjoy.
What is tactical or strategic about random warlord traits, random psychic powers, random mission objectives, random rewards for completing those objectives (many of which will be impossible depending on situation and army composition) and codex imbalance?
40k strategy
1. Choose top tier race
2. Build list spamming best units from top tier race
3. Hope for good rolls on a million random D6 tables
4. Target priority
When people rave about 40K as a tactical game, I just have to assume that they're generally that type of gamer raised on GW and too full of inertia and a disturbingly blinkered kind of brand loyalty to even glance at another game.
That sounds a little more ranty than I intended, but I don't think it's too inaccurate a description of the kind of thing I've seen. That we've seen. (The GWombies walk among us) I can understand the appeal of doing all the hard work with a codex and a calculator before the game, and just letting the models autorun during, but... I just don't understand it very much, and understand it less with every new rule-set I experience and as the gulf between me and the ol' core two grows. It smarts to see this described as tactical, and I perform a little facepalm inside whenever I scroll past a gaming forum's entire '40K tactics' board, on my way to boards where several deeper games are lumped into one.
So to extend my earlier answer to the OP's question: not only wouldn't I recommend the core two to a beginning gamer, I'd actively beg their vets and aficionados - with all the love and peace and goodwill and positive vibes and Christmas cheer - to try something else - anything else - if you think WFB and 40K are deep, tactical games. You ain't seen nothin' yet. I have basic, free, idle-time, waiting-in-a-queue games on my phone that are more tactical than 40K.
I enjoyed randomness when it was sparse and funny (orks, skaven, etc) but GW seems to be on a really big random kick. I completely avoid psychic powers since I don't wanna get sucked into all that madness.
And it is never the mark of a good game where you have to put an insane amount of restriction rules so you can actually have some semblance of a fun/balanced game/tournament/whatever
Vermis wrote: That sounds a little more ranty than I intended, but I don't think it's too inaccurate a description of the kind of thing I've seen. That we've seen. (The GWombies walk among us) I can understand the appeal of doing all the hard work with a codex and a calculator before the game, and just letting the models autorun during, but... I just don't understand it very much, and understand it less with every new rule-set I experience and as the gulf between me and the ol' core two grows. It smarts to see this described as tactical, and I perform a little facepalm inside whenever I scroll past a gaming forum's entire '40K tactics' board, on my way to boards where several deeper games are lumped into one.
I just had a skim of one such forum and most of the topics appear to be about weapon loadouts and unit choices than what I'd call tactics. The answer to most questions seem to be "take X weapon/Y unit". Tactics are more unit agnostic, like softening them up with a support weapon to pin them down, before assaulting them with fresh infantry (which has no effect in 40K but is devastating in Bolt Action).
I saw go GW. I love 40k. Fantasy is pretty cool too!!! Id love to play LOTR if anyone played it :(
Warmachine is another alternative. people say its way cheaper but I call BS on that one. A decent 50 point army will run you 500-700$. A decent 40k army might run you a hair more but you will have way more models (usually?)
Vermis wrote: That sounds a little more ranty than I intended, but I don't think it's too inaccurate a description of the kind of thing I've seen. That we've seen. (The GWombies walk among us) I can understand the appeal of doing all the hard work with a codex and a calculator before the game, and just letting the models autorun during, but... I just don't understand it very much, and understand it less with every new rule-set I experience and as the gulf between me and the ol' core two grows. It smarts to see this described as tactical, and I perform a little facepalm inside whenever I scroll past a gaming forum's entire '40K tactics' board, on my way to boards where several deeper games are lumped into one.
I just had a skim of one such forum and most of the topics appear to be about weapon loadouts and unit choices than what I'd call tactics. The answer to most questions seem to be "take X weapon/Y unit". Tactics are more unit agnostic, like softening them up with a support weapon to pin them down, before assaulting them with fresh infantry (which has no effect in 40K but is devastating in Bolt Action).
The fact that 40k games are basically won or lost in list selection is one of the biggest issues IMHO. Warmachine has a lot involved in lists (especially with multiple list formats) but in the end it does come down to tactics and usage. There are netlists, but if you're inexperienced you can't just take a netlist and win because it's a netlist, while in 40k you could probably take a complete newbie, give them one of the powerhouse lists, and they will steamroll a veteran player.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
40KNobz11 wrote: I saw go GW. I love 40k. Fantasy is pretty cool too!!! Id love to play LOTR if anyone played it :(
Warmachine is another alternative. people say its way cheaper but I call BS on that one. A decent 50 point army will run you 500-700$. A decent 40k army might run you a hair more but you will have way more models (usually?)
Not really, it depends on the list. You can generally get *TWO* 50 point lists for the same price as *one* 40k army, sometimes less depending on the army (a beast heavy Legion army, for instance, will likely cost under $300 for both armies, a Circle list will probably be much closer to the 40k price, but remember you're getting two different armies basically). And those two lists give you a lot more variety to mix and match in Warmachine than in 40k.
No it won't. I will be almost half of that to be precise (between 250$ and 350$).
No way. Ive got about 70 points of Khador (good for mix and match for 50 or so points) A few jacks alone runs you on average 50$ a piece. Ive got 3. That's $150 just in jacks. Iron fange pikemen $100. We are now at $250 and I don't have and supporting units or caster or anything. Id say minimum for a decent 50 point list is $450 plus or so. And really you want to have more than 50 points just for the variety right...
Herzlos wrote: I just had a skim of one such forum and most of the topics appear to be about weapon loadouts and unit choices than what I'd call tactics. The answer to most questions seem to be "take X weapon/Y unit". Tactics are more unit agnostic, like softening them up with a support weapon to pin them down, before assaulting them with fresh infantry (which has no effect in 40K but is devastating in Bolt Action).
I've come to that same observation myself. A lot of what is defined as tactics within the game is laughable to anyone who has a knowledge of actual tactics. Apologies to anyone if that sounds elitist, but I think its the truth.
I wish the rules were more realistically tactical, with elements like covering fire, laying smoke, bonuses for flanking, etc, instead of "Victory goes to he who blasts enemies most efficeiently." I particualarly dislike the prevalent trend of using suicide squads to destroy something worth more points than them, before themselves being destroyed. There should be a geater incentive to keep units alive / greater points bonus for wiping out an enemy unit.
No it won't. I will be almost half of that to be precise (between 250$ and 350$).
No way. Ive got about 70 points of Khador (good for mix and match for 50 or so points) A few jacks alone runs you on average 50$ a piece. Ive got 3. That's $150 just in jacks. Iron fange pikemen $100. We are now at $250 and I don't have and supporting units or caster or anything. Id say minimum for a decent 50 point list is $450 plus or so. And really you want to have more than 50 points just for the variety right...
Again, depends on what you're buying. I've spent a good bit on stuff for my Khador, but it sure as hell feels like I got more out of it than I would on 40k. Also IFP are an exception and not a rule, being the most expensive infantry unit in the game.
I've priced out a 50 point Cygnar list that was like under $250 and would likely perform admirably (it was based on the list that won the IG finals, without the Colossal and with a couple of Jacks), and the recent LCQ winner at Warmachine Weekend used a Legion pair that came to about the same for both of them.
Herzlos wrote: I just had a skim of one such forum and most of the topics appear to be about weapon loadouts and unit choices than what I'd call tactics. The answer to most questions seem to be "take X weapon/Y unit". Tactics are more unit agnostic, like softening them up with a support weapon to pin them down, before assaulting them with fresh infantry (which has no effect in 40K but is devastating in Bolt Action).
I've come to that same observation myself. A lot of what is defined as tactics within the game is laughable to anyone who has a knowledge of actual tactics. Apologies to anyone if that sounds elitist, but I think its the truth.
I wish the rules were more realistically tactical, with elements like covering fire, laying smoke, bonuses for flanking, etc, instead of "Victory goes to he who blasts enemies most efficeiently." I particualarly dislike the prevalent trend of using suicide squads to destroy something worth more points than them, before themselves being destroyed. There should be a geater incentive to keep units alive / greater points bonus for wiping out an enemy unit.
I definitely agree; I've been trying to do a series of linked games where casualties count, in order to spice it up a bit and provide some incentive to not have all your troops wiped out to gain victory.
Or at least do something so that running across the open into a gunline is actually dangerous (maybe drop the snap-fire, give +1 to hit (they are running right at you) and no cover saves). Assaulting infantry should be a gritty last resort, and only once you've softened them up first. It's pretty fatal in Flames Of War and Bolt Action, but both have mechanisms for pinning your opponents before charging at them.
No it won't. I will be almost half of that to be precise (between 250$ and 350$).
No way. Ive got about 70 points of Khador (good for mix and match for 50 or so points) A few jacks alone runs you on average 50$ a piece. Ive got 3. That's $150 just in jacks. Iron fange pikemen $100. We are now at $250 and I don't have and supporting units or caster or anything. Id say minimum for a decent 50 point list is $450 plus or so. And really you want to have more than 50 points just for the variety right...
So 50 pts have now magically became 70pts? And when those still fall bellow you'll move on to two armies of WMH vs one army of 40k as is usual with these posts?
There are 2 Khador heavy warjacks that cost $50+ Beast 09 and the Behemoth, every other warjack in Khador costs $35. You say you got 3? That makes it 32 points of your army right there.
A full unit of Iron Fang Pikemen + UA costs $100 (and is probably the most expensive infantry unit in the game in terms of actual money), and represents another 10 pts of your army.
So far we have $250 and 42 pts.
Depending on your caster selection you have about 17 more points to spend and another 250$ to go before we reach your $500, have at it.
I definitely would not recommend anyone I know start playing Warhammer 40k or Warhammer. Both games are too confusing, take far, far too long to play, have rules which are too poorly written, and are too expensive, with my concerns in that order. I'd have no problem with GW's prices if they fixed all the other stuff, but they haven't and won't.
I would definitely recommend picking up Space Hulk to anyone who enjoys games.
I would not advise anyone to start GW games. Reasons for this:
1. The game is badly designed and very outdated, Table top games have come a long way since the 80s/90s and GW has just not keept up with the times.
2. You need a lot of miniatures to start playing so a very high buy in cost.
3. GW is slowly going out of style and in a few years time I personaly belive it will be hard to find people playing it.
4. Many people who are still into GW games are Hobbiest first and gamers second.. For those of us that are the other way around, or are 50/50 mix GW just dosen't provide the level of gameplay that we require to keep us interested in the long run..
On another note I personaly think that GW miniatures and Army Concept are top of the line. An army should have coherence, when you look at it. Sadly games like Infinity(corvus Beli) have ZERO coherence everything looks exacly the same you cant tell one thing from the other, Factions are a horrible Mix of diffrent styles. Its just a mess. Malifaux is the same a horrible mess, lets throw one hundread diffrent things together and hope for the best? From a desingers standpoint they need a gakload of work, and as a painter and hobbiest they fall sadly short and lack that extra feel you need to want to start to play either game..
Now with that said the Miniatures from both Malifaux and Infinity are very well made and very well sculpted but the overall Faction design is horrible as nothing fits with one another... Warmachine/hordes from privateer press are a bit better but their armys do suffer in places from the same lack of coherence that GW armies are so good at...
same faction3 picks, and they have nothing in common, first you have these Kinda police anti riot dudes, then lets throw in a wolf, and on the second pick hey lets make them all have kilts and look like scotsman?? WTF is going on? really bad Concept if you ask me.. to many ideas stick to one and make a coherent army that looks cool, instead of mixing anything that pops into your head lolz
This is my main gripp with the Competitors of GW games they have better rules but their design is not on the same level as Warhammer.. If you go and look at a faction from Infinity nothing fits, gak the miniatures are not even painted in the same color sheems within the same Faction, I personaly think this is Mayor FLAW. and if you look at Malifaux, your crew is somwhat the same but there are so many crews and so many diffrent ideas that it just becomes one big mess...
Look at Mantic games Kings of War. The rules are free to download and they encourage people to use any miniature plus its fairly easy to learn and play
zlayer77 wrote: This is my main gripp with the Competitors of GW games they have better rules but their design is not on the same level as Warhammer.. If you go and look at a faction from Infinity nothing fits, gak the miniatures are not even painted in the same color sheems within the same Faction, I personaly think this is Mayor FLAW. and if you look at Malifaux, your crew is somwhat the same but there are so many crews and so many diffrent ideas that it just becomes one big mess...
What on earth are you talking about? Those units looked like different regiments of the same army (which I assume they were). Infinity is meant to be like a special ops team, not Napoleonic-type ranks of guys in the same uniform with only the ponpon (or shoulderpad as the case might be) distinguishing them.
If the cat/wolf looking guys and the highlanders are part of the same faction, they look like two distinct groups within the same organization.
same faction3 picks, and they have nothing in common, first you have these Kinda police anti riot dudes, then lets throw in a wolf, and on the second pick hey lets make them all have kilts and look like scotsman?? WTF is going on? really bad Concept if you ask me.. to many ideas stick to one and make a coherent army that looks cool, instead of mixing anything that pops into your head lolz
That's like having Death Korps guys next to Catachans.
On another note I personaly think that GW miniatures and Army Concept are top of the line. An army should have coherence, when you look at it. Sadly games like Infinity(corvus Beli) have ZERO coherence everything looks exacly the same you cant tell one thing from the other, Factions are a horrible Mix of diffrent styles. Its just a mess. Malifaux is the same a horrible mess, lets throw one hundread diffrent things together and hope for the best? From a desingers standpoint they need a gakload of work, and as a painter and hobbiest they fall sadly short and lack that extra feel you need to want to start to play either game..
I somewhat disagree about Malifaux. Gremlins and Ressers are incredibly cohesive as an entire faction. Neverborn and Guild have a fair amount of unity as well (guards/western and monsters). Arcanists and Outcasts are more all over, but that's to be expected, since they are composed of random elements. But mostly it matters on a crew scale, and you'll generally be taking in-themed models which benefit better from synergy.
same faction3 picks, and they have nothing in common, first you have these Kinda police anti riot dudes, then lets throw in a wolf, and on the second pick hey lets make them all have kilts and look like scotsman?? WTF is going on? really bad Concept if you ask me.. to many ideas stick to one and make a coherent army that looks cool, instead of mixing anything that pops into your head lolz
Well we know you don't know the fluff, or much of Infinity at that. The first pic while the same faction is part of the French sub-faction. The other 2 pics they are SCOTSMAN.
And for the last part of your qoute I bolded, LOL. That is the funnest and kind of the dumbset things every said when comparing any miniature line to GW miniature line.
Eilif wrote: I tend to proxy armies or units that are pretty close to WYSIWYG in terms of size, armor and weaponry though, so counts-as or Alternate Models are applicable as well.
Absolutely. Models communicate information. So while what I would call a proxy might have the wrong weapons or in other ways look drastically different because they're just a temporary stand in to try something in the game out, I have a general expectation that alternative models communicate the game information clearly.
If someone was contemplating starting a GW game, my advice to them would be to try it out either borrowed models (perhaps proxying the army they are interested in) as well as trying out other games. And then if someone still wanted to get into 40k or WFB, I'd still recommend using alternate models if it is appropriate. Even with LOTR, there are appropriate orcs, goblins, trolls, etc., as well as many good miniatures for the humans available elsewhere.
For example, in the mid 90s I used Warzone Blood Berets as my Space Marine scouts and a Vulkan Battlesuit for my dread. They were very chunky 90s designs, but they fight right in with the 2nd edition GW stuff, were armed appropriately and were the right size.
This is my main gripp with the Competitors of GW games they have better rules but their design is not on the same level as Warhammer.. If you go and look at a faction from Infinity nothing fits, gak the miniatures are not even painted in the same color sheems within the same Faction, I personaly think this is Mayor FLAW. and if you look at Malifaux, your crew is somwhat the same but there are so many crews and so many diffrent ideas that it just becomes one big mess...
Comparing a game with organized armies and their respective uniforms, standartized equipment or being one organism to Malifaux is not very appropriate. Hell, the list building in the game is described as "hiring a crew". Taking into account the variety of Malifaux population, the chance that you will end up with unlikely team of rag tag unwilling teammates is very high. But If you want coherency, Malifaux offers that. For example in Neverborn alone you can make the following theme lists- Nephilims, Nightmares, Puppets, Swambeasts, Darkened, Mimics and Woes. All of them with coherent and similar aesthetics (probably not that coherent with Mimics and Woes because of their nature). And if you want , you can mix them. I feel that it is quite thematic that Lilith ,given her connections with Nature itself, would field some Waldgeists (basically treefolk) next to her Nephilim.In Malifaux you don't play armies, you play a group of individuals. I guess that it is pretty much the same in Infinity. It'd s compsrison between apples and oranges
same faction3 picks, and they have nothing in common, first you have these Kinda police anti riot dudes, then lets throw in a wolf, and on the second pick hey lets make them all have kilts and look like scotsman?? WTF is going on? really bad Concept if you ask me.. to many ideas stick to one and make a coherent army that looks cool, instead of mixing anything that pops into your head lolz
Well we know you don't know the fluff, or much of Infinity at that. The first pic while the same faction is part of the French sub-faction. The other 2 pics they are SCOTSMAN.
And for the last part of your qoute I bolded, LOL. That is the funnest and kind of the dumbset things every said when comparing any miniature line to GW miniature line.
Thank you for understanding i know nothing about infinity and that was the point of my post. I know nothing about the game I look at the Faction and it all looks like a mess, Too a person like myself who knows nothing about the game it is off putting. I do not get interested in the game because of the simple reason that the Miniatures do not have a clear coherent design. I would not have brought this up if I did not think that this is a problem for Infinity as a game. The visuals are important and if you can't get people hooked on your miniatures, even when they all have cool poses and look spectacular, you are doing something wrong. Corvus belli miniatures look great "Alone", or in small groups but as soon as you click on the page and see that the hole Faction looks totaly diffrent, and then you click the next faction and you cant even tell the diffrence betwen them and the faction you just looked at you got a serious concept design problem.
I am not alone in this I know alot of people who feel the same way about Infinity.. So the question becomes would infinity get more people playing the game if they got better at concept design or would they get less? My guess is that more people would play their game if the Factions had better concept design. Now compare this to GW, if I come in as A Noob and look at the miniatures it dosen't take me long to figure out what is what, even if I do not have a rulebook... GWs game is crap but their Concept execution is master class compared with corvus belli.
I will say that Malifaux is better in Concept, but they have mixed so many diffrent themes that it all gets a bit too much...
Important to note here is that I am not saying Infinity have Uggly miniatures and I'm not saying they are bad. What I am saying is that they "Fail hard" to deliver a feeling about what the game and the Factions are all about, and this is sadly not good when you try and attract new players to the game...
We can take another example Prodos game who have reboted Warzone, their art direction is spot on, their concept is spot on, Factions are clear and defined.. When i look at the Faction I do not need a rulebook to understand what they are all about... Privateer press also has a much more simple and elegent Faction design and that helped them get me as a customer... I will probably never buy any infinity miniatures because of the design of the Factions etc.. they do not hook me. And I have heard alot of the same arguments from other players "Yes I heard its good but the miniatures all look the same" etc... I only brought this up because I personaly think Game developers need to think long and hard on concept before releasing a game. You have too make the viewer understand by just looking at an army what it is all about.. Infinity Sadly fails in this department big time...
If Corvus Belli ever want to hit the big time and get alot of people playing their game I think they need to hire a competent desinger to Rework their Factions from the ground up. I have seen a trend though that the newer Miniatures are mush more "flashed out", If you look at latest Ariadna
miniatures for example you can clearly see that they have gone back to the drawing board and are now doing them with clear design concept behind it. Corvus Belli is not stupid and I think that we in a few years time will see a much better Faction representation. Because they have to know that is the main weakness of their game..
And to all the others that pointed out stuff, I have never played Infinity I dont own a rulebook I do not know what the game is about and the Miniatures are not helping me to get any sense of what the game is about = BIG PROBLEMS and less Customers.. pure and simple
Corvus belli miniatures look great "Alone", or in small group but as soon as you click on the page and see that the hole Faction looks totaly diffrent, and then you click the next faction and you cant even tell the diffrence betwen them and the faction you just looked at you got a serious concept design problem.
Emphasis mine
Isn't that the point of a skirmish game? Also I never heard that the supposed lack of cohesion in Infinity is a problem, let alone major. And I don't understand the criticism about Malifaux's variety. Nothing is forcing you to make a schizo mess of a crew. Usually different themes of a faction work quite well with themselves and you are encouraged to hire thematic crews.
Corvus belli miniatures look great "Alone", or in small group but as soon as you click on the page and see that the hole Faction looks totaly diffrent, and then you click the next faction and you cant even tell the diffrence betwen them and the faction you just looked at you got a serious concept design problem.
Emphasis mine
Isn't that the point of a skirmish game? Also I never heard that the supposed lack of cohesion in Infinity is a problem, let alone major. And I don't understand the criticism about Malifaux's variety. Nothing is forcing you to make a schizo mess of a crew. Usually different themes of a faction work quite well with themselves and you are encouraged to hire thematic crews.
I hate it.
It looks like the justice league. Cartoony, full of random cartoon characters with lots of odd bits and bobs.
It is the reason those games never took off here despite a few really enthusiastic new comers. None of us doubt the rules are good, but the models are far from good. Quality is there. But they lack wow on the table.
Mostly because of how the game LOOKS... and because the models are pretty expensive for what they are.
This is also the first time I've ever heard that there's lack of cohesion in Infinity. It's like saying the Avengers aren't cool because they're not wearing the same stuff.
When it comes to competent design Infinity is one of the most games out there who really puts thought on what they do. I don't even have to read the fluff if I want to notice it.
i'm also confused: you're saying that the miniatures of the same faction don't look like they go together, and yet at the same time you're also saying that they all look like they come from the same faction? I find that confusing.
Now, those are what Infinity units look together. For me it certainly feels that each unit is different enough from the others but are also part of their faction (except for Combined Army, since they're a mixture of different alien races). Do you still feel the same after looking at those?
And with regards to the OP, my friend actually asked me if he should start playing Warhammer since he wants to play something else other than M:tG. I asked him if clarity of rules and balance are important to him and he said feth yes. I told him that 40k is not the game he's looking for.
Rainbow Dash wrote: Yeah, do what GW does and blatantly steal ideas from popular movies and history
That is true, but I'll presume you know that fact is not exclusive to GW, it applies to almost every modern piece of science fiction - and not just wargaming, -films and novels too. Almost all such works are heavily influenced by either earlier works, or actual events.
It looks like the justice league. Cartoony, full of random cartoon characters with lots of odd bits and bobs.
It is the reason those games never took off here despite a few really enthusiastic new comers. None of us doubt the rules are good, but the models are far from good. Quality is there. But they lack wow on the table.
Mostly because of how the game LOOKS... and because the models are pretty expensive for what they are.
It all comes down to preference. After few years spent in the grim darkness of the far future I appreciate the comic relief and not-that-serious aspect of Malifaux. Similarly, I've been wowed quite a few times by its models and opening a new box is always a little celebration for me. But there is something that is not subjective- the way those models are cut and the superhuman feat of assembling them. It is so hardcore that it brings tear to my eye. No human being should be subjected to such horrific suffering! Wyrd should learn some things from GW
It looks like the justice league. Cartoony, full of random cartoon characters with lots of odd bits and bobs.
It is the reason those games never took off here despite a few really enthusiastic new comers. None of us doubt the rules are good, but the models are far from good. Quality is there. But they lack wow on the table.
Mostly because of how the game LOOKS... and because the models are pretty expensive for what they are.
It all comes down to preference. After few years spent in the grim darkness of the far future I appreciate the comic relief and not-that-serious aspect of Malifaux, Similarly, I've been wowed quite a few times by its models and opening a new box is always a little celebration for me. But there is something that is not subjective- the way those models are cut and the superhuman feat of assembling them. It is so hardcore that it brings tear to my eye= No human being should be subjected to such horrific suffering!
I agree, im no fan of 40k either but to me the other popular sci fi 28mm games arent for me either.
Its a pity as the rules look great. I have noticed though, some video games for sci fi are starting to look a lot like infinity etc. Maybe its just ahead of its time...
We can take another example Pan oceanic vs Nomads vs Aleph I look at the miniatures and I start too think what is this RED VS BLUE vs Whitpurple? I could pick models from all the Three Factions and paint them the same and you would probably not spot the diffrence? are they the same faction?
If I swaped heads/legs/arms and weapons and mixed these miniatures and then painted them all the same I can tell you now you would not know the diffrence(unless you picked the miniature up and gave it close inspection on the board) from a distance on the table if I took the bodies from one faction and changed the heads and weapons to the other faction and painted them in their scheeme you would have hard tome knowing what is what... This is BAD on so many levels its not even funny...
Palbots vs Fastpandas = 4 figures 2 humans and two small droid looking things that kinda look the same. Two diffrent factions but they look to alike.. You might not think this is a problem but as a Designer I feel a crinch.. it is just FAIL CONCEPT.. Defining your Faction and make it Uniqe, that is why you have Factions.. if you dont want Factions in a game dont use it.. But dont do it like this because its just confusing..
I know that Infinity is mostly human factions but you could just swap some heads on the aliens and they would look human also.. then paint them all the same...
Fast converstions that you probably would not even spot if I did them:
1.Body off Intruder with arms and head from Eudros.. I paint him White and purple, You have too really look close to spot the armour diffrence...
2. Body off algucil head and right arm from myrmidon...Paint it white and purple pass it off as Myrmidon
They just look to much the same, its Lazy Concept design..
I know people will probably not agree but if you think really hard before posting(I am not putting Infinity down as a game here) My point is only that making all the Factions this close to one another might not be that good a design decission, when the hole Table Top community is about Moddeling and making your army look unique and special... If the other dude happend to paint the same colours as you chanses are high in an infinity game that you can't even tell them apart on the gaming table...
Sorry for my bad english also not my main language..
That has been what I have been saying all along my english might not be good enough to communicate this good enough.. The Factions all look the same.. "They are not flashed out enough" that has been my standpoint from the begining.. And then I pointed out that they also mix the Factions with alot off diffrent Ideas that dont make any sense... making the cross faction comparision even harder to make... I think that is where we got our signals crossed.. Mixing 5 diffrent styles in all the armies MAKES everything look even worse when you compare Factions and some things in another faction looks like it should have been in your Faction and vice versa... As you can see even trying to explain what is wrong with the design of Infinity is messed upp hahah.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Swastakowey wrote: Thats why the company put them on different bases, to somewhat help the problem you are addressing.
Its really the only way outside of colour to tell who belongs where, since none look cohesive to any faction.
And I personaly think that is Infinitys Mayor Problem.. They need to fix this because it is costing them alot of customers... And I am not a fan of GW. But the one thing they do RIGHT is Army Concept design.. They have nailed that for years now.. And when a new player looks at a game and if he wants to start playing it "Concept Army Design" is the mayor factor if he will start playing or pick another game....
Warzone as I mentioned before have a much better grasp on this.. Privateer press is much better at it and GW is probably the best in the Buissness when it comes to good Army Concept Design to make it all look cohesive whithin said faction...
Wait, so at first you say that from within a faction, they look too different that they look like they belong to the same faction. Then now you're saying that they look too similar?
heartserenade wrote: Wait, so at first you say that from within a faction, they look too different that they look like they belong to the same faction. Then now you're saying that they look too similar?
I have no words.
Ok First off each Faction is a mess, there are like 5-6 diffrent ideas inside each faction... From small Pandas too Wolfs and people in kilts etc... THIS IS BAD
Second In the Next Faction we have the same 5-6 diffrent ideas of what the Faction should be, and because of lazy Posing and the Fact that if you have 9 factions (and they all have 5-6 subfactions within them), You will soon run out of totaly Uniqe concepts, they all soon start to look alot alike betwen Factions... they blend into one another so when you flipp betwen Faction it soons become one giant mess of failed concepts. That both Fail in defining one faction as uniqe and also makes everything look very messed up and lacking any thought or plan behind it.
Example:
Faction 1 the Blue elfs
You have an Elf faction and in this Elf faction you have Wood elfs with bows and knighly elfs in full Armour with Broadswords, and you also have these snow elfs that like to shoot bows but like to run around almost naked. Then you have these Stone men and you also have Tree men to help them fight battles.. then you throw in a Chaos dragon and they also Like to Shoot cannons and use Stempunk technology..
Faction 2 the Red Half elfs
This is a cross Faction of Half elfs, they have a Scouting commpany that like to run in the woods with camocloaks (and have pointy ears), They also have Knights on horses who like to swing big weapons.. And they have these snowmen who collect pelts and fight with clubs.. You have the Gras giants and Snow stone men helping them out to fight.. And they have a big Fire Dragon on their side.. And guess what they also like to shoot with cannons and use steampunk technology
This is how i see the Factions in infinity when I look at them without reading any rules.. It is a mess and everything is jumbled together to make it an EVEN BIGGER MESS with no clear COncepts or art direction..
heartserenade wrote: Wait, so at first you say that from within a faction, they look too different that they look like they belong to the same faction. Then now you're saying that they look too similar?
I have no words.
The factions are a mishmahs of models that dont really fit a design idea, BUT THEN ALSO you have another faction that is the same. Not only do they not mix within their own factions they dont look any different to the other factions UNLESS you paint them and base them differently.
A new player would not be able to tell who belongs where if you mixed them up. But in 40k its clear cut who is who and what belongs where most of the time. There are clear designs for each army that both are cohesive and different to the other factions.
Of course there are exceptions in all cases, but generally you could mix any infinity models together and nobody would bat an eye unless they actually knew about the game.
heartserenade wrote: Wait, so at first you say that from within a faction, they look too different that they look like they belong to the same faction. Then now you're saying that they look too similar?
I have no words.
The factions are a mishmahs of models that dont really fit a design idea, BUT THEN ALSO you have another faction that is the same. Not only do they not mix within their own factions they dont look any different to the other factions UNLESS you paint them and base them differently.
A new player would not be able to tell who belongs where if you mixed them up. But in 40k its clear cut who is who and what belongs where most of the time. There are clear designs for each army that both are cohesive and different to the other factions.
Of course there are exceptions in all cases, but generally you could mix any infinity models together and nobody would bat an eye unless they actually knew about the game.
This is Exactly what I mean.. Thanx. And I know alot of people who feel the same way about infinity and it is stoping them from even trying the game. And I do think the game is really good, so I find it sad that Corvus Belli dropped the ball in the design department...
Okay, I get what you're trying to say. I still don't agree: even when I wasn't playing Infinity I could tell them apart with no problems. Whereas with 40k, what's difference between two separate factions is literally the color of their armor (in which you criticized Infinty early on) or just change some of their bling.
So imagine my confusion on as to why you guys think that 40k is very unique in terms of defining faction design.
Suppose I had a game with perfectly-sculpted accurate models of all the current global Special Forces and SWAT-type paramilitaries: SAS,GSG-9, LAPD SWAT, HK SDU, Spetznaz, etc.
I prime them all in gloss black.
Can a n00b separate them into military v police, and then by nationality?
I really don't see this as a problem in infinity. The factions have enough unifying themes too them and the sub factions have very strong themes. I think this is just a matter of someone who doesn't know the game seeing a bunch of humans in SiFi gear.
Now that itself might be a problem, but given CBs growth over the past 5 years it definitely isn't a problem that's holding them back.
Also, someone mentioned GW didn't steal ideas, everything these days is influenced by what came before it. That's simply wrong in GWs case. GW made models for judge dredd and D&D before they made arbites and greater demons. Nothing about those are inspired by or influenced by, they are direct copies.
jonolikespie wrote: I really don't see this as a problem in infinity. The factions have enough unifying themes too them and the sub factions have very strong themes. I think this is just a matter of someone who doesn't know the game seeing a bunch of humans in SiFi gear.
Now that itself might be a problem, but given CBs growth over the past 5 years it definitely isn't a problem that's holding them back.
Also, someone mentioned GW didn't steal ideas, everything these days is influenced by what came before it. That's simply wrong in GWs case. GW made models for judge dredd and D&D before they made arbites and greater demons. Nothing about those are inspired by or influenced by, they are direct copies.
The main problem is that I personaly feel that the bad design decision are costing them customers who will never even try their game just because of this.. Also feel like they should get some critic for not making it better.... They are still a small company and might still appreciate getting some feedback why people will no buy their game even if the Rules are Solid..
So for those of you who are playing Infinity, why dont you ask around in your local stores and gaming groups why more people do not try Infinity.. Because I gave it a try with my local gaming group and got that the main reason nobody wanted to play it was because of the messed up Concept design of the factions of the game... And as we have seen on these boards those feelings are not an isolated thing... I personaly think that is the mayor obstacle standing in Corvus bellies way to making it really big in the Wargaming community..
heartserenade wrote: Okay, I get what you're trying to say. I still don't agree: even when I wasn't playing Infinity I could tell them apart with no problems. Whereas with 40k, what's difference between two separate factions is literally the color of their armor (in which you criticized Infinty early on) or just change some of their bling.
So imagine my confusion on as to why you guys think that 40k is very unique in terms of defining faction design.
Tau and a guardsmen look very different. But whats more is their tanks look very different BUT also fit the theme of the faction. You have auxiliaries in the tau that are the exception, but largely they all look like a force unpainted or painted. But put a human tank in a tau force and it stand out big time. Clear simple differences that anybody can pick up on. Put a Guardsmen in a Tau squad and it will look out of place. Even 2 similar armies such as eldar and dark eldar cant be mixed as whilst they are similar, they have very different designs that make them noticeably different from each other. even at a glance.
Infinity, the random panda bots and servo bots, you could swap out the lady between the two and it wont make a difference. Neither will stand out among the vast differences that are already present. Nor could one tell it belongs on the other team. I wouldnt know if you took swapped out the pandas and the servo bots either. There is no clear design to show who is fighting for who. I dont even know who is on whos team when I see them unless the players have painted their bases differently etc. This is bad.
If the above all had the same bases and are in the middle of a skirmish fight, could you tell who the teams are at a glance? I couldnt. In fact even with the bases im not sure whats going on there.
See below for a game with clear faction design differences BUT ALSO the same bases.
A new player will in seconds tell the difference. The same cannot be Said to infinity. A big reason why people here dont buy the models and play the game.
I'm gobsmacked to hear this about Infinity. I realize taste is subjective, but...a-buh-whut?
A couple points, valid to my way of thinking-
1. Real soldiers from opposing armies look almost identical, and why wouldn't they? They're humans wearing camo and carrying weapons of similar build. Infinity is(mostly) humanoid with similar sensibilities. If I could spot OPFOR units in my Army days, when the only difference was solid OD green vs my woodland camo, I think I can find my personally painted dollies(all 10 of them) adrift on the vast expanse of a 4' square table. At that realization, all other dollies aren't mine, and must be the opposition.
2. Clothes make the man. A cohesive paint scheme is arguably more unifying than the underlying sculpt.
3. I find 40K repetitive samey, largely due to it's reliance on multiple troops of the same ilk. It's by and large played with a larger model count...maybe a conditioned response here makes individualistic models such as Infinity feel mishmash? I personally prefer the special operator feel to it, but I guess it's a YMMV thing?
4. Corvus Belli is doing things right, at least as far as sculpt quality and game 'vision' goes. I found the models ideal long before even checking out the rules. Many people online seem to think similar.
5. The factions in Infinity do have unifying qualities...a few minutes is all it took for me to find them. Again, maybe it's a conditioned response from playing large company sized games composed of widely disparate races?
6. How is newbie confusion so damning when first viewing a game of Infinity? Unless you make a concentrated effort to confuse them with both opponents using similar/exact paint and bases, etc...I don't get it. Besides, most people have pattern recognition software hardwired into their brains. They can quickly sort out the differences.
Meh. Sorry, but it sounds sorta like looking for excuses to hand wave away a game.
Also sorry...typing this on a tablet currently. This response isn't as coherent and polite as I would wish.
There is meant to be equivalence of units across factions, as they represent future nations rather than vastly different nations, and don't do the 'complete exclusion' thing that 40k has. It's intended that each nation has basic light infantry, medium infantry and heavy infantry along with some of robot drones (Remotes) and large robots (TAGs), but each type has a different aesthetic line.
Factional differences come in to distribution and statistical differences between them, with a few exclusions (e.g. no hackers or TAGs in Ariadna, the low tech faction).
The most unique looking ones will be found within the sectorial (subfaction) of the Combined Army really, starting with the Morat (who are the most similar to the humans, and most straight forward) to the Shavaasti and stranger stuff.
I don't think anyone I've spoken to has ever thought the difference was the reason not to play. A few actually saw some of the identities in the faction and went for them - I know one wanted all the weird stuff and cute stuff in the Bakunin subfaction of Nomads, while another immediately saw the Morat, and one who picked Haqq because their design sensibilities (armour choice, default colour schemes as well) fitted, which he contrasted to my Yu Jing in their bright (I painted most of them yellow) powered armour. For me in particular, the oriental themes in Yu Jing (oriental super-nation) that showed up on the Chinese units and the pop culture stuff of the Japanese (bikes, ninjas)
The reasons people didn't want was high price per individual model, being wary of the Orders mechanic/ARO system of the game rules, but never visual design. In terms of visual, the main complaint was people saying it was 'too anime'.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I would like to add:
There was a problem with the colours being a bit random in the official paint schemes. They HAVE noticed this as a weakness and specifically said that they are colouring new releases down to their sectoral colours. This would mean hints of other colours in some cases, or a completely different scheme in another.
40k does have visual distinction between things, and that has always been one of GWs great strengths (and good designers... in the past), but Infinity isn't trying to be that.
I actually think the problem you are seeing is what many people see with Historicals. Unless you are familiar, the only things separating two real life forces in a game would be the trims and details and the shape of their helmet. (notably Corvus Belli did 15mm historicals before Infinity)
The Infinity example you have has Combined Army and that would be like taking an old Daemonhunter one and having units of Grey Knights + requisitioned Guardsmen + Inquisitor's henchmen against Chaos Marines. The reason why the Combined Army force looks like units from three separate forces put together into one army is because they are.
I play a lot of history games. Notice how in the second world war, all the forces had different silhouettes? This ranges from the uniform and more importantly the helmet. Ideally gear is usually standardized but in practice it gets messy.
But ultimately you can tell on the table top who is who unpainted or not. Even tanks have unique flavours or looks that you can easily tell after a while which tank belongs where.
Its not as clear cut as 40k, but for a table top it should be at least standardized.
Anyone looking at an Indian soldier fighting the Japanese will be able to tell the difference between the 2. Even if they didnt know anything about the conflict. Even if the models are unpainted.
Anybody looking at the Polish defending against a german attack, will see the difference in uniform and know who is fighting who. Even if the models are unpainted.
The list goes on. A lot of infinity models dont even have head gear or standard uniforms. Who is in charge? Who is regulating these soldiers? Whats the standard gun?
I feel sorry for the poor guy in charge of logistics for infinity, thats a lot of ammo, clothing and gear that needs to be drawn from different sources and shipped for resupply.
In my opinion its not the same problem as historic games. Historic games have standardization. Infinity has whatever the designer felt like on the model. With little regard to all the others. Its very much an anime style/GI Joe style (although from limited knowledge even the bad guys have standard uniforms).
Anyway, as someone said, its all subjective. If you like rag tag forces then thats fine. But I know my buddies rather a unified force, either historic of fantasy or 40k.
Have you actually looked at Infinity models? The same factions have the same gun designs. Models of a similar unit have uniforms that you can recognize the difference from other units.
But those are only noticeable because you're familiar with them with historicals.
The helmets and armour parts in Infinity for the most part have unified themes through the whole factions with shapes that differ. The guns are standard over the whole faction (barring revamps like the Nomad ones got). All of those things are there the same as historicals and are not ragtag if you look at the different regiments - you don't see them due to being unfamiliar, but anyone unfamiliar with historicals has an even harder time.
Also bear in mind that all of them are different regiments for different combat types that are put together. A powered armour heavy infantryman is going to look different to a drop-ship trooper who will look different to an infiltrating skirmisher.
I don't know what you mean by anime style either, as in Ghost in the Shell anime series the protagonists wore their grey spec-ops suits when going an op. In Gundam, there are clear differences between the Earth Federation and Zeon side which are uniformed for the forces they are in, with only 'Red Baron' equivalents getting a paintjob and command fin different.
Daba wrote: But those are only noticeable because you're familiar with them with historicals.
The helmets and armour parts in Infinity for the most part have unified themes through the whole factions with shapes that differ. The guns are standard over the whole faction (barring revamps like the Nomad ones got). All of those things are there the same as historicals and are not ragtag if you look at the different regiments - you don't see them due to being unfamiliar, but anyone unfamiliar with historicals has an even harder time.
Also bear in mind that all of them are different regiments for different combat types that are put together. A powered armour heavy infantryman is going to look different to a drop-ship trooper who will look different to an infiltrating skirmisher.
I don't know what you mean by anime style either, as in Ghost in the Shell anime series the protagonists wore their grey spec-ops suits when going an op. In Gundam, there are clear differences between the Earth Federation and Zeon side which are uniformed for the forces they are in, with only 'Red Baron' equivalents getting a paintjob and command fin different.
Maybe you are right and im not familiar with them, but even people who didnt know what D-Day was can tell the difference between my Japanese and Russians.
Maybe its simply because I am not familiar with them. But its still off putting. I wouldnt know where to start judging by all the picture looking I have been doing today.
They have recognised there was some inconsistency, especially with the colour scheme so recent releases will clean that up going forward.
One thing the main site does not do is separate the Secorial armies, who are a LOT more unified looking. It's one problem with the miniatures list, which while handy to see what everything looks like, is listed in release order and all sectorials jumbled up.
When all the Japanese Secorial units are put together, they look a lot more consistent for example, even with weirder entries like the bikes.
Daba wrote: They have recognised there was some inconsistency, especially with the colour scheme so recent releases will clean that up going forward.
One thing the main site does not do is separate the Secorial armies, who are a LOT more unified looking. It's one problem with the miniatures list, which while handy to see what everything looks like, is listed in release order and all sectorials jumbled up.
When all the Japanese Secorial units are put together, they look a lot more consistent for example, even with weirder entries like the bikes.
So in other words the problem is how they are presented which leads to the misconception I may have?
Daba wrote: In Gundam, there are clear differences between the Earth Federation and Zeon side which are uniformed for the forces they are in, with only 'Red Baron' equivalents getting a paintjob and command fin different.
The Red Comet warrants more than mere palette swap!
So in other words the problem is how they are presented which leads to the misconception I may have?
Partially, the model list in release order is very useful as a reference though, but I think some sort of presentation showing Sectorials together would be nice.
The spec-ops does have some element of taking from different regiments as it kind of represents an operation where they have been pulled from it rather than an actual battle (which would have an entire unit of Tiger Soldiers drop in - something that is not in the scope of the game)
You can take a 'vanilla' list which you can mix the different secotrials in the same nations - if you paint them with the same scheme they do have common features though it depends on the nation. Combined Army literally has different alien races so will look the most different, while PanO troops will have different equipment for their field of battle but will be a lot more similar (barring oddballs like Croc Men).
Even in Vanilla, their weapons will be the same (save for the Nomad update and the Yu Jing HMG update), and each will have a similar themes, such as the fins/antennae on PanO helmets or the 'bald' look of the Nomad ones, with a few exceptions (their heavy infantry and robots don't follow that look, and have their own appearance, and some of it is old PanO tech they bought up), and things like the Nomad outfits looking more like sealed void/pilot-suits even on the light infantry compared with PanO or YuJing's more traditional army trousers, as the Nomads are a completely space-borne nation. Yu Jing have a kind of 'padding' on their light infantry trousers unique to them, which only disappears on full armoured heavy infantry, Ninja or the Japanese hammer-pants.
I just can't understand anyone who so boldly claims that any game makes the best, well, anything. All the good games currently available are distinctly different from one another, either through aesthetics or mechanics, or both, yet offer players an enjoyable experience regardless.
Claiming that 40k makes the best anything is not only incorrect on several levels, its painfully ignorant and biased. I much prefer the aesthetics of 40k/BFG, but I love the mechanics of Firestorm Armada as being a simpler, yet equally complex game as BFG.
Anyways, that's why I laugh at people who make such ridiculous, even childish claims that 40k is the bestest that could ever be, ever. Also, my dad can beat up your dad.
Blacksails wrote: I just can't understand anyone who so boldly claims that any game makes the best, well, anything. All the good games currently available are distinctly different from one another, either through aesthetics or mechanics, or both, yet offer players an enjoyable experience regardless.
Claiming that 40k makes the best anything is not only incorrect on several levels, its painfully ignorant and biased. I much prefer the aesthetics of 40k/BFG, but I love the mechanics of Firestorm Armada as being a simpler, yet equally complex game as BFG.
Anyways, that's why I laugh at people who make such ridiculous, even childish claims that 40k is the bestest that could ever be, ever. Also, my dad can beat up your dad.
I agree, variety is key.
Only a sith deals an absolutes. (Ironic statement really).
Blacksails wrote: I just can't understand anyone who so boldly claims that any game makes the best, well, anything. All the good games currently available are distinctly different from one another, either through aesthetics or mechanics, or both, yet offer players an enjoyable experience regardless.
Claiming that 40k makes the best anything is not only incorrect on several levels, its painfully ignorant and biased. I much prefer the aesthetics of 40k/BFG, but I love the mechanics of Firestorm Armada as being a simpler, yet equally complex game as BFG.
Anyways, that's why I laugh at people who make such ridiculous, even childish claims that 40k is the bestest that could ever be, ever. Also, my dad can beat up your dad.
I sometimes think there is a group of the 40k customer base that believes that once they get rid of all players discontent with any aspect of the game/company (aka a huge portion of the base), Tom Kirby will personally reward them all for their faith in the Plastic Emperor of Mankind.
I also agree that 40k has the best looking models/armies. Infinity just looks boring to me. I haven't seen a single model that inspires me to paint it or start playing the game. Warmachine is ok, but I just picked a faction by default (split starter box, friend liked khador) because none of the factions really grabbed me. I spent a week looking through all the models for warmachine and hordes on their site and dididn't see anything that made me think "that's awesome, I HAVE to have that model/army!" Yes, 40k and WFB have some models that aren't spectacular. However, as a whole the models are extremely cool looking. When I show people who don't war game pictures of models from infinity, WMH and 40k, they think infinity looks boring, WMH is "kinda cool" and 40k is "omg that's awesome. It's kinda nerdy but those look so cool. I'll have to come over and watch a game some time". This is basically the universal response from about 15 people I've showed pictures to.
Sadly, this is the only thing 40k has going for it. As mentioned a million times on this forum and every other, the rules are absolutely atrocious. You could sit 1000 monkeys in front of keyboards and they could write a less clunky, more coherent and balanced rule set for 40k. Considering I see the hobby side of it as something I have to do to play the game rather than enjoyment in and of itself, this is a big turn off. The model quality, aesthetics and setting of 40k are top notch. If that's all you're looking for and you have more money than you know what to do with, that's the only way I would advise getting into 40k. If you're actually looking to play a game and not just assemble, paint and display pretty models, go with WMH.
Yeep you are right.. Warmachine/hordes is the superior game and I dont play 40k anymore but i get no OMFG that so cool feeling from them sadly.. And Infinity still looks a mess to me even when people try and explain why they are a mess... I whish both Privateer press and Corvus Belli could make better and cooler armies.. :(
Sadly Infinity looks as you said boring and bland and i get more exited looking at historical games (like WW2 and Napoleon wars), and this is something Corvus belli really need to look into.. Because I think alot of people feel the way we do.. And Infinity is probably a great Sci Fi game with cool rules, but the Factions are just not good enough, from an estetic design point(AKA me getting exited to paint them etc) to warrent a buy in at this point... Someone said they are fixing things and the latest releases looks much better, but it will take some time for them to redo all the old sculpts..
Warzone looks cool though, but I guess I will stick with Warmachine/hordes for the time being..
zlayer77 wrote: Yeep you are right.. Warmachine/hordes is the superior game and I dont play 40k anymore but i get no OMFG that so cool feeling from them sadly.. And Infinity still looks a mess to me even when people try and explain why they are a mess... I whish both Privateer press and Corvus Belli could make better and cooler armies.. :(
Sadly Infinity looks as you said boring and bland and i get more exited looking at historical games (like WW2 and Napoleon wars), and this is something Corvus belli really need to look into.. Because I think alot of people feel the way we do.. And Infinity is probably a great Sci Fi game with cool rules, but the Factions are just not good enough, from an estetic design point(AKA me getting exited to paint them etc) to warrent a buy in at this point... Someone said they are fixing things and the latest releases looks much better, but it will take some time for them to redo all the old sculpts..
Warzone looks cool though, but I guess I will stick with Warmachine/hordes for the time being..
Currently im playing Planetfall and Firestorm from Spartan Games. Honestly its awesome. Its a fleet game (firestorm) and a 10mm ground forces game with the same factions (planetfall). Its great fun.
Soon they are releasing a 28mm version to go with it. So you can have an army of 10mm dudes, have some 28mm dudes and have a matching fleet and play campaigns with your friends and so on.
May be up your alley. Honestly the most fun we have had playing a sci fi game. Pretty cheap too.
40K (and for that matter WHFB) has SOME awesome models.
It also has some fugly as all getout models.
SM armies (ie most of them) frankly leave me yawning as a whole. Not a fan of the bling-crons either, being a veteran of the older book and liking the stark look they had then. Love the DE look, and i still love my Orks..
Infinity, despite having some really nice models, is not my cup of tea aesthetically. Malifaux much the same, though i may get a few to paint.
Warmahordes varies by faction.
LOVE the Circle aesthetic, and like the over-the-top Menoth look. Rhul has a dirty industrial feel i quite like too.
Some of the other factions... not so much
Ironically the game i play most is Necromunda these days, with proxied models from several different ranges (including 40k, WM/H, Reaper... )
40KNobz11 wrote: Infinity models may be nice but I think they are ugly as hell hahaha!! GW makes the best looking models period
I don't have enough palms or faces... someone not on a phone please post the pig that thinks its a Porche.
Im dead serious... I think infinity has decent quality stuff but I hate the look of their models, but to each their own.... GW makes better models and I even like the PP models better (even if they arnt as good of quality). I didn't like the infinity gameplay either. I do however like 40k and warmahordes haha
zlayer77 wrote: I would not advise anyone to start GW games. Reasons for this:
1. The game is badly designed and very outdated, Table top games have come a long way since the 80s/90s and GW has just not keept up with the times.
2. You need a lot of miniatures to start playing so a very high buy in cost.
3. GW is slowly going out of style and in a few years time I personaly belive it will be hard to find people playing it.
4. Many people who are still into GW games are Hobbiest first and gamers second.. For those of us that are the other way around, or are 50/50 mix GW just dosen't provide the level of gameplay that we require to keep us interested in the long run..
On another note I personaly think that GW miniatures and Army Concept are top of the line. An army should have coherence, when you look at it. Sadly games like Infinity(corvus Beli) have ZERO coherence everything looks exacly the same you cant tell one thing from the other, Factions are a horrible Mix of diffrent styles. Its just a mess. Malifaux is the same a horrible mess, lets throw one hundread diffrent things together and hope for the best? From a desingers standpoint they need a gakload of work, and as a painter and hobbiest they fall sadly short and lack that extra feel you need to want to start to play either game..
Now with that said the Miniatures from both Malifaux and Infinity are very well made and very well sculpted but the overall Faction design is horrible as nothing fits with one another... Warmachine/hordes from privateer press are a bit better but their armys do suffer in places from the same lack of coherence that GW armies are so good at...
same faction3 picks, and they have nothing in common, first you have these Kinda police anti riot dudes, then lets throw in a wolf, and on the second pick hey lets make them all have kilts and look like scotsman?? WTF is going on? really bad Concept if you ask me.. to many ideas stick to one and make a coherent army that looks cool, instead of mixing anything that pops into your head lolz
This is my main gripp with the Competitors of GW games they have better rules but their design is not on the same level as Warhammer.. If you go and look at a faction from Infinity nothing fits, gak the miniatures are not even painted in the same color sheems within the same Faction, I personaly think this is Mayor FLAW. and if you look at Malifaux, your crew is somwhat the same but there are so many crews and so many diffrent ideas that it just becomes one big mess...
I agree with your first points strongly the game and I would even argue the setting are way out of date, I would also argue the game scale is completely out their and looks nothing but silly when I see two gamers playing a game with massive titans taking up quarters of the entire gaming table.
However the other half of your argument I very much disagree with. First of all Infinity is a Skrimish game that focuses on your forces representing Spec ops units that are brought in for a certain mission or skirmish with an opposing enemy Special operation unit. They do not need to be uniform as they are not over all standard front line soldiers and the games scale ( which is in a scale that makes sense for using 28mm miniatures unlike "company" sized games which a separate thread should be made about) is about small scale combat not massive forces engaging each other. Spec ops units usually consist of different specialists and you see that in their squad packs.
Faction similarity from what I see tends to be fairly clear, they are all based on a more anime style look and feel and that is why I think I can see your point about their uniformity, but that is more due too the aesthetic than any form of failed art design ( which infinity by far curb stomps GW at example: No silly outdated heroic scale miniatures and have become a standard for what is a quality detailed miniature) . I do not play Infinity personally but their is no doubt that they produce some of thee best miniatures in the market today, and I find beyond doubt that you can tell the differences between the factions, it is not as obvious as 40k by measuring how oversized their shoulder pads and heads are.
Your words show exactly that you are looking at Infinity and skirmish games with the wrong concept with the "to many ideas stick to one and make a coherent army" is the example from what you have said, these games are based on skirmishes not on large scale armies. The games aesthetic gives that style and feel and were yes they could make it so that the factions have a more distinct feel that would however move away from his very anime inspired theme which is their choice too make and why I perfure more gritty north American sci fi like District 9 for example. However mixed races in a force has been done in the past and works very well in conveying a force has a large diversity which is very important for a skirmish game to give players options. It also saves from having to expand a large range of each race in a setting which is cost effective but can also make sense with the fluff of a setting as every race will have their strengths and weaknesses and an army would deploy them in such a fashion, Halo's Covenant are a great example of this.
" On another note I personaly think that GW miniatures and Army Concept are top of the line", I also disagree here, Gw's miniatures for the high majority in my view are a joke when compared to Infinity, Dark lands and many other high quality True scale miniature producers I really don't think their is no argument too this. Their army concept does keep a uniform force , however in a skirmish game would be very boring and lack luster as all the options for units would all look very , very much the same with no interesting variation to shake things up. In a skirmish game you want variation , you want diversity for each faction so that players have as many options as possible to fit their play style and tastes. That is a Skirmish game and to look at a Skirmish game you cannot think in the same scale as a large scale wargame as they do not represent that scale and style of a force.
adamsouza wrote: The only GW game I won't recommend at the moment is Warhammer Fantasy, but that is because I am enamored with Kings Of War as it's replacement.
Ha. I switched from WFB to the 1st Ed BattleLore board game a few years back, and couldn't be happier.
On another note I personaly think that GW miniatures and Army Concept are top of the line. An army should have coherence, when you look at it. Sadly games like Infinity(corvus Beli) have ZERO coherence everything looks exacly the same you cant tell one thing from the other, Factions are a horrible Mix of diffrent styles. Its just a mess. Malifaux is the same a horrible mess, lets throw one hundread diffrent things together and hope for the best? From a desingers standpoint they need a gakload of work, and as a painter and hobbiest they fall sadly short and lack that extra feel you need to want to start to play either game..
I somewhat disagree about Malifaux. Gremlins and Ressers are incredibly cohesive as an entire faction. Neverborn and Guild have a fair amount of unity as well (guards/western and monsters). Arcanists and Outcasts are more all over, but that's to be expected, since they are composed of random elements. But mostly it matters on a crew scale, and you'll generally be taking in-themed models which benefit better from synergy.
Malifaux has some problems with faction unity, but it's mostly to do with scale (like the plastic Gremlins being so much bigger than the metals). I've certainly never seen anything that doesn't quite fit in, but then I read the fluff before buying any figures and expect a chaotic mish-mash of characters.
zlayer77 wrote: same faction3 picks, and they have nothing in common, first you have these Kinda police anti riot dudes, then lets throw in a wolf, and on the second pick hey lets make them all have kilts and look like scotsman?? WTF is going on? really bad Concept if you ask me.. to many ideas stick to one and make a coherent army that looks cool, instead of mixing anything that pops into your head lolz.
I don't really get Ariadna either, but they seem to be one of the most popular factions. I think they are kind of the sci-fi faction for people who don't really like sci-fi (at least the futuristic side), every game has one, in 40k it's probably Guard. There seems to be a lot of excitement lately surrounding upcoming US marine/army type models for Ariadna. I know those are going to really appeal to certain people, like vets and military types. Whether I feel they suit the rest of the background is beside the point, for some people they are obviously the best bit.
Precisely, H.B.M.C. On that note, time for my regularly scheduled 'learn to divorce the minis and the background from the rules' hectoring.
Toofast wrote: The model quality, aesthetics and setting of 40k are top notch. If that's all you're looking for and you have more money than you know what to do with, that's the only way I would advise getting into 40k. If you're actually looking to play a game and not just assemble, paint and display pretty models, go with WMH.
Kajamo wrote: There was a swap meet at a local hobby shop (East coast of USA, near DC). About 40% of what was for sale was 40k. Assembled (some painted) Land Raiders for $15, painted armies ranging from $75 to $500, unpainted or badly painted for a song. It was quite revealing. You could have your choice, Elves, Marines, Guard, Orks, didn't matter. The do one of these every few months, the last one had similar selections and prices.
Kajamo
I dunno if there's much revealing about that aside from some people being either too stupid or too lazy to post their unwanted stuff up on ebay.
Seems to be the same old more or less as far as i can tell. a moderate decline perhaps. but the diehards are still dieharding.
A lot of people choose not to sell stuff on eBay. I'd rather sell at flea markets than eBay, because there's no postage costs and the fees go to charity, it also lets the buyers actually see the items and there's no lost/damaged in post liability. Same with buying; I'd rather buy in person.
None of that has changed, there's just less GW stuff being bought and sold (but more historicals). That could mean that all the folk wanting to get out of GW have already done so, or that the new people coming in only want to buy new, or that the only mini's being bought are new releases. Even 3 years ago anything GW got snapped up, like the 2nd Ed starter set mini's slopped in paint. So it's as if the demand has just disappeared.
postage is cheap because minis are light and small and the buyer pays for it anyways so who cares. disputes - you should be ok unless your packaging sucks or you insist to send stuff to italy. i hate the fees but ebay is still the best place by far to buy or sell minis imo. but if you enjoy getting low balled and ripped off at the flea market, more power to you i suppose. at least you will get exposure on ebay.
even three years ago the prices you would get for badly assembled or painted stuff was still terrible, not a heck of a lot has changed.
Postage in the UK is expensive (at least $5 to send any sized box with any form of tracking), which can be a lot when the figure doesn't sell for much more. You all need to pack the crap out of it because stuff can be pretty fragile.
Sure the buyer pays, but if they are only going to pay $x for it, why settle for ($x - $commission - $postage) when you can sell it for ($x - $comission) without the hassle of having to pack it so well?
3 years ago I got more for badly painted stuff than I get now for NIB stuff.
I advise beginners to look at other games instead of 40k all the time.
At my FLGS, there were a core of us (maybe 14 people, plus me) who would spend time mentoring newbies. This would range from teaching them to play the game, to helping them choose an army, to painting advice, to questions about the fluff. This went on for about 7 years, starting before I got there, maybe in 2007.
We were all long-time players. The reason we did it was to make sure there's a diverse stable of other people to play with. While numbers would change, at one point we had over 140 regulars showing up at least once a month for games on 4 gaming tables. We had to schedule matches a couple weeks in advance to get time at the tables for any night of the week.
Then 7th edition happened. I have griped about it enough and won't go there, but most of the mentors had already been thinking 40k was becoming too expensive and the sudden release of 7th cemented those beliefs. The problem we had with mentoring newbies is that it's too damn expensive to create a single army, much less collect several. One of us is an accountant, and he put the average cost of a new competitive 3,000 point army at $2,800 when you factor in rulebooks, codexes, supplements, models, paints, supplies, transport cases, templates, cards, etc. We were seeing the accelerated release schedule as a cost multiplier that simply increased the need to purchase new models. We felt bad being the ones to get people hooked on plastic crack.
This figure is pretty high compared to the average earnings of under 30 year olds in our area. We saw 2 specific things happening that no one liked. First, kids were buying optimized netlists all the time instead of trying things and learning on their own (hello waveserpent spam). This was a way of maximizing the value of what they spent on 40k more than a WAAC approach to the game. Second, we saw that the people buying 40k were predominantly becoming college educated, white 20 somethings from upper middle class families. Not that I have anything against that particular demographic, but that was a big shift compared to the diversity we enjoyed in our group previously.
I am friends with the owner of the FLGS and still go over there to paint about once a month but it's a very different place. He got rid of a table to make room for more modelling supplies, and RC cars / model trains / scenery are outselling 40k for him right now. People still play games there, but it's never packed and there are nights during the week the store is dead. The community is not gone, but the old timers have shifted their focus to 2nd and 4th edition nights and the people who want to play 7th edition mostly come in on weekends. The last post on our Google Group we had was over a year ago.
While I miss that community, I know this is primarily an issue around economics and times change. GW has every right to set the price for their product in the market and capitalize on it. But even with the owner of the FLGS, the first thing he tells people about 40k is that it is expensive and asks how much they are looking to spend. There are kids who come in with $100 and can't afford to get the rulebook and a small set of paints + models. That's hard.
Infinity is a small scale skirmish game built around more individualistic characters instead of large units of soldiers. The idea that they should all look uniform is absurd. Infinity let's the fluff dictate the models, not visa versa like GW. Whey are there guys running around with panda bots? Take a minute to learn the fluff and you'll find out exactly why.
And Ariadne is made up of a loose coalition of factions that mostly fight themselves. They're far from unified. Again, get educated about the game then come back.
Also, someone mentioned GW didn't steal ideas, everything these days is influenced by what came before it. That's simply wrong in GWs case. GW made models for judge dredd and D&D before they made arbites and greater demons. Nothing about those are inspired by or influenced by, they are direct copies.
I'll agree that the arbitrators (and sentinel walkers for that matter) push the boundaries of copyright infringement. In fact I'm surprised they got away with it, given that companies get sued form much less blatant infringements.
To correct you though, I said I agreed that GW stole / used existing ideas and designs, but are no exceptions in that department. The truth is that themes, concepts and plots have been so extensively explored in modern sci-fi and fantasy that it is next to impossible to come up with something that is truly original.
e.g. I recently had the misfortune to view a squabble between Starcraft and 40k fans, each raging at one another that one was copied from the other. Some of them were genuinely surprised when I informed them that the concept of power armoured soldiers was not invented by either, but actually featured in Robert E. Heinlein's novel Starship Troopers, written in the 50's. And if you trace that concept back far enough to you get the origins of it :medieval knights in full plate, scattering the peasants...
It being so hard to come up with something truly original, often the best that can be aspired to is a good take on a tried and tested theme or plot (e.g. Avatar), or indeed basing something off an existing design. (Starfuries and X-Wings) The area between being influenced by something and copying it is a very grey area.
Toofast wrote:
I also agree that 40k has the best looking models/armies. Infinity just looks boring to me. I haven't seen a single model that inspires me to paint it or start playing the game. Warmachine is ok, but I just picked a faction by default (split starter box, friend liked khador) because none of the factions really grabbed me. I spent a week looking through all the models for warmachine and hordes on their site and dididn't see anything that made me think "that's awesome, I HAVE to have that model/army!" Yes, 40k and WFB have some models that aren't spectacular. However, as a whole the models are extremely cool looking. When I show people who don't war game pictures of models from infinity, WMH and 40k, they think infinity looks boring, WMH is "kinda cool" and 40k is "omg that's awesome. It's kinda nerdy but those look so cool. I'll have to come over and watch a game some time". This is basically the universal response from about 15 people I've showed pictures to.
As a counter point, Infinity looks amazing to me. Honestly, every time I hold an Infinity model in my hands, the design, aesthetic and sheer beauty of their models has inspired me, and instilled in me a sense that I genuinely want to put that extra effort into them, and give them the paint job that they deserve. They’ve earned it. With warmachine, the second I saw doom reavers and assault kommandos I was utterly sold on Khador as my faction, and the second I saw Kromac, Warpwolves and especially tharn, I was utterly sold on my Circle force.
Over here, any time I’ve introduced folks to Infinity, their thoughts echo my own, in that they are stunningly beautiful minis.
Zlayer77:
zlayer77 wrote:
On another note I personaly think that GW miniatures and Army Concept are top of the line. An army should have coherence, when you look at it. Sadly games like Infinity(corvus Beli) have ZERO coherence everything looks exacly the same you cant tell one thing from the other, Factions are a horrible Mix of diffrent styles. Its just a mess. Malifaux is the same a horrible mess, lets throw one hundread diffrent things together and hope for the best? From a desingers standpoint they need a gakload of work, and as a painter and hobbiest they fall sadly short and lack that extra feel you need to want to start to play either game.
And as a counter point, it was that stifling, homogenous and frankly boring design ethos that ultimately turned me off a lot of the stuff in 40k. Half the factions are just power armour. About 90% of the unit options to be look basically the same, backed up with what is essentially the same 44141419 3+ identical profile. Take my beloved Space Wolves from 4th ed. Blood Claws. Space Wolves with power armour, bolt pistols and swords. Grey Hunters. Space Wolves with power armour, bolt pistols and swords. Or bolters. Long Fangs. Space Wolves with power armour, and some other weapons. Space Wolves in power armour in vehicles. Occasional scout and terminator doods, but 90% of what I saw ended up just being a slightly different shade of power armour with very little to separate them out in my mind.
I like the fact that when it comes to my WMH khador, I’ve got heavy cavalry, light cavalry, power armour, heavy infantry, medium infantry light infantry, skirmishers, guerrilla regulars and guerrilla irregulars. Different stats, speeds, armour types, weapon types etc. I like that with Menoth, for example the faction ranges from the Elite plate armoured Templar knights, to the unarmoured militia spearmen, to the zealous fiery mob, to impressed native skirmishers and with the priestly units in tow. All separate, and distinct looks, but it feels like a real army to me with lots of distinct and vibrant elements. The armies of Rome, Xerxes, Darius, Richard the Lionheart, Saladin etc would not have had a homogenous look. They’d have been a patchwork of different tribes, colours, languages, appearance and weapons.
zlayer77 wrote:
same faction3 picks, and they have nothing in common, first you have these Kinda police anti riot dudes, then lets throw in a wolf, and on the second pick hey lets make them all have kilts and look like scotsman?? WTF is going on? really bad Concept if you ask me.. to many ideas stick to one and make a coherent army that looks cool, instead of mixing anything that pops into your head lolz
You’re mixing the French and the Scottish sections of Ariadna up. I can see the differences. A lot of the French units have a more paramilitary/militia vibe, for example the metros and the riot police you listed. Fits the fluff too. The Scottish have kilts, and tartan, and it’s a theme running through the whole faction.
zlayer77 wrote:
This is my main gripp with the Competitors of GW games they have better rules but their design is not on the same level as Warhammer.. If you go and look at a faction from Infinity nothing fits, gak the miniatures are not even painted in the same color sheems within the same Faction, I personaly think this is Mayor FLAW. and if you look at Malifaux, your crew is somwhat the same but there are so many crews and so many diffrent ideas that it just becomes one big mess...
Compare GW cadians to elysian drop troopers to valhallans to vostroyans to catachans to Death Korps. Same story. Only thing similar is the lasgun. I suppose its 40k though, so therefore it gets a free pass, eh?
Furthermore, Infinity is a skirmish game with these supposed “clashing” single models picked from larger formations as part of a specific mission. They’re more like an Inquisitorial Warband. If you “zoom out”, a regiment of Veteran Kazaks will be equipped and look similar amongst themselves, but will be distinct from a regiment of Scot Guards. Which makes sense. These represent the various, and distinct elements of an entire planet. Turn your eyes to one of the planets of the Imperium, and you’ll have exactly the same, with everything from arbites and sororitas to astartes to various, and differently equipped guardsmen regiments and stormtroopers and everything in between fighting alongside each other. Take a collection there, and you’ll see as many “clashing” models as anything from Corvus Belli. Look at Imperial Armour 3 for example. Tallarn regiments, stormtroopers, space marines, cadian armoured, elysian airborne, brimlock dragoon skirmishers, Krieg siege korps (never deployed) and those Sapper units. Quite clashing if you put them all up next to each other.
zlayer77 wrote:
If I swaped heads/legs/arms and weapons and mixed these miniatures and then painted them all the same I can tell you now you would not know the diffrence(unless you picked the miniature up and gave it close inspection on the board) from a distance on the table if I took the bodies from one faction and changed the heads and weapons to the other faction and painted them in their scheeme you would have hard tome knowing what is what... This is BAD on so many levels its not even funny...
Same applies to 40k. Swap the weapons and heads around from Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Space Wolves or Ultramarines, and frankly, there is very little to distinguish them at the end of the day. Its all boring, homogenous power armour. Especially when “you’ve “painted them all the same”. One might have nipples, and the other pelts, and that’s about it. But its 40k, so apparently that’s OK. Or are those minor greebles ok to justify 40k as awesome, but the little things that unify infinity factions along the same lines won’t count because of arbitrary reasons?
Heck, I’ve swapped guardsmen torsos and shoulder pads with my tau bits and no one has ever noticed.
Swastakowey wrote:
A new player would not be able to tell who belongs where if you mixed them up. But in 40k its clear cut who is who and what belongs where most of the time. There are clear designs for each army that both are cohesive and different to the other factions.
Marines all look the same to me. Especially successor chapters. Your “red marines” are Space Wolves? Yeah, ok… I was able to tell apart the distinct faction “looks” in Infinity from the word go.
Swastakowey wrote:
Of course there are exceptions in all cases, but generally you could mix any infinity models together and nobody would bat an eye unless they actually knew about the game.
Same is true for 40k. All those marines look the same to me.
Swastakowey wrote:
I play a lot of history games. Notice how in the second world war, all the forces had different silhouettes? This ranges from the uniform and more importantly the helmet. Ideally gear is usually standardized but in practice it gets messy.
But ultimately you can tell on the table top who is who unpainted or not. Even tanks have unique flavours or looks that you can easily tell after a while which tank belongs where.
Anyone looking at an Indian soldier fighting the Japanese will be able to tell the difference between the 2. Even if they didnt know anything about the conflict. Even if the models are unpainted.
Anybody looking at the Polish defending against a german attack, will see the difference in uniform and know who is fighting who. Even if the models are unpainted.
Nope. You say it yourself: your perception is informed and skewed by the fact that you “play a lot of history games”. You’re familiar with it. Of course you can tell the difference between a german and a brit. Or a Russian and a Pole. Can "anyone"? No, I doubt it. I certainly couldn’t. and certainly not from 4 feet away. Its all just dudes with rifles to me. Tanks are tanks, frankly. Its not as “obvious” as you claim, or would like it to be, im afraid.
And to be fair, if you can tell apart a german from a brit because of a “distinct” helmet, I find it hard to believe you can’t tell apart a Shang Ji from a Teutonic Knight, or a Veteran kazak despite them having har more distinctive “silhouettes”.
Swastakowey wrote:
The list goes on. A lot of infinity models dont even have head gear or standard uniforms. Who is in charge? Who is regulating these soldiers? Whats the standard gun?
I feel sorry for the poor guy in charge of logistics for infinity, thats a lot of ammo, clothing and gear that needs to be drawn from different sources and shipped for resupply.
You mean the reverse sickle mag rifles of Pan-O? the Bullpup shotguns and assault rifles of Yu-Jing? The AK-47ish feel of most Ariadna and Haqq forces? Beyond that, a lot of the uniforms are pretty standard for the “line” forces. Within Ariadna, Look at the American Minuteman, Russian Tankhunter and the French Moblot. Bar the flared trousers on the Minuteman, and a lack of a balaclava, the fatigues and bulletproofs are very similar. Even the Veteran Kazak and Caledonian Mormaer Heavy infantry models follow broadly similar aesthetics (similar to that of, say, Death co, assault marines, honour guard and sanguinary guard as “elite” power armour units). I would further argue that though different, they’re no different than, say kasrkin/stormtroopers and regular cadians. Paint them the same scheme and a lot of them can stand in for each other for a more unifying palate. My Moblots frequently stand in for Minutemen, because they’re essentially the same guys, with the same guns, wearing very similar equipment, minor aesthetics (flares) aside. The paramilitary, irregular (dog soldiers etc) and militia elements (Caledonian volunteer, Metros) are of course looking non standard, but that is how things work in the real world as well. Police look different to regular army, and the elite forces carry themselves in an altogether different manner.
Swastakowey wrote:
In my opinion its not the same problem as historic games. Historic games have standardization. Infinity has whatever the designer felt like on the model. With little regard to all the others. Its very much an anime style/GI Joe style (although from limited knowledge even the bad guys have standard uniforms).
Each of the sub factions has a distinct “look”, but a lot of the sub factions also share similar traits across the “main” factions-often armour plates, weapon types etc. I’ve given the example of the bulletproofs above across the French, American and Russian medium infantry as one. The weapons, likewise are quite standardised.
Swastakowey wrote:
Anyway, as someone said, its all subjective. If you like rag tag forces then thats fine. But I know my buddies rather a unified force, either historic of fantasy or 40k.
It’s a lot less rag tag than you make it out to be though.
Swastakowey wrote:
Maybe you are right and im not familiar with them, but even people who didnt know what D-Day was can tell the difference between my Japanese and Russians.
Can they? This very much falls into the “but I’m familiar with them, so therefore its obvious; how could it not be?!” fallacy.
Yu-Jing power armour is distinct from Pan-O and Nomad Power armour. The japs and scots look very different from each other. A guy wearing a Kilt would look very out of place in a force of Power armoured wearing Pan-O Knights, or a Japanese Sectorial force for example. Etcetera.
Swastakowey wrote:
Tau and a guardsmen look very different. But whats more is their tanks look very different BUT also fit the theme of the faction. You have auxiliaries in the tau that are the exception, but largely they all look like a force unpainted or painted. But put a human tank in a tau force and it stand out big time. Clear simple differences that anybody can pick up on. Put a Guardsmen in a Tau squad and it will look out of place. Even 2 similar armies such as eldar and dark eldar cant be mixed as whilst they are similar, they have very different designs that make them noticeably different from each other. even at a glance.
Infinity, the random panda bots and servo bots, you could swap out the lady between the two and it wont make a difference. Neither will stand out among the vast differences that are already present. Nor could one tell it belongs on the other team. I wouldnt know if you took swapped out the pandas and the servo bots either. There is no clear design to show who is fighting for who. I dont even know who is on whos team when I see them unless the players have painted their bases differently etc. This is bad.
A marine with Space Wolf bits in a Vanilla force wouldn’t stand out to me either. And how about all the different guardsmen ranges? How do you justify the sheer maddening differences between vostroyans, death korps, cadians, elysians, tallarn, mordians, steel legion, catachans etc when all they have that is similar is a lasgun and an aquilla?
Swastakowey wrote:
If the above all had the same bases and are in the middle of a skirmish fight, could you tell who the teams are at a glance? I couldnt. In fact even with the bases im not sure whats going on there.
I can, quite easily.
Swastakowey wrote:
See below for a game with clear faction design differences BUT ALSO the same bases.
A new player will in seconds tell the difference. The same cannot be Said to infinity. A big reason why people here dont buy the models and play the game.
I don’t buy it. Marine vs Marine mirror matches look very samey and boring too. And they make up a huge proportion of what graces the table top.
Toofast wrote:
I also agree that 40k has the best looking models/armies. Infinity just looks boring to me. I haven't seen a single model that inspires me to paint it or start playing the game. Warmachine is ok, but I just picked a faction by default (split starter box, friend liked khador) because none of the factions really grabbed me. I spent a week looking through all the models for warmachine and hordes on their site and dididn't see anything that made me think "that's awesome, I HAVE to have that model/army!" Yes, 40k and WFB have some models that aren't spectacular. However, as a whole the models are extremely cool looking. When I show people who don't war game pictures of models from infinity, WMH and 40k, they think infinity looks boring, WMH is "kinda cool" and 40k is "omg that's awesome. It's kinda nerdy but those look so cool. I'll have to come over and watch a game some time". This is basically the universal response from about 15 people I've showed pictures to.
As a counter point, Infinity looks amazing to me. Honestly, every time I hold an Infinity model in my hands, the design, aesthetic and sheer beauty of their models has inspired me, and instilled in me a sense that I genuinely want to put that extra effort into them, and give them the paint job that they deserve. They’ve earned it. With warmachine, the second I saw doom reavers and assault kommandos I was utterly sold on Khador as my faction, and the second I saw Kromac, Warpwolves and especially tharn, I was utterly sold on my Circle force.
Over here, any time I’ve introduced folks to Infinity, their thoughts echo my own, in that they are stunningly beautiful minis.
Zlayer77:
zlayer77 wrote:
On another note I personaly think that GW miniatures and Army Concept are top of the line. An army should have coherence, when you look at it. Sadly games like Infinity(corvus Beli) have ZERO coherence everything looks exacly the same you cant tell one thing from the other, Factions are a horrible Mix of diffrent styles. Its just a mess. Malifaux is the same a horrible mess, lets throw one hundread diffrent things together and hope for the best? From a desingers standpoint they need a gakload of work, and as a painter and hobbiest they fall sadly short and lack that extra feel you need to want to start to play either game.
And as a counter point, it was that stifling, homogenous and frankly boring design ethos that ultimately turned me off a lot of the stuff in 40k. Half the factions are just power armour. About 90% of the unit options to be look basically the same, backed up with what is essentially the same 44141419 3+ identical profile. Take my beloved Space Wolves from 4th ed. Blood Claws. Space Wolves with power armour, bolt pistols and swords. Grey Hunters. Space Wolves with power armour, bolt pistols and swords. Or bolters. Long Fangs. Space Wolves with power armour, and some other weapons. Space Wolves in power armour in vehicles. Occasional scout and terminator doods, but 90% of what I saw ended up just being a slightly different shade of power armour with very little to separate them out in my mind.
I like the fact that when it comes to my WMH khador, I’ve got heavy cavalry, light cavalry, power armour, heavy infantry, medium infantry light infantry, skirmishers, guerrilla regulars and guerrilla irregulars. Different stats, speeds, armour types, weapon types etc. I like that with Menoth, for example the faction ranges from the Elite plate armoured Templar knights, to the unarmoured militia spearmen, to the zealous fiery mob, to impressed native skirmishers and with the priestly units in tow. All separate, and distinct looks, but it feels like a real army to me with lots of distinct and vibrant elements. The armies of Rome, Xerxes, Darius, Richard the Lionheart, Saladin etc would not have had a homogenous look. They’d have been a patchwork of different tribes, colours, languages, appearance and weapons.
zlayer77 wrote:
same faction3 picks, and they have nothing in common, first you have these Kinda police anti riot dudes, then lets throw in a wolf, and on the second pick hey lets make them all have kilts and look like scotsman?? WTF is going on? really bad Concept if you ask me.. to many ideas stick to one and make a coherent army that looks cool, instead of mixing anything that pops into your head lolz
You’re mixing the French and the Scottish sections of Ariadna up. I can see the differences. A lot of the French units have a more paramilitary/militia vibe, for example the metros and the riot police you listed. Fits the fluff too. The Scottish have kilts, and tartan, and it’s a theme running through the whole faction.
zlayer77 wrote:
This is my main gripp with the Competitors of GW games they have better rules but their design is not on the same level as Warhammer.. If you go and look at a faction from Infinity nothing fits, gak the miniatures are not even painted in the same color sheems within the same Faction, I personaly think this is Mayor FLAW. and if you look at Malifaux, your crew is somwhat the same but there are so many crews and so many diffrent ideas that it just becomes one big mess...
Compare GW cadians to elysian drop troopers to valhallans to vostroyans to catachans to Death Korps. Same story. Only thing similar is the lasgun. I suppose its 40k though, so therefore it gets a free pass, eh?
Furthermore, Infinity is a skirmish game with these supposed “clashing” single models picked from larger formations as part of a specific mission. They’re more like an Inquisitorial Warband. If you “zoom out”, a regiment of Veteran Kazaks will be equipped and look similar amongst themselves, but will be distinct from a regiment of Scot Guards. Which makes sense. These represent the various, and distinct elements of an entire planet. Turn your eyes to one of the planets of the Imperium, and you’ll have exactly the same, with everything from arbites and sororitas to astartes to various, and differently equipped guardsmen regiments and stormtroopers and everything in between fighting alongside each other. Take a collection there, and you’ll see as many “clashing” models as anything from Corvus Belli. Look at Imperial Armour 3 for example. Tallarn regiments, stormtroopers, space marines, cadian armoured, elysian airborne, brimlock dragoon skirmishers, Krieg siege korps (never deployed) and those Sapper units. Quite clashing if you put them all up next to each other.
zlayer77 wrote:
If I swaped heads/legs/arms and weapons and mixed these miniatures and then painted them all the same I can tell you now you would not know the diffrence(unless you picked the miniature up and gave it close inspection on the board) from a distance on the table if I took the bodies from one faction and changed the heads and weapons to the other faction and painted them in their scheeme you would have hard tome knowing what is what... This is BAD on so many levels its not even funny...
Same applies to 40k. Swap the weapons and heads around from Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Space Wolves or Ultramarines, and frankly, there is very little to distinguish them at the end of the day. Its all boring, homogenous power armour. Especially when “you’ve “painted them all the same”. One might have nipples, and the other pelts, and that’s about it. But its 40k, so apparently that’s OK. Or are those minor greebles ok to justify 40k as awesome, but the little things that unify infinity factions along the same lines won’t count because of arbitrary reasons?
Heck, I’ve swapped guardsmen torsos and shoulder pads with my tau bits and no one has ever noticed.
Swastakowey wrote:
A new player would not be able to tell who belongs where if you mixed them up. But in 40k its clear cut who is who and what belongs where most of the time. There are clear designs for each army that both are cohesive and different to the other factions.
Marines all look the same to me. Especially successor chapters. Your “red marines” are Space Wolves? Yeah, ok… I was able to tell apart the distinct faction “looks” in Infinity from the word go.
Of course there are exceptions in all cases, but generally you could mix any infinity models together and nobody would bat an eye unless they actually knew about the game.
Same is true for 40k. All those marines look the same to me.
Swastakowey wrote:
I play a lot of history games. Notice how in the second world war, all the forces had different silhouettes? This ranges from the uniform and more importantly the helmet. Ideally gear is usually standardized but in practice it gets messy.
But ultimately you can tell on the table top who is who unpainted or not. Even tanks have unique flavours or looks that you can easily tell after a while which tank belongs where.
Anyone looking at an Indian soldier fighting the Japanese will be able to tell the difference between the 2. Even if they didnt know anything about the conflict. Even if the models are unpainted.
Anybody looking at the Polish defending against a german attack, will see the difference in uniform and know who is fighting who. Even if the models are unpainted.
Nope. You say it yourself: your perception is informed and skewed by the fact that you “play a lot of history games”. You’re familiar with it. Of course you can tell the difference between a german and a brit. Or a Russian and a Pole. I certainly couldn’t. and certainly not from 4 feet away. Its all just dudes with rifles to me. Tanks are tanks, frankly. Its not as “obvious” as you claim, or would like it to be, im afraid.
And to be fair, if you can tell apart a german from a brit because of a “distinct” helmet, I find it hard to believe you can’t tell apart a Shang Ji from a Teutonic Knight, or a Veteran kazak despite them having har more distinctive “silhouettes”.
Swastakowey wrote:
The list goes on. A lot of infinity models dont even have head gear or standard uniforms. Who is in charge? Who is regulating these soldiers? Whats the standard gun?
I feel sorry for the poor guy in charge of logistics for infinity, thats a lot of ammo, clothing and gear that needs to be drawn from different sources and shipped for resupply.
You mean the reverse sickle mag rifles of Pan-O? the Bullpup shotguns and assault rifles of Yu-Jing? The AK-47ish feel of most Ariadna and Haqq forces? Beyond that, a lot of the uniforms are pretty standard for the “line” forces. Within Ariadna, Look at the American Minuteman, Russian Tankhunter and the French Moblot. Bar the flared trousers on the Minuteman, and a lack of a balaclava, the fatigues and bulletproofs are very similar. Even the Veteran Kazak and Caledonian Mormaer Heavy infantry models follow broadly similar aesthetics (similar to that of, say, Death co, assault marines, honour guard and sanguinary guard as “elite” power armour units). I would further argue that though different, they’re no different than, say kasrkin/stormtroopers and regular cadians. Paint them the same scheme and a lot of them can stand in for each other for a more unifying palate. My Moblots frequently stand in for Minutemen, because they’re essentially the same guys, with the same guns, wearing very similar equipment, minor aesthetics (flares) aside. The paramilitary, irregular (dog soldiers etc) and militia elements (Caledonian volunteer, Metros) are of course looking non standard, but that is how things work in the real world as well. Police look different to regular army, and the elite forces carry themselves in an altogether different manner.
Swastakowey wrote:
In my opinion its not the same problem as historic games. Historic games have standardization. Infinity has whatever the designer felt like on the model. With little regard to all the others. Its very much an anime style/GI Joe style (although from limited knowledge even the bad guys have standard uniforms).
Each of the sub factions has a distinct “look”, but a lot of the sub factions also share similar traits across the “main” factions-often armour plates, weapon types etc. I’ve given the example of the bulletproofs above across the French, American and Russian medium infantry as one. The weapons, likewise are quite standardised.
Swastakowey wrote:
Anyway, as someone said, its all subjective. If you like rag tag forces then thats fine. But I know my buddies rather a unified force, either historic of fantasy or 40k.
It’s a lot less rag tag than you make it out to be though.
Swastakowey wrote:
Maybe you are right and im not familiar with them, but even people who didnt know what D-Day was can tell the difference between my Japanese and Russians.
Can they? This very much falls into the “but I’m familiar with them, so therefore its obvious; how could it not be?!” fallacy.
Yu-Jing power armour is distinct from Pan-O and Nomad Power armour. The japs and scots look very different from each other. A guy wearing a Kilt would look very out of place in a force of Power armoured wearing Pan-O Knights, or a Japanese Sectorial force for example. Etcetera.
Swastakowey wrote:
Tau and a guardsmen look very different. But whats more is their tanks look very different BUT also fit the theme of the faction. You have auxiliaries in the tau that are the exception, but largely they all look like a force unpainted or painted. But put a human tank in a tau force and it stand out big time. Clear simple differences that anybody can pick up on. Put a Guardsmen in a Tau squad and it will look out of place. Even 2 similar armies such as eldar and dark eldar cant be mixed as whilst they are similar, they have very different designs that make them noticeably different from each other. even at a glance.
Infinity, the random panda bots and servo bots, you could swap out the lady between the two and it wont make a difference. Neither will stand out among the vast differences that are already present. Nor could one tell it belongs on the other team. I wouldnt know if you took swapped out the pandas and the servo bots either. There is no clear design to show who is fighting for who. I dont even know who is on whos team when I see them unless the players have painted their bases differently etc. This is bad.
A marine with Space Wolf bits in a Vanilla force wouldn’t stand out to me either. And how about all the different guardsmen ranges? How do you justify the sheer maddening differences between vostroyans, death korps, cadians, elysians, tallarn, mordians, steel legion, catachans etc when all they have that is similar is a lasgun and an aquilla?
Swastakowey wrote:
If the above all had the same bases and are in the middle of a skirmish fight, could you tell who the teams are at a glance? I couldnt. In fact even with the bases im not sure whats going on there.
I can, quite easily.
Swastakowey wrote:
See below for a game with clear faction design differences BUT ALSO the same bases.
A new player will in seconds tell the difference. The same cannot be Said to infinity. A big reason why people here dont buy the models and play the game.
I don’t buy it. Marine vs Marine mirror matches look very samey and boring too. And they make up a huge proportion of what graces the table top.
All of this above pretty much puts this area of the topic at rest, for it is the honest truth, 40k is a very bland setting and their miniature range is fairly bland not what the GW fan boys make it out to be. Thank you for your post it deserves as many Exalts as possible.
So I think this thread can get back to the main topic now , I would never recommend 40k , fantasy and the majority of GW products too anyone, Epic 40k was a dam fine game back when I played it , if you go that root I defiantly recommend looking for alternative miniatures to use as even the ones you can find out their for it are way over priced.
Bloody cracking post their Deadnight, pretty much exactly what I would have liked to say.
It will be interesting to see how the landscape changes over the next ten years, and if Infinity continues to grow how there will be more knowledge of the setting and miniature ranges. I think a lot of wargamers who have come into it through GW games are comfortable with the setting because they have playing games, reading black library novels etc. for so long. It's not a luxury that a lot of other game universes, such as Infinity, have been able to benefit from. Although that will change in time, and we will eventually see less and less of the posts such as that written by zlayer77.
40k will always be my first love and I will probably play it until my future wife forces me to stop. With that said, unless you are willing to literally scour the internet for absurdly good deals on armies and the such, I would never recommend anyone picking it up from square one. Its entirely too cost prohibitive. I love the models (yes Imperials are pretty samey, but I truly find the other factions beautiful in their own ways) and the lore is great fun to read.
With that said I just recently started playing infinity and would absolutely recommend that to a newcomer both for its cost effectiveness and ruleset. The models dont tweak my sci-fi nerve as much, but they are still very good looking and are more... realistic i guess?
Aesthetics are something we cant/shouldnt argue here, because its personal. What we can make valid point on are -Cost (initial and long term) and -Rules as these are the only things that have no real opinion attached to them. 40k misses the mark on both those fronts. This aint '95 when i first picked up the game, there are MANY other options now and most of them are just plain better.
As an aside- Mordheim is still one of my favorite games... had an absolute blast with it the short time I got to play.
What faction does this model belong to? I'm soo confused!
No other game we've talked about has models that are mostly interchangeable with almost half of the "factions" in the game. You just paint them a different color and they belong to another faction.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: Point proven... It's a Librarian. Guess the design is too shallow to be able to tell without paint.
That's because you put it together from bits that were never meant to make a librarian. I'd have no trouble telling a metal (or recent plastic) librarian from other marines.
Arguing that all SM chapters are alike is like arguing that PanOceania and all its sectorials look too similar - it'd be odd if they didn't. They're subfactions of a larger faction called space marines, after all.
Cambonimachine wrote: 40k will always be my first love and I will probably play it until my future wife forces me to stop. With that said, unless you are willing to literally scour the internet for absurdly good deals on armies and the such, I would never recommend anyone picking it up from square one. Its entirely too cost prohibitive. I love the models (yes Imperials are pretty samey, but I truly find the other factions beautiful in their own ways) and the lore is great fun to read.
With that said I just recently started playing infinity and would absolutely recommend that to a newcomer both for its cost effectiveness and ruleset. The models dont tweak my sci-fi nerve as much, but they are still very good looking and are more... realistic i guess?
Aesthetics are something we cant/shouldnt argue here, because its personal. What we can make valid point on are -Cost (initial and long term) and -Rules as these are the only things that have no real opinion attached to them. 40k misses the mark on both those fronts. This aint '95 when i first picked up the game, there are MANY other options now and most of them are just plain better.
As an aside- Mordheim is still one of my favorite games... had an absolute blast with it the short time I got to play.
As a new beginner, I think I can chime in here. I played 40k over 15 years ago when I was a young teen, and loved it. Years passed and real life got in the way. I met a friend and we play board games and mini games every week. We got hooked on dust tactics for a while, and I started playing battlefield, the tabletop variant, and loved it. I soon had the draw to go back to playing 40k. I paid the insane price for the full rulebook and started reading. I was given a DV set as a gift, and had a blast painting the models and had a few starter games. We played 2 games with the starter armies, and man, it got really boring checking the rules every 2 minutes. And the way the book is written, it will say this rule on page 15, but then counteract it on page 132, it was really annoying. But my love for the models pushed on. I began pricing out a chaos army.
It doesnt look so bad when you have a webstore and are browsing, But I went to my local gamestore and went to pick up some models. Now, I always pay with cash, as being retired I have a budget, and its much easier to see how much your spending with cash then a card. So I grab a hellbrute model, which I had a blast painting the DV one, and wanted another in my army. I then saw the 50+ dollar price tag. Now, going to the store I knew the price and it didn't bother me too much, but holding the box in my hand, I couldn't justify paying that money for this one box. Now, if the rules were a bit more streamlined, I may have bit the bullet. I did have fun playing when I did, but it would be too long before I could hang with the big boys and memorize most of the rules.
Fast forward a few days, I discovered Kings of War from this forum. I downloaded the rules (FREE!) and proxied an army. By turn 3 of our first game we had the rules down, with very few rule checks. After this game I bought the 2 player starter set for me and the gf, for less than 50 bucks online. For the price of a hellbrute, I was able to buy 2 armys to start playing right away. I have since finished painting my undead army and am looking to add to it. With $100, I can have a huge army to play with. Basically, for a few dollars more than the 40k rulebook, I can have a very large army to play with in KOW.
Do the KOW minis hold a candle to 40k? Hell no, but on the tabletop ill be damned if I care. Another friend of mine just started getting in to the hobby last week, and asked about 40k, because he said its all over the internet when he searched for games of this type. I played a dv game of 40k, then a game of KOW with him in the same day, and he went and backed the KS for KOW.
SlaveToDorkness wrote:Point proven... It's a Librarian. Guess the design is too shallow to be able to tell without paint.
-DE- wrote:That's because you put it together from bits that were never meant to make a librarian. I'd have no trouble telling a metal (or recent plastic) librarian from other marines.
Well, it's been quite a while since I was a fan of 40K, and quite a while since I paid much attention to the paraphernalia of space marines, let alone librarians; so I dunno whether to be smug or ashamed of the fact I recognised the model's psychic hood after a couple of seconds.
Might say something about the officialism vs. creativity of GW fans, I dunno...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
XvReaperXv wrote: Do the KOW minis hold a candle to 40k? Hell no, but on the tabletop ill be damned if I care.
I'd be first in the queue at Mantic's whiny net poster complaints desk regarding their mini quality, but yes: when you factor in the price of those minis and quality of the rules (Not to mention the much more relaxed proxy guidelines ), it begins to balance out fairly well.
XvReaperXv wrote: As a new beginner, I think I can chime in here. I played 40k over 15 years ago when I was a young teen, and loved it.
I was given a DV set as a gift, and had a blast painting the models and had a few starter games. We played 2 games with the starter armies, and man, it got really boring checking the rules every 2 minutes. And the way the book is written, it will say this rule on page 15, but then counteract it on page 132, it was really annoying. But my love for the models pushed on. I began pricing out a chaos army.
It doesnt look so bad when you have a webstore and are browsing, But I went to my local gamestore and went to pick up some models. Now, I always pay with cash, as being retired I have a budget, and its much easier to see how much your spending with cash then a card. So I grab a hellbrute model, which I had a blast painting the DV one, and wanted another in my army. I then saw the 50+ dollar price tag. Now, going to the store I knew the price and it didn't bother me too much, but holding the box in my hand, I couldn't justify paying that money for this one box. Now, if the rules were a bit more streamlined, I may have bit the bullet. I did have fun playing when I did, but it would be too long before I could hang with the big boys and memorize most of the rules.
Hi! I don't know you personally, but I do know you, because I'm of a very similar mind. I'm going to give you a word of advice, because I think it will help you tremendously: eBay.
That's my one word to you.
What I mean by that is to go to eBay and buy a couple 3rd Edition Rulebooks.
They should be dirt cheap, and they will have army lists along with the most streamlined version of the rules ever written for 40k. You can map just about any DV model into those rulebook lists, Chaos or Dark Angels, and have a blast just playing. Simple and easy to memorize, and pretty well-balanced.
Now, granted, there is fancier stuff out there now (Flyers, Titans), but you don't really need to worry about that stuff. You can always house rule them or adapt them backward.
As a fixed game, you could do far worse than rolling back the clock to a much simpler game with far less rules overhead to keep track of.
Bottle wrote: I would recommend both Dark Vengence and Island of Blood as great starter sets into wargaming. The only thing missing is terrain. Some rocks or ruins printed on card can quickly solve that.
In the case of Isle of Blood I would recommend getting the box, then downloading the free Kings of War rules.
Miniatures wise, the High Elves in the IoB box are pretty decent, and if you can find somebody that wants the gods awful Skaven that share the box with them then split the box.
Kings of War is a better game, but since the rules are free then getting them and Isle of Blood is a simple choice.
XvReaperXv wrote: As a new beginner, I think I can chime in here. I played 40k over 15 years ago when I was a young teen, and loved it.
I was given a DV set as a gift, and had a blast painting the models and had a few starter games. We played 2 games with the starter armies, and man, it got really boring checking the rules every 2 minutes. And the way the book is written, it will say this rule on page 15, but then counteract it on page 132, it was really annoying. But my love for the models pushed on. I began pricing out a chaos army.
It doesnt look so bad when you have a webstore and are browsing, But I went to my local gamestore and went to pick up some models. Now, I always pay with cash, as being retired I have a budget, and its much easier to see how much your spending with cash then a card. So I grab a hellbrute model, which I had a blast painting the DV one, and wanted another in my army. I then saw the 50+ dollar price tag. Now, going to the store I knew the price and it didn't bother me too much, but holding the box in my hand, I couldn't justify paying that money for this one box. Now, if the rules were a bit more streamlined, I may have bit the bullet. I did have fun playing when I did, but it would be too long before I could hang with the big boys and memorize most of the rules.
Hi! I don't know you personally, but I do know you, because I'm of a very similar mind. I'm going to give you a word of advice, because I think it will help you tremendously: eBay.
That's my one word to you.
What I mean by that is to go to eBay and buy a couple 3rd Edition Rulebooks.
They should be dirt cheap, and they will have army lists along with the most streamlined version of the rules ever written for 40k. You can map just about any DV model into those rulebook lists, Chaos or Dark Angels, and have a blast just playing. Simple and easy to memorize, and pretty well-balanced.
Now, granted, there is fancier stuff out there now (Flyers, Titans), but you don't really need to worry about that stuff. You can always house rule them or adapt them backward.
As a fixed game, you could do far worse than rolling back the clock to a much simpler game with far less rules overhead to keep track of.
Gonna chime in here -
I love Kings of War. It has become my game of choice for fantasy wargaming.
But I also have to agree that rolling back to third edition WH40K is a good choice as well.
I really have not liked the ever increasing random factor that has crept into 40K since then - and one of the reasons that I like third edition is that it has less random silliness than second edition had.
I felt that it was a better wargame.
Sadly, I have sold off most of my 40K collection, but I still use most of my Warhammer Fantasy stuff - just not for Warhammer.
As a counter point, Infinity looks amazing to me......
My point has always been that you should not have to Write an Essay to convince people to buy into a game..
Take my local gaming group for example (a dussin people), we are all X 40k and WHF players.. Nobody had to convince anny of us to start GW games back in the day the miniatures looks fething Awsome, and that got us to start reading the lore and that was also Awsome = we where hooked
We left GW games back in 2010-2011 because of the rules, and we looked at diffrent games the one that popped out first was Warmachine/Hordes, why? because the miniatures looked decent enough and some were even kinda cool..
Now we have the Infinity problem, they dont Jump out at you, Most people I have talked to (even people playing the game), dont think the miniatures is the main selling point of the game.. Warmachine/hordes, Warzone, Malifaux are all Skrimish games but they manages to atleast mix up the aesthetics of their games a bit from Faction to Faction...
I personaly think Corvus belli just need to redesign their Miniatures for the greater good (they have the talent for it, they just need to understand that their game is underpreforming because they have failed to design them correctly. There is alot of lost revenue because of this...
People can argue untill they are blue in the face that they are tired of 40k aesthetics. But the thing is that it is the game that got most of us hooked on the hobby.. So at some point even the laudest anti GW advocate has to take a long hard look at himself and come to the understanding that One of the mayor things that made GW so big was their Miniatures.
I want the smaller Games to succeed and someone needs to tell Corvus Belli that they need to change their miniature lines, Because if they dont they will remain a small alternative game and never hit it big... this is just fact there are not enough Militarary/vets and Anime fans too suport the line if it wants to hit it big.. Those fans will still remain with the game if they made 1 faction look like Modern Army soldiers..
One more thing the reason so many people like Ariadna(someone posted they are one of the more popular Factions). Is that it is one of the better designed factions, For example if I was going to pick any Faction in infinity to play it would be Ariadna, they have the clearest design with the Kilts and wolfs to make it stand out from the rest of the rabble...
What is important to understand is that Design, same as art has rules, there are dos and donts.. advertising has known this for years. If you look at Car design, Clothing design or Hell just look att Coca Cola... You need to understand Design to make good miniatures. Sculpting Talent alone wont help you, you need a good designer that know what they are doing.. Corvus Belli have good Sculpters and painters but they seem to lack Designers... Because anybody with any schooling in arts and design would have told these dudes NO NO we cant do it like this it will hurt our sales, 7+ identical Factions is BAD idea Period... This is very sad and it is holding them back from really breaking into the mainstream of Table top gaming...
Board and table top games hit 700m last year and the top sellers in the US where:
: Warhammer 40k Games Workshop
2: Star Wars X-Wing Miniatures
Fantasy Flight Games
3: Warmachine
Privateer Press
4: Star Trek Attack Wing
WizKids/NECA
5: Hordes
Privateer Press
What do these 5 games have in common? Really good art design... Even if Warmachine/hordes might be the worst they are still way above all the other competion in the market..
Good art Design, Good Concepts = Good sales...
And to Corvus Belli Start Making big Monsters.. And put Big armour on one of your factions NOW because we want to play your game but your miniatures are so bland that We do not GO WOW I must have this NOW!! Good rules are nice but It would also be Cool if you made some gak that most of us, No the Minority, wanted to paint and play with hehe
Automatically Appended Next Post:
One more thing ask yourself this Do you think Coca Cola would change their Bottle design if they found out that people dont like to look of them? and that reason kept those people from buying the product?
If more people would buy a SCI FI miniatures game if it had BIG monsters and Cool Armoured Soldiers, and even a faction with Spec OPS( I think spec ops are cool just not 7+ Faction with them, one or two will be enough to get people who like it to get that Faction)..
Corvus belli needs to "SELL OUT", nobody rewards them for lost sales.. All bussnisses want to/need to sell more... People are starved for a good SCI FI game to play at 25mm... Do not let some new Kickstarter come and pull the rugg out from under you, Because it is just a mather of time before Mantic or some other company comes out with a game that more people find pleasing.. And guess what your so called "loyal customers", will jump ship faster then Rats on a sinking ship if this happens..
Although it sounds weird asking this, what stands out as not standing out? It was seeing the bikes, giant robots and day-glow ninjas that got me interested.
Most people I've talked to about it have always said the miniatures looked amazing for the most part, with high individual price per miniature being the put-off.
I think Nomads and ALEPH seem the most popular overall, at a guess.
@zlayer 25%+ growth year after year and nearly 75% growth last year for CB, says your wrong. CB don't needs and likely don't want the "wow, look at all the oversized extras (pad, weapons, ext.) are on the model, it's the best" crowd.
plastictrees wrote: I've rarely read someone speak on a topic that they are so poorly informed on, and I've been on the internet for a while.
But I want to play Infinity but the Miniatures are stopping me from getting anyone interested in the game.. Is this so damn hard to understand? You have to serch long and hard to find anyone willing to give it shoot.. And the answer I keep getting from people are " The miniatures just dont do it for me, they look bland jada jada"
This is not acceptable, and dont give me the bull about diffrent folks diffrent strokes etc... It is not good when alot of people are opting out of buying your products because they "dont do it for them".. coca cola would not accept this! and corvus Belli should not either. And it is high time they did something about it...
The whole point of Diffrent Factions is to broaden your potential customer base.. Making all your gak looks the same is a horrible aproche to table top gaming pure and simple...
We WANT TO PLAY INFINITY but the design is stopping us.. that is lost revenue for Corvus belli.. That could get fix by "selling out" if they designed some gak that appeals to more people...
It is not a BAD thing to broaden the appeal of your product line it is just good Buissness...
Miniatures wise, the High Elves in the IoB box are pretty decent, and if you can find somebody that wants the gods awful Skaven that share the box with them then split the box.
I say, you cad.
Many complaints can be laid at GW's feet and I'd join in with most of them, but Seb Perbett took that pukeworthy model range, gave it a makeover, and dragged it from the bottom of the cesspit to the heights. Worst thing about it is that odds and ends like some weapons teams, various runners, and globadiers are still old, hideous, and even more ridiculously priced than GW's norm, and the IoB rat ogres haven't made it to the 'mainstream' range yet.
Although it sounds weird asking this, what stands out as not standing out? It was seeing the bikes, giant robots and day-glow ninjas that got me interested.
Most people I've talked to about it have always said the miniatures looked amazing for the most part, with high individual price per miniature being the put-off.
I think Nomads and ALEPH seem the most popular overall, at a guess.
The game is good and that has helped them to grow.. but to get even more people into the game they need to change up the miniatures more... Because even if you have not come across them, there are alot of us who do not like the Art design.. and think it is a design mess
And if they threw in Big monsters and, Flashed out the Factions better would you Dudes stop playing the game? if your beloved spec ops where still there but maybe limited to say half the factions? I think NOT.. and then the people like me who like big monsters could also get into the FUN....
Ps: Big Monsters are also totaly in line with "anime" style if they are going for that... so it would not break the lore.. But more BIG STUFF, I do like the Big things in infinity but there is just not enough of it.. and It would not hurt to FIX that alien faction that mostly look human (accept that cool sniper that looks like its crawling on the ground)... more diversity would not hurt the game that is one of the points I am trying to make here.. Flash out the Factions, and make them more unique and even more people will start playing...
Noir wrote: @zlayer 25%+ growth year after year and nearly 75% growth last year for CB, says your wrong. CB don't needs and likely don't want the "wow, look at all the oversized extras (pad, weapons, ext.) are on the model, it's the best" crowd.
So successful that they just discontinued their historical ranges (how many of you knew CB sold historical minis?) to concentrate on it, and scuppered my plans for 15mm GoT. Thanks a bunch, Corvus Belli.
(In seriousness, that makes up my mind for me to go with Perry HYW, no huge loss, but smacks a bit of the Specialist Games abandonment...)
But I want to play Infinity but the Miniatures are stopping me from getting anyone interested in the game.. Is this so damn hard to understand? You have to serch long and hard to find anyone willing to give it shoot.. And the answer I keep getting from people are " The miniatures just dont do it for me, they look bland jada jada"
Speaking selfishly: Good. Sci-fi/fantasy gaming could use a touch less 40K/WoW/Xbox awesomebro mentality. I'm not opposed to big monsters, in fact I'm something of a fanboy, but I don't think any given setting would be automatically improved or deepened with the thought "dese puny humans are borin'! I know what this thing needs - 'uge monstars wiv gnashy teeth! You can 'ave that idea for free, that 'un's yours, my son..."
In fact I'd strip out the kilty werewolves and big robots if I could. But one thing that attracts me towards Infinity, even without dipping my toe yet, is that the game doesn't hinge on that big flashy stuff it already has. Unlike certain others in the subject of this thread.
There's a lot more customization with Perry miniatures HYW if you add them with WotR, and also it's super cheap. So yeah, if someone wants to play Fantasy I'll just point them to KoW rules (free) and other miniature lines (like Perry if you want human armies, or Mantic for Undead. Heck even GW if they really like the minis).
The game is good and that has helped them to grow.. but to get even more people into the game they need to change up the miniatures more... Because even if you have not come across them, there are alot of us who do not like the Art design.. and think it is a design mess
So basically you're asking them to a) to invest on new design, b) overhaul all of their products and b) piss off their established customer base who likes the art direction? Does that sound like a good business plan if what they're doing is making their game grow exponentially larger?
"Hey guys we're doing real good with what we're doing so far! Let's do something else that will piss off our current customers and invest on stuff that we're not sure will fly but whatever!" Truthfully it sounds like something GW would do.
heartserenade wrote: There's a lot more customization with Perry miniatures HYW if you add them with WotR, and also it's super cheap. So yeah, if someone wants to play Fantasy I'll just point them to KoW rules (free) and other miniature lines (like Perry if you want human armies, or Mantic for Undead. Heck even GW if they really like the minis).
The game is good and that has helped them to grow.. but to get even more people into the game they need to change up the miniatures more... Because even if you have not come across them, there are alot of us who do not like the Art design.. and think it is a design mess
So basically you're asking them to a) to invest on new design, b) overhaul all of their products and b) piss off their established customer base who likes the art direction? Does that sound like a good business plan if what they're doing is making their game grow exponentially larger?
"Hey guys we're doing real good with what we're doing so far! Let's do something else that will piss off our current customers and invest on stuff that we're not sure will fly but whatever!" Truthfully it sounds like something GW would do.
But unlike you I dont think the current customer Base would get "pissed off", Many play infinity just because there is nothing better to play...and they want the SCI FI, and they have left 40k because of the rules..
The same goes for Warmachine/hordes the Main reason me and everyone I know play Privateer press games is because of the rules, "And the Miniatures are acceptable", But they do not make me go OMG I must have this because it is so dam cool.. It is more "OMG this thing has these rules I need it to beat my opponent". I buy the miniatures because of the rules its has not because I think it is cool...
Sadly 40k and WHF still make me go OMG that is so cool, and then I have to constrain meself and remind myself the rules suck, and even if the miniatures are aswome it will not be fun to play the game...
This is a hugh diffrence, and My guess is that if GW came out with decent rules many of us would drop whatever stand in game we are playing and go back to playing it... Because the Miniatures are still Awsome... I hate to admit this because I hate GW(because they make Crapy gak rules). But I still want their miniatures...
The game is good and that has helped them to grow.. but to get even more people into the game they need to change up the miniatures more... Because even if you have not come across them, there are alot of us who do not like the Art design.. and think it is a design mess
And if they threw in Big monsters and, Flashed out the Factions better would you Dudes stop playing the game? if your beloved spec ops where still there but maybe limited to say half the factions? I think NOT.. and then the people like me who like big monsters could also get into the FUN....
Ps: Big Monsters are also totaly in line with "anime" style if they are going for that... so it would not break the lore.. But more BIG STUFF, I do like the Big things in infinity but there is just not enough of it.. and It would not hurt to FIX that alien faction that mostly look human (accept that cool sniper that looks like its crawling on the ground)... more diversity would not hurt the game that is one of the points I am trying to make here.. Flash out the Factions, and make them more unique and even more people will start playing...
In terms of mess, what is it you see most? Colour schemes is an obvious point and one they're addressing. It might be in presentation, because if you put all the Japanese sectorial ones together in their colours, they do look unified and you see the links across all of the models like the hakama and shoulder shape on the heavier infantry that run all the way up to the giant robot suit. In the larger Oriental faction they belong to, they share armour shapes and guns, but they start to vary a lot more and the colour clashes.
I wouldn't mind more based on the shape of these though:
But unlike you I dont think the current customer Base would get "pissed off", Many play infinity just because there is nothing better to play...and they want the SCI FI, and they have left 40k because of the rules..
Uh, no. Where did you get that idea? Ask Infinity players and most of them would answer they got hooked because of the models. You can create a separate thread with a poll, if you want. I'm very confident that majority of the players love the models. You know, because I actually read and post on Infinty threads and see that that is what the players like about the game.
And this is me being part of the ACTUAL customer base. You know, the ones who're gonna be pissed if they change Infinity to suit what you want. But you know, whatever.
But unlike you I dont think the current customer Base would get "pissed off", Many play infinity just because there is nothing better to play...and they want the SCI FI, and they have left 40k because of the rules..
Uh, no. Where did you get that idea? Ask Infinity players and most of them would answer they got hooked because of the models. You can create a separate thread with a poll, if you want. I'm very confident that majority of the players love the models. You know, because I actually read and post on Infinty threads and see that that is what the players like about the game.
Well we live across the world from one another, but the people I have asked who play it around here mostly say the same thing " I want to play a SCI FI game and Infinity was the best i could find on the market if I dident want to play 40k"....
And in my closest gaming group about a dussin people nobody wants to give it a shot because they dont like the Faction design..:( I dont like it either but I'm not overjoyed with Privateer press either. My gargantuan looks like he is reaching for an ICE cream cone hehe but I can live with it if the game is good...
But unlike you I dont think the current customer Base would get "pissed off", Many play infinity just because there is nothing better to play...and they want the SCI FI, and they have left 40k because of the rules..
Uh, no. Where did you get that idea? Ask Infinity players and most of them would answer they got hooked because of the models. You can create a separate thread with a poll, if you want. I'm very confident that majority of the players love the models. You know, because I actually read and post on Infinty threads and see that that is what the players like about the game.
And this is me being part of the ACTUAL customer base. You know, the ones who're gonna be pissed if they change Infinity to suit what you want. But you know, whatever.
This infinity player says he got into infinity because of the miniatures and rules, mainly the miniatures.
Whilst I enjoy the 40k fluff and aesthetics I, for one, play Infinity because it's not a 40k wannabe. I've never come across people who complain that the models don't look uniform enough, because at a skirmish scale they often don't (and also don't really need to).
Further, I'd also hate to see them bringing in larger models for the sake of it. There's no need, Infinity isn't that game, and it doesn't need to be.
The game is good and that has helped them to grow.. but to get even more people into the game they need to change up the miniatures more... Because even if you have not come across them, there are alot of us who do not like the Art design.. and think it is a design mess
And if they threw in Big monsters and, Flashed out the Factions better would you Dudes stop playing the game? if your beloved spec ops where still there but maybe limited to say half the factions? I think NOT.. and then the people like me who like big monsters could also get into the FUN....
Ps: Big Monsters are also totaly in line with "anime" style if they are going for that... so it would not break the lore.. But more BIG STUFF, I do like the Big things in infinity but there is just not enough of it.. and It would not hurt to FIX that alien faction that mostly look human (accept that cool sniper that looks like its crawling on the ground)... more diversity would not hurt the game that is one of the points I am trying to make here.. Flash out the Factions, and make them more unique and even more people will start playing...
In terms of mess, what is it you see most? Colour schemes is an obvious point and one they're addressing. It might be in presentation, because if you put all the Japanese sectorial ones together in their colours, they do look unified and you see the links across all of the models like the hakama and shoulder shape on the heavier infantry that run all the way up to the giant robot suit. In the larger Oriental faction they belong to, they share armour shapes and guns, but they start to vary a lot more and the colour clashes.
I wouldn't mind more based on the shape of these though:
The drone ones especially give the impression of a nonhuman, which would be cool to have in larger (TAG) form.
I aggree those shapes are totaly cool, they should have made more of them .. The main thing I'm trying to get accross is that I personaly think Infinity would benefit with a clear Faction design and that if they did that going forward it would not "piss off any current customers", and would probably bring more people into the game..
But unlike you I dont think the current customer Base would get "pissed off", Many play infinity just because there is nothing better to play...and they want the SCI FI, and they have left 40k because of the rules..
Uh, no. Where did you get that idea? Ask Infinity players and most of them would answer they got hooked because of the models. You can create a separate thread with a poll, if you want. I'm very confident that majority of the players love the models. You know, because I actually read and post on Infinty threads and see that that is what the players like about the game.
Well we live across the world from one another,
And actual people who are actually playing the game saying that they love the miniatures in an INTERNATIONAL forum (you know, where anyone with an internet access can post) doesn't make you want to put your opinion into perspective?
Have you asked those people you know who play if they don't like the models themselves?
This is basically what you're doing:
Mcdonalds: Hey guys we sell burgers and fries!
Zlayer: Yeah, that sucks. You should ditch the burgers and fries and sell corned beef instead.
Mcdonalds: But this is what our customers actually want. The ones who buy from us. We're making money out of it.
Zlayer: But me and my friends really like corned beef and we don't like burgers nor fries.
It just seems very weird to me. It's almost as if you're asking them to fix something that isn't even broken (and most likely what makes them actually good) because you personally don't like it.
Akragth wrote: Whilst I enjoy the 40k fluff and aesthetics I, for one, play Infinity because it's not a 40k wannabe. I've never come across people who complain that the models don't look uniform enough, because at a skirmish scale they often don't (and also don't really need to).
Further, I'd also hate to see them bringing in larger models for the sake of it. There's no need, Infinity isn't that game, and it doesn't need to be.
Doesn't need to be is not the same as It must not be hehe
Well I don't want a 40k clone I just want a cleary designed Faction were everything at a galanze seems to FIT...
We can take Star Wars for example the "empire" and the "rebels" both have a clear Faction design...
Making a decent Faction design is not a bad thing, and If you ask around in your local infinity Playing Groups:
Would you stop playing if Corvus Belli stopped mixing alot of diffrent themse in every Factions.. For example if they redesigned the Ariadna Faction (dropped all the French stuff) and focused only on more Wolfs and Kilts, and english looking spec ops, And made a large WOLF on a hughe base that looked super Awsome.. And had for example WOLF riders (as Ariadnas Bikes) would you quit infinity?
Or made that Haqqislam faction more "dessert looking" with Cool desert snakes as pets that could jump out and eat people.. they could even have a dude riding a giant Desert snake. would you quit infinity?
It dosen't take much but changes like that would Flash out the Factions and make them more uniqe and would in my mind help the game alot.. And Who dosen't like big monsters??
according to people on these boards who play infinity and have posted in this thread one of the most popular factions is Ariadna, I do not think it is a coincidence, that it also happens to be one of the more uniqe and better designed factions in the game...
Me and the other people that support CB and Infinity already. Oh, and I don't play Infinity becouse their is nothing better out there. I play Infinity becouse IT IS the BEST game. Plus, thank to Warpath even if GW came out with a rock soild rule set, I still would never go back. They had years to fix the issues, their lose not mine as there are so many better systems out there.
But, really what is the need to use the models made for a game if you aren't going to offical tournaments. Use what you like the looks of and what you like the rules for, why settle and fluff is not tied to rules, either.
zlayer77 wrote: Doesn't need to be is not the same as It must not be hehe
Well I don't want a 40k clone I just want a cleary designed Faction were everything at a galanze seems to FIT...
We can take Star Wars for example the "empire" and the "rebels" both have a clear Faction design...
Making a decent Faction design is not a bad thing, and If you ask around in your local infinity Playing Groups:
Would you stop playing if Corvus Belli stopped mixing alot of diffrent themse in every Factions.. For example if they redesigned the Ariadna Faction (dropped all the French stuff) and focused only on more Wolfs and Kilts, and english looking spec ops, And made a large WOLF on a hughe base that looked super Awsome.. And had for example WOLF riders (as Ariadnas Bikes) would you quit infinity?
Or made that Haqqislam faction more "dessert looking" with Cool desert snakes as pets that could jump out and eat people.. the could even have a dude riding a giant Desert snake. would you quit infinity?
It dosen't take much to get a much but changes like that would Flash out the Factions and make them more uniqe.. And Who dosen't like big monsters??
There's no need for gimmicks like that. The factions aren't a single entity, they're a grouping of several, they do not require a uniformed look because they're not rank and file troops. The factions are identifiable, if you bother to look at them. You seem to confuse your lack of understand/familiarity with a design flaw. Each faction is designed, much as with Malifaux, to primarily use of entity of that faction as your force. Simply looking at the starter sets shows as much. Those subfactions, say the Scots for Ariadna, do look alike. Do the Scots need to look like the French? No, they do not.
Now, you used star wars as your example, please tell me how these two have any sort of cohesion in their appearance:
At a glance they look like entirely different things, too. It's only your familiarity that tells you they're both pictures of rebel troops.
And no, huge monsters wouldn't fit the game. Suggesting they might only appears to show that you have a total lack of comprehension regarding the game.
Zlayer77
No, defenatly no. I would quit.
I do not expect anyone around me to be wanting that from infinity.
If it comes down to it, around here and the other hpgaming community's nomads are one of the more popular factions.
They are unique and deverse and quite irregular in there design and they are stronger for it.
I just can't see your design flaws as presented, it sounds to me more like personal likes and dislikes. Which is ok.
But to change infinity to what you want would be a design failure and certenly lose custermers that like what they are doing now.
I don't want big monsters, and I certenly don't want the design to change for any of the factions I have and play with :0
Those are terrible suggestions. Like, really terrible suggestions. And yes, I think people would quit if you do those.
The French faction is a huge turn on for Ariadna players.
The wolves are actually one of the things that are yes/no/maybe to a lot of Ariadna players. Making them a wolf faction would piss them off. Infinity is not Warmahordes.
Desert snakes? And a dude riding giant desert snake. In a specs op game? Are you fething serious. are you trying to make Haqqislam into Space Wolves, only instead of Space Wolves you get Space Snakes?
You seem to want to make Infinity into a GW-esque game.
zlayer77 wrote: Many play infinity just because there is nothing better to play...and they want the SCI FI, and they have left 40k because of the rules..
Sadly 40k and WHF still make me go OMG that is so cool, and then I have to constrain meself and remind myself the rules suck, and even if the miniatures are aswome it will not be fun to play the game...
This is a hugh diffrence, and My guess is that if GW came out with decent rules many of us would drop whatever stand in game we are playing and go back to playing it... Because the Miniatures are still Awsome... I hate to admit this because I hate GW(because they make Crapy gak rules). But I still want their miniatures...
There's that attitude that keeps popping up to bite me in the arse, that wargaming consists only of partitioned, all-in-one, box set games, or whatever's most visible and 'kewl' right now. How do you know that sci-fi gaming consists of 40K and Infinity, and nothing else? Would it blow your mind to know that you can take your 40K/WFB minis and *gasp* use them with other rules? Would it blow your mind just to know that such compatible rules exist? Have you read this topic...?
Try this. This is not a pipe, this is not the Warhammer world, and this is not S9 AP2 H1.
Akragth wrote: Would you stop playing if Corvus Belli stopped mixing alot of diffrent themse in every Factions.. For example if they redesigned the Ariadna Faction (dropped all the French stuff) and focused only on more Wolfs and Kilts, and english looking spec ops, And made a large WOLF on a hughe base that looked super Awsome.. And had for example WOLF riders (as Ariadnas Bikes) would you quit infinity?
It would sure as hell make me drop my Ariadnas and seriously question wtfCB where doing. Wolf riders are just dumb outside of a fantasy setting where cavalry makes sense and there should not be huge based monsters in a skirmish game. Or monsters at all really. Because, you know, it's a sifi game not space fantasy like 40k.
You're telling us that CB should change everything about their game to suit you. That's simply not going to happen. Infinity is not a game for you, fine, there is nothing wrong with that no game is going to appeal to everyone in the entire market but stop acting like you're idea of fun is somehow going to attract more people than the thousands that have been driving CB through massive growth the last few years who love the game and models for exactly what they are.
zlayer77 wrote:
Would you stop playing if Corvus Belli stopped mixing alot of diffrent themse in every Factions.. For example if they redesigned the Ariadna Faction (dropped all the French stuff) and focused only on more Wolfs and Kilts, and english looking spec ops, And made a large WOLF on a hughe base that looked super Awsome.. And had for example WOLF riders (as Ariadnas Bikes) would you quit infinity?
Or made that Haqqislam faction more "dessert looking" with Cool desert snakes as pets that could jump out and eat people.. they could even have a dude riding a giant Desert snake. would you quit infinity?
Vermis wrote:"dese puny humans are borin'! I know what this thing needs - 'uge monstars wiv gnashy teeth! You can 'ave that idea for free, that 'un's yours, my son..."
Awesome bro!
No wait... What would be better is if they also made all these Haqqislam guys like wear snakeskin all the time, and have like all these snake badges and snake teeth all over their armour, and have some of them turn into snakes 'cos they're all like cursed and deformed and tormented but like in a cool badass Hugh Jackman way, and get rid of that goofy Haqqislam name 'cos nobody would figure out what that means and has like spellin' mistakes with all those Qs anyway and just call them something imaginative and badass like 'Space Snakes', and give them all names like 'Anaconda el-Ophid' and 'Achmed Sidewinder' and 'Cobrafang McMurdervenom' just in case some dummies don't get the connection, and maybe like give one guy a little sled, like a little round flying hoversled that he stands up in like a badass skateboard, but get this, it doesn't just fly by itself, is has to be pulled along by like two giant snake monsters!
The game is good and that has helped them to grow.. but to get even more people into the game they need to change up the miniatures more... Because even if you have not come across them, there are alot of us who do not like the Art design.. and think it is a design mess
And if they threw in Big monsters and, Flashed out the Factions better would you Dudes stop playing the game? if your beloved spec ops where still there but maybe limited to say half the factions? I think NOT.. and then the people like me who like big monsters could also get into the FUN....
Ps: Big Monsters are also totaly in line with "anime" style if they are going for that... so it would not break the lore.. But more BIG STUFF, I do like the Big things in infinity but there is just not enough of it.. and It would not hurt to FIX that alien faction that mostly look human (accept that cool sniper that looks like its crawling on the ground)... more diversity would not hurt the game that is one of the points I am trying to make here.. Flash out the Factions, and make them more unique and even more people will start playing...
There is a quote that fits your argument and it goes like this: "If you change everything that people don't like about a Porsche you end up with a Volkswagen."
Wow. I just... wow. I can understand differences of opinion, and I can understand that no one game can appeal to everyone, but to suggest that Infinity has poor art direction, and that it could be improved by changing to be more like 40K... That's just beyond the pale.
No, this is a brilliant idea!
You could have an Aleph hero riding a ferocious Internet, a Nomad sorcerer riding the abstract concept of non-conformity, the possibilities are really limitless.
Also, they could dump all the subtle carefully designed elements that tie each faction together and make Yu Jing the "everyone has a huge flaming katana" faction, Pan O could be the "enormous shoulder pads with missiles on them" faction. I could go on, but every good designer reading this can see the direction I'm going.
Noir wrote: @zlayer 25%+ growth year after year and nearly 75% growth last year for CB, says your wrong. CB don't needs and likely don't want the "wow, look at all the oversized extras (pad, weapons, ext.) are on the model, it's the best" crowd.
So successful that they just discontinued their historical ranges (how many of you knew CB sold historical minis?) to concentrate on it, and scuppered my plans for 15mm GoT. Thanks a bunch, Corvus Belli.
Stupid question, but is Infinity still about having grunts cheer Superman as he demolishes the enemy?
Or has the game moved to something whereby everybody gets a shot to contribute?
Cheerleading is diminished but still possible. With the 3rd edition coming out it's getting worse as you can isolate certain models types from the order pool with both hackers and em weapons.
It is still an issue, but it's far, far riskier. It also helps to use the amount of terrain shown in the example games and pictures and not overload the table too badly. If you can hide all your cheerleaders and make sure your rambo only can have face to face rolls against one enemy at a time, then that's probably too much terrain.
Noir wrote: @zlayer 25%+ growth year after year and nearly 75% growth last year for CB, says your wrong. CB don't needs and likely don't want the "wow, look at all the oversized extras (pad, weapons, ext.) are on the model, it's the best" crowd.
So successful that they just discontinued their historical ranges (how many of you knew CB sold historical minis?) to concentrate on it, and scuppered my plans for 15mm GoT. Thanks a bunch, Corvus Belli.
Stupid question, but is Infinity still about having grunts cheer Superman as he demolishes the enemy?
Or has the game moved to something whereby everybody gets a shot to contribute?
That is a valid tactic but by no means the only one. It is also a risky tactic if you don't bring a second in command as a 80 point rambo can still take an unlucky crit and fall on a 8 point cheerleader's knife. Also in tourney play tabling your opponent is a draw, you need to go after objectives so you can't OLY have a rambo and cheerleader.
I believe there was an issue with people doing that with TAGs though I've never seen it personally, but 3rd ed is about to hit and removing TAGs from that role and putting them in a mid range fire support role is one of the main changes coming.
Okay, I think the negative comments against zlayer77's ideas on how to "fix" Infinity proves the point that people like the models as they are now and your idea of making them distinct will piss current players off.
plastictrees wrote: I've rarely read someone speak on a topic that they are so poorly informed on, and I've been on the internet for a while.
Completely agree. I don't think there is a single post I have disagreed more with, during the entire time I have been posting on this forum. If Dakka had a 'post rating' system similar to the one implemented by Beasts of War, I think zlayer77 would have something like -400 right now
zlayer77 wrote:
My point has always been that you should not have to Write an Essay to convince people to buy into a game..
Take my local gaming group for example (a dussin people), we are all X 40k and WHF players.. Nobody had to convince anny of us to start GW games back in the day the miniatures looks fething Awsome, and that got us to start reading the lore and that was also Awsome = we where hooked
We left GW games back in 2010-2011 because of the rules, and we looked at diffrent games the one that popped out first was Warmachine/Hordes, why? because the miniatures looked decent enough and some were even kinda cool..
Now we have the Infinity problem, they dont Jump out at you, Most people I have talked to (even people playing the game), dont think the miniatures is the main selling point of the game.. Warmachine/hordes, Warzone, Malifaux are all Skrimish games but they manages to atleast mix up the aesthetics of their games a bit from Faction to Faction...
I personaly think Corvus belli just need to redesign their Miniatures for the greater good (they have the talent for it, they just need to understand that their game is underpreforming because they have failed to design them correctly. There is alot of lost revenue because of this...
.
and yet the Infinity factions do stand out from each other. or are you trying to say the celestial guard and caledonian volunteers are identical? I think folks have demonstrated how, and why the Infinity factions make sense internally, and are representative of a wide range of units that remain consistent both within the subfaction, and across the whole faction. If you cant, or refuse to see it, then i dont know what to say.
Regarding GW games, when we started about ten years ago, you have to understand that (a) we were ten years younger and (b) there really wasnt much else out there, nor was that information readily accessible. the alternative to 40k was WFB for the most part. the aesthetics were OK, but being honest about it, they're also quite one dimensional. A Space Marine is a Space Marine.
Warmachine/Hordes. What got me to throw my hat into the ring and be serious with it was the worldwide beta test at the start of mk2. great minis, awesome fluff and great rules and i've got my game.
you have a smallgroup that doesnt like the aesthetics. thats all well and good, but i know dozens of folks who love the infinity aesthetics. I dont see anything about them "underperforming" anywhere.
zlayer77 wrote:
I want the smaller Games to succeed and someone needs to tell Corvus Belli that they need to change their miniature lines, Because if they dont they will remain a small alternative game and never hit it big... this is just fact there are not enough Militarary/vets and Anime fans too suport the line if it wants to hit it big.. Those fans will still remain with the game if they made 1 faction look like Modern Army soldiers..
One more thing the reason so many people like Ariadna(someone posted they are one of the more popular Factions). Is that it is one of the better designed factions, For example if I was going to pick any Faction in infinity to play it would be Ariadna, they have the clearest design with the Kilts and wolfs to make it stand out from the rest of the rabble...
..
"rabble"? their miniature line is fine. sales and company growth back this up.
So its only military/vets and anime fans that can like them? its a bigger fanbase than that. and fyi, i've got a few mates that love Nomads and Yu-Jing for their aesthetics, and arent bothered about ariadna.
zlayer77 wrote:
What is important to understand is that Design, same as art has rules, there are dos and donts.. advertising has known this for years. If you look at Car design, Clothing design or Hell just look att Coca Cola... You need to understand Design to make good miniatures. Sculpting Talent alone wont help you, you need a good designer that know what they are doing.. Corvus Belli have good Sculpters and painters but they seem to lack Designers... Because anybody with any schooling in arts and design would have told these dudes NO NO we cant do it like this it will hurt our sales, 7+ identical Factions is BAD idea Period... This is very sad and it is holding them back from really breaking into the mainstream of Table top gaming...
.
they're not identical though, so that torpedos your whole argument. Pan-O heavy armour is distinct from Yu-Jing and Nomad. etc. And I'd argue they're already in the mainstream. A lot of people have heard of them, and more and more are buying in. cheap buy in really helps, and CB are very well positioned to be a lot of peoples "game on the side".
A lot of people will tell you quite the opposite, and that in fact, CB are doing it right.
zlayer77 wrote:
And to Corvus Belli Start Making big Monsters.. And put Big armour on one of your factions NOW because we want to play your game but your miniatures are so bland that We do not GO WOW I must have this NOW!! Good rules are nice but It would also be Cool if you made some gak that most of us, No the Minority, wanted to paint and play with hehe
If more people would buy a SCI FI miniatures game if it had BIG monsters and Cool Armoured Soldiers, and even a faction with Spec OPS( I think spec ops are cool just not 7+ Faction with them, one or two will be enough to get people who like it to get that Faction)..
..
Maybe they dont want big monsters? Wanting a faction based around a single idea(ie a SPECIAL FORCES faction) is both silly and short sighted because you end up with boring, and homogenous, and leaves you very little room for expansion, and new ideas. In any case, those Special Forces models were central to their Campaign: Paradiso book.
zlayer77 wrote:
But I want to play Infinity but the Miniatures are stopping me from getting anyone interested in the game.. Is this so damn hard to understand? You have to serch long and hard to find anyone willing to give it shoot.. And the answer I keep getting from people are " The miniatures just dont do it for me, they look bland jada jada"
apparently, yes. i have no problem getting folks to play infinity. from my close friends, half a dozen play. and thats one small group in this city. And i know of a few other groups that are also actively playing.
zlayer77 wrote:
This is not acceptable, and dont give me the bull about diffrent folks diffrent strokes etc... It is not good when alot of people are opting out of buying your products because they "dont do it for them".. coca cola would not accept this! and corvus Belli should not either. And it is high time they did something about it...
different strokes and different folks does count though. yours is not the only opinion that counts. It sounds like youre annoyed that a game is being successful by pushing designs you dont like and you're uncomfortable with that?
their sales figures suggest more and more people are "opting in", rather than "opting out".
zlayer77 wrote:
The whole point of Diffrent Factions is to broaden your potential customer base.. Making all your gak looks the same is a horrible aproche to table top gaming pure and simple...
We WANT TO PLAY INFINITY but the design is stopping us.. that is lost revenue for Corvus belli.. That could get fix by "selling out" if they designed some gak that appeals to more people...
It is not a BAD thing to broaden the appeal of your product line it is just good Buissness...
but they dont look the same.
zlayer77 wrote:
The game is good and that has helped them to grow.. but to get even more people into the game they need to change up the miniatures more... Because even if you have not come across them, there are alot of us who do not like the Art design.. and think it is a design mess
or maybe they would shrug, stick to what they know, and what they obviously like doing, and stick to a proven model that provides year on year growth and increasing sales rather that do a complete about turn because some swede on the internet doesnt like their aesthetics.
zlayer77 wrote:
And if they threw in Big monsters and, Flashed out the Factions better would you Dudes stop playing the game? if your beloved spec ops where still there but maybe limited to say half the factions? I think NOT.. and then the people like me who like big monsters could also get into the FUN....
here you display your lack of knowledge. the whole point was that the Spec Ops were a big part of all the factions, and their third book Operation Paradiso and the Paradiso campaign was based around them. Only having some spec ops for some factions is designing a faction in 40k without heavy support, just for aesthetic differences.
the factions are quite well fleshed out at this point. read the fluff. And Big Monsters wont necessarily make it better.
Here's the thing. Basing the factions around a single idea as you suggest elsewhere is stifling in terms of creativity. Wrapping factions around a single concept and spamming that is not the same as "fleshing things out".
zlayer77 wrote:
Ps: Big Monsters are also totaly in line with "anime" style if they are going for that... so it would not break the lore.. But more BIG STUFF, I do like the Big things in infinity but there is just not enough of it.. and It would not hurt to FIX that alien faction that mostly look human (accept that cool sniper that looks like its crawling on the ground)... more diversity would not hurt the game that is one of the points I am trying to make here.. Flash out the Factions, and make them more unique and even more people will start playing...
Big monsters might be in line with the anime style, but they're completely inappropriate for a small scale skirmish game (which is what Infinity is) based around a special forces team. Leave the monsters for the large battle games, and let them do it. CB is carving out its own niche.
zlayer77 wrote:
But unlike you I dont think the current customer Base would get "pissed off", Many play infinity just because there is nothing better to play...and they want the SCI FI, and they have left 40k because of the rules..
..
I do. And tell me, do you know for a fact that "Many" Infinity players play because "thereis nothing better to play". I, and many of my friends got into it because of the stunning models. the game helps tremendously, but the aesthetics are stunning.
zlayer77 wrote:
The same goes for Warmachine/hordes the Main reason me and everyone I know play Privateer press games is because of the rules, "And the Miniatures are acceptable", But they do not make me go OMG I must have this because it is so dam cool.. It is more "OMG this thing has these rules I need it to beat my opponent". I buy the miniatures because of the rules its has not because I think it is cool...
.
look at the PP boards whenever they put up the previews for new model releases. the line that "the miniatures are acceptable" and a bit of an afterthought is bunk for a lot of players. I look forward to the new shinies.
zlayer77 wrote:
Sadly 40k and WHF still make me go OMG that is so cool, and then I have to constrain meself and remind myself the rules suck, and even if the miniatures are aswome it will not be fun to play the game....
thats... not... what i thought when i saw GWs most recent offerings. Santa Grimnar? Centurions? Murderfang? Orkanaughts are ridiculous. the new Stormtroopers are hideous compared to Kasrkin. the Khorne lawnmower? Etcetera.
zlayer77 wrote:
Well we live across the world from one another, but the people I have asked who play it around here mostly say the same thing " I want to play a SCI FI game and Infinity was the best i could find on the market if I dident want to play 40k"....
And in my closest gaming group about a dussin people nobody wants to give it a shot because they dont like the Faction design..:( I dont like it either but I'm not overjoyed with Privateer press either. My gargantuan looks like he is reaching for an ICE cream cone hehe but I can live with it if the game is good...
a dozen people is a very small sample though. I've got a few dozen here in a small city who do like it. Go figure...
zlayer77 wrote:
Well I don't want a 40k clone I just want a cleary designed Faction were everything at a galanze seems to FIT...
Making a decent Faction design is not a bad thing, and If you ask around in your local infinity Playing Groups:
Would you stop playing if Corvus Belli stopped mixing alot of diffrent themse in every Factions.. For example if they redesigned the Ariadna Faction (dropped all the French stuff) and focused only on more Wolfs and Kilts, and english looking spec ops, And made a large WOLF on a hughe base that looked super Awsome.. And had for example WOLF riders (as Ariadnas Bikes) would you quit infinity?
Or made that Haqqislam faction more "dessert looking" with Cool desert snakes as pets that could jump out and eat people.. they could even have a dude riding a giant Desert snake. would you quit infinity?
It dosen't take much but changes like that would Flash out the Factions and make them more uniqe and would in my mind help the game alot.. And Who dosen't like big monsters??
youd kill the game. you say you dont want a 40k clone but thats precicely what you talk about here. Cb want to appeal to adults, not kids who watch Pokemon.
WHat you call a "clearly designed faction" i call homogenous and boring. Like i said, in terms of creativity, its stifling to base a faction around a single idea eg "everything about this faction is kilts and werewolves".. I know ten year Blood Angels veterans who dropped their new codex like a rock because everything was a "blood"noun with blood fists, blood missiles, blood blades etc. I dropped my Space Wolves for similar reasons, and i know a few others who cant take them seriously anymore. their third ed codex was "Space Marines with a Viking/Wolf flavour". Now their wolf-vikings with a space marine flavour, with everything being a "wolf"noun, "fang"noun and "claw"noun. even their flyers look like wolf heads and then you have the amomination of Grimnar's sled? Its cheesy, silly and childish.
Would i stop playing Infinity if they did that to the game? Boil Ariadna down to a single idea "wolves and kilts", and putting in silly ideas like wolf riders and giant wolves turns a cool faction into a silly kiddies saturday morning cartoon. No thanks.
Turning Haqqislam from the progressive, advanced, philosophical renaissance muslims that echo the glories of Suleiman's Caliphate into a faction boiled down to being a dude riding a giant snake and snakes that eat people is just as silly. christ, thats not even good enough to be a bad silly kiddies saturday morning cartoon.
What you call "fleshing out the factions" isnt actually fleshing them out. It doesnt make them unique so much as it makes them a charicature, and a joke.
Well said. When I got into gw (nearly 20 years ago) they genuinely were the only real option And 10 year old me loved eeverything. Now a lot of gw stuff just looks silly. On the other hand the infinitt range looks stunning. The only reason I don't play yet is because I've got 3 other projects to finish first.
I certainly wouldn't touch a warewolf in kilts army (and I own a kilt), or a snake rider army, or giant monsters. I got out of gw to get away from yhat sort of thing.
I've just got done painting some of my Operation: Icestorm Nomads and I decided to have a look at my old Adeptus Arbites minis on my display shelf...
Now, granted, I haven't looked at them for a good while, but my memory of them was that they were nicely sculpted, pretty well painted, comparatively slim GW humans in armour.
The result? I was gobsmacked. They looked like Cartman in black riot armour compared to the Nomads! Just... no...
I'm so glad that sections of the miniature industry have matured in line with my tastes.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have some old minis that need hiding in a box somewhere.
Just to add to the anecdotal evidence about Infinity aesthetics: After I quit 40К I heavily invested into Dropzone Commander(3400 pts,), Warmachine (110 pts.) and Malifaux (194pts). I am quite happy with them and they cover lots of gaming ground- from small skirmishes to epic mass battles. Although I have painted about 70 models, spread among those three systems, I still have 90 more or so to paint. In other words, I don't need another game and I don't want to add 20 or more models to my horrific backlog. And yet I am drawn to Infinity like a moth to the flame, just because of its beautiful aesthetics and its intriguing factions. And its quite hard not to pull the trigger on the game. I am still resisting the temptation....but .....those models....are......FANTASTIC!
See. it's still anecdotal evidence , but it seems to be adding up in this thread quite fast.
plastictrees wrote: I've rarely read someone speak on a topic that they are so poorly informed on, and I've been on the internet for a while.
Completely agree. I don't think there is a single post I have disagreed more with, during the entire time I have been posting on this forum. If Dakka had a 'post rating' system similar to the one implemented by Beasts of War, I think zlayer77 would have something like -400 right now
Just.. no.
Well you all look to be hooked on the messy Faction design and bland Miniatures... I guess diffrent games pull in diffrent people.. I still say that you dudes who like only bland human faction that mostly look kinda the same are in a miniority. But you do show alot of passion in the defence of Corvus Bellis design on their miniatures..
Sadly that also means many of us will never try Infinity. That is OFC okey with you but if I was the owner of Infinity I would think twice before dissmissing a large portion of the potential customers of my game.. I would probably "sell out" for the greater good of my commpany...
Corvus Belli has in the latest months started to design alot of WOLFs, and more flashed out Miniatures so we will see who is right in the end... But I would not be surprised if we will see more monsters and larger miniatures in the future and a much clearer Faction design. It is just simply good Buissniss for Corvus Belli... And lets face it most of you will still play even if they start designing stuff that appeals to more people...
I think this little debate has run its course to be honest not much more to say...
Corvus Belli has in the latest months started to design alot of WOLFs, and more flashed out Miniatures so we will see who is right in the end... But I would not be surprised if we will see more monsters and larger miniatures in the future and a much clearer Faction design. It is just simply good Buissniss for Corvus Belli... And lets face it most of you will still play even if they start designing stuff that appeals to more people...
The fact you think that shows how little you understand CB, how fast their buisness is growning (without selling out), or what Infinty itself is about. Like I said above CB just doesn't need player like that to grow Infinity it is doing better then they every dreamed with more player every year (again without selling out).
If they every do restart their 28mm fantasy line then you might get what you want. I would love to see the game they come up with for that.
I think GW would do better if they toned down the ridiculousness; I mean, soccer hooligan fungus Orks and Space Wolves with Wolf Claws riding giant Wolves with their Wolf Fang Necklaces?
I'd like them a lot better if they tried to make their miniatures more hard-sci-fi instead of the "science fantasy" vibe they have going on. And those Imperial Guard Regiments? They've got 19th century "King's African Rifles", WWI Germans, and World War II Russians as all part of the same faction. It's visually silly and unappealing.
God, GW could make so much more money if they stopped making such ridiculous design decisions that both visually clash and are meant to appeal to teenagers, and make more realistic, near-future miniatures without ridiculous things like the Dreadnought that can't possibly walk when you take its anatomy into account, or the flying bricks that a lot of the fliers are.
yes maybe. As I have said before I think the rules look cool. And I really dont like to use proxy miniatures to play a game, feels a bit wrong hehe...
But I will keep an Eye on Infinity if they keep pulling out new stuff for Ariadna Faction that looks in line with the stuff they have resently released... Who knows I might pick up some miniatures.. Just need there to be enough stuff in a Faction that I can pick enough things to keep the game interesting...
I know you only have about 10 miniatures per side when you play Infinity but we all know that you buy more .. And I like to have enough in one faction to make them all look like they belong together...
The Wolfs do satisfy my Moonster need.. So I give it 6-12 month and we will see where the game is then...
I admit it could be cool when done appropriately, but Bolt Action would cease to be Bolt Action (and adding dragons will probably piss of their entire customer base) while doing so. Kinda like if you want to add giant snakes in Infinity...
Well instead of being hostile all the time you might ask yourself is it a good thing that alot of people do not play the game you like just because they dont like the miniatures?
I mean come on now, All of you who have defended Corvus belli in this thread are spread all over the globe: US, UK, Australia, Philippines, Germany, Canada and many other nationalities.. If your way of thinking was the mainstream mindset towards Corvus Belli Miniatures we would never have had this discussion, I would have been playing now instead of complaining that I want to try the game but everyone around my area think the miniature Faction design looks crapy, the modells are in metal bla bla... I mean I have allready faced a horde of people In IRL, but then it was the opposite.. Me trying to find reasons for people to try the game and me getting hit with "NO WE DON'T WANT TO because the Factions look messy", " "the figures are so "small and look bland". If most table top gamers were into Infinitys design it would not be so hard to find games.. That I have to go a cross town, where there are few rabbid fanboys playing from time to time, now would I? it Was never a problem getting people into 40k, Fantasy, it was never a problem to get people to start Historical WW2 games, X-wing and Warmachine.. But Infinity is the first game I have run into where people actually say "man I dont want to try this game because there is no faction that interests me, because they all look the same". If I was a White Knigth like you Heartserenade that would freak me out.. Because the miniatures is what sell the game.....
So I asked a few questions, and there are some that think they are messy and dont want to try it.. And then there are a bunch of you who defend it tooth and claw.. But the end result is the same I will no be playing Infinity anytime soon.. I dont see this as a WIN for anyone.. And it is sad that you are so stuck in your ways, and probably cheer on Corvus belli to not make any changes... When they are needed if the company wants to grow into a more diverse table top game, that attracts more people
Forget it. Suffice to to say, I don't think zlayer understands that different people like different things, and that it's OK for different people to like different things.
I mean come on now, All of you who have defended Corvus belli in this thread are spread all over the globe: US, UK, Australia, Philippines, Germany, Canada and many other nationalities.. If your way of thinking was the mainstream mindset towards Corvus Belli Miniatures
It was the miniatures that drew me to Infinity. The fraction fluff I find fascinating. CB is more sophisticated than murder mcmurderson and his murder claws.
FACT 1: CB is growing. And growing fast.
FACT 2: A company growing fast usually means they're doing something right.
FACT 3: Anecdotally a lot of people in this thread like Infinity miniatures and were drawn to the game because of it.
FACT 4: You don't like Infinity miniature design.
FACT 5: You presented what you want to do if you were CB. People who are currently playing Infinity tolf you that yes, they will quit Infinity if it plays out like the way you like it.
Drawing a conclusion from those facts isn't really rocket science, you know: "fixing" something that isn't broken (and what has drawn their current player base in the the first place) will be disastrous. It's like KFC suddenly deciding not to sell chicken and sell ice cream instead because zlayer77 likes ice cream and think they should cater to the ice cream crowd.
zlayer77 wrote: I mean come on now, All of you who have defended Corvus belli in this thread are spread all over the globe: US, UK, Australia, Philippines, Germany, Canada and many other nationalities.. If your way of thinking was the mainstream mindset towards Corvus Belli Miniatures we would never have had this discussion, I would have been playing now instead of complaining that I want to try the game but everyone around my area think the miniature Faction design looks crapy, the modells are in metal bla bla... I mean I have allready faced a horde of people In IRL, but then it was the opposite.. Me trying to find reasons for people to try the game and me getting hit with "NO WE DON'T WANT TO because the Factions look messy", " "the figures are so "small and look bland". If most table top gamers were into Infinitys design it would not be so hard to find games.. That I have to go a cross town, where there are few rabbid fanboys playing from time to time, now would I? it Was never a problem getting people into 40k, Fantasy, it was never a problem to get people to start Historical WW2 games, X-wing and Warmachine.. But Infinity is the first game I have run into where people actually say "man I dont want to try this game because there is no faction that interests me, because they all look the same". If I was a White Knigth like you Heartserenade that would freak me out.. Because the miniatures is what sell the game.....
So I asked a few questions, and there are some that think they are messy and dont want to try it.. And then there are a bunch of you who defend it tooth and claw.. But the end result is the same I will no be playing Infinity anytime soon.. I dont see this as a WIN for anyone.. And it is sad that you are so stuck in your ways, and probably cheer on Corvus belli to not make any changes... When they are needed if the company wants to grow into a more diverse table top game, that attracts more people
Out of curiosity, why do you believe that this game must appeal to you, your friends and/or your specific gaming circle? It's a subjective matter. In this case you dislike it, your gaming circle dislikes it, but so what? I mean many other people do like it, as clearly shown by the way that Infinity is growing. This isn't a game stuck in a rut, nor is it one that is shrinking in popularity, it's a game that is growing quite well. So why should the game change because you dislike it, when clearly there are many who do, and when the formula is obviously working? Especially given that you've shown ignorance of the game and its fluff to begin with and half of your argument appears to be based on your lack of familiarity with the game universe.
Don't get me wrong, by all means dislike it as you see fit. I just can't fathom why you expect your opinion should matter so much that the game should change due to it. Changing it in the ways you suggested would go against what we, the players, want from the game. Which leads to the question of whose opinion matters more, yours as a prospective customer who has little to no understanding of the game, or those of us who play it regularly and--more importantly to this discussion--buy the models? No company is foolish enough to think they can get every potential customer out there, so why risk sacrificing the existing player base to possibly pick up the odd player here and there?
Well instead of being hostile all the time you might ask yourself is it a good thing that alot of people do not play the game you like just because they dont like the miniatures?
zlayer77 wrote: Well instead of being hostile all the time you might ask yourself is it a good thing that alot of people do not play the game you like just because they dont like the miniatures?
I mean come on now, All of you who have defended Corvus belli in this thread are spread all over the globe: US, UK, Australia, Philippines, Germany, Canada and many other nationalities.. If your way of thinking was the mainstream mindset towards Corvus Belli Miniatures we would never have had this discussion
Why do you assume you're the majority when it comes to the tastes of Infinity, when literally everyone else in this thread disagrees with you, to the point of stating they'd drop the game if it contained the features you want?
The fact that the people across the globe are disagreeing with you just highlights that; we're not a small pocket of rabid fanboys, but a wide group of people who like the game.
Some of the mini's are a bit sameish, in that they are all human/humanoid in a game revolving around small groups of human special forces having conflicts. But in 40K almost all of the mini's are the same, because they are all Space Marines (that at 8ft tall are still shorter than most Catachan guardsmen), only differentiated by caricature details like battle wolves and wolf chariots. We like infinity because it's hard sci-fi (in that, it's concievable) with great models and not because it's the best not-40K game out there.
It really just sounds like you want to play 40K with better rules. In which case, use 40K models and some other ruleset. But please just leave Infinity alone.
Why can't you grasp that just because you dislike Infinity miniatures, doesn't mean you're in the majority. Bear in mind that CB had to delay the launch of their starter set because they had so many pre-orders they had to commission a 2nd print run to satisfy them. That's not something that happens with a game that isn't in demand.
Well you all look to be hooked on the messy Faction design and bland Miniatures... I guess diffrent games pull in diffrent people..
Except its neither “messy” faction design nor “bland” miniatures. But feel free to disagree and keep believing that silliness like one-dimensional single-idea charicatures can be factions, and wolf riders, giant wolves and snake riders in a sci-fi setting are somehow clever.
I still say that you dudes who like only bland human faction that mostly look kinda the same are in a miniority.
First its “all the same”. Now its “kinda” the same? Are you still trying to argue that Yu-Jing power armour is identical to the Pan-O knights? Are you still trying to argue that a Caledonian looks the same as a Fusilier?
Sadly that also means many of us will never try Infinity. That is OFC okey with you but if I was the owner of Infinity I would think twice before dissmissing a large portion of the potential customers of my game.. I would probably "sell out" for the greater good of my commpany...
Indeed, with silly things like snake riders and wolf riders and mistaking “spam a single idea until it’s a joke” for a “theme”. I’m glad you’re not running the company.
Secondly, assuming they’re dismissing a large portion of potential customers – you’ve an over inflated sense of the importance, or the need to embrace the faction that likes silliness like snake riders and wolf riders. CB are more sophisticated, and grown up. Think less Pokemon, and more Ghost in the Shell. CB have been expanding rapidly over the last few years. More and more people are playing their games. It seems that despite your insistence on the matter, more and more “potential” customers are in fact embracing them than walking away.
It seems very much to me that you and your group wants to play a 'not-40k' type of game instead of sonething different. Well, that's all well and good, but infinity is it's own beast.
Corvus Belli has in the latest months started to design alot of WOLFs, and more flashed out Miniatures so we will see who is right in the end... But I would not be surprised if we will see more monsters and larger miniatures in the future and a much clearer Faction design. It is just simply good Buissniss for Corvus Belli... And lets face it most of you will still play even if they start designing stuff that appeals to more people...
to be fair, its less that they’re designing more wolves, and more they’re re-doing their older sculpts. Dog Soldiers and Antipode packs are part of this.
Regarding larger miniatures, I think there was talk of CB bringing in transports but I cant be sure of that. But I cant see them doing snake riders or wolf riders.
Well instead of being hostile all the time you might ask yourself is it a good thing that alot of people do not play the game you like just because they dont like the miniatures?
Its neither good, nor bad. It’s a “thing”. I don’t like the 40k miniatures. Therefore I don’t play. A lot of other people don’t like 40k miniatures and don’t play either. So we play other games. Is that good? Is that bad? Or is it merely a preference that people may have?
I mean come on now, All of you who have defended Corvus belli in this thread are spread all over the globe: US, UK, Australia, Philippines, Germany, Canada and many other nationalities.. If your way of thinking was the mainstream mindset towards Corvus Belli Miniatures we would never have had this discussion, I would have been playing now instead of complaining that I want to try the game but everyone around my area think the miniature Faction design looks crapy, the modells are in metal bla bla...
Hmm, If our way of thinking was the mainstream, then CB would be reporting year-on-year growth, backed up by a steadily increasing player base, a steadily expanding range of awesome miniatures and factions, a third edition of the game, and a lot of enthusiasm. Oh wait… That’s what’s actually happening.
I mean I have allready faced a horde of people In IRL, but then it was the opposite.. Me trying to find reasons for people to try the game and me getting hit with "NO WE DON'T WANT TO because the Factions look messy", " "the figures are so "small and look bland". If most table top gamers were into Infinitys design it would not be so hard to find games..
Then explain why the Infinity community is continually growing if so many people apparently don’t like it? And I thought you were in a group of a dozen people. Now it’s a “horde”?
If people don’t like the game, and don’t want to play, then fair enough. You can’t make them. Its not necessarily a failure on the part of the company producing the game – you cant appeal to everyone, and the fact remains, their game and their style does appeal to a sizeable, and more importantly, growing customer base. Its not a reason for them to sell out, and change everything about the game they enjoy making to make some kiddies cartoon of a game.
So I asked a few questions, and there are some that think they are messy and dont want to try it..
You are one of the two people saying they’re messy. And quite a few more saying they’re great. And I think I did a good job of demolishing the other guy’s points earlier. That leaves you. With your head in the sand, repeating the same old mantra.
And it is sad that you are so stuck in your ways, and probably cheer on Corvus belli to not make any changes... When they are needed if the company wants to grow into a more diverse table top game, that attracts more people
“stuck in your ways”? Cheap shot is cheap. And its as inaccurate as it is cheap. In any case, speaking of myself, I have far less interest in a company “changing” what they do, and far more interest in a company “improving” what they do. Your suggestions are changes, not improvements. The new third edition rules seem like a huge ”improvement”. Therefore I support it. CB re-doing their older sculpts (eg Pan-O fusiliers) is an “improvement”. Therefore I support it. CB doing an about turn on everything that currently works in order to have Wolf Riders and Snake Riders to appeal to a Swede with no knowledge of, or appreciation of their game isn’t an “improvement”. It’s something else.
Why do CB need to make changes in order to grow, when they’re already growing by leaps and bounds just by doing what they’re already doing? Why do they need to sell out and turn Infinity into the Not-Infinity Saturday Morning Kids TV show with Snake Riders with Snake Attacks and Wolf Riders with wolfguns and fangblades, when so many folks like what they do already, and so many more are either constantly buying in, or maintaining a healthy interest? They’re a small company. Less than 30 people on the books. They don’t need to be the next 1800 employee across the world wargaming behemoth, and deal with all the baggage that entails. Fact is, whether you care to admit to it or not, its already a diverse game with some great factions, great fluff (working my way through Paradiso at the moment, and boy, its fun!) and what a lot of people regard as some of the best models in the industry? They’re constantly punching above their weight in the industry.
I really don't understand this particular kind of stubbornness. It's like me insisting that Warhammer Fantasy Battles is terrible, because it doesn't have power armor and light sabers. One of the great realizations in life is that sometimes your opinion may not be aligned with the truth as much as you think, especially when you are presented with evidence that you might be wrong. Thankfully ,the wargaming hobby is diverse enough and has something for everyone. If you are looking for a scifi game with good rules, large battles and armies with coherent themes, you should look no further than Dropzone Commander. Comparing 40K to Infinity is futile, because the only thing those games have in common is that both have miniatures and some futuristic tech( No, I refuse to call 40K a scifi).
zlayer77 wrote: Well instead of being hostile all the time you might ask yourself is it a good thing that alot of people do not play the game you like just because they dont like the miniatures?
I mean come on now, All of you who have defended Corvus belli in this thread are spread all over the globe: US, UK, Australia, Philippines, Germany, Canada and many other nationalities.. If your way of thinking was the mainstream mindset towards Corvus Belli Miniatures we would never have had this discussion
Why do you assume you're the majority when it comes to the tastes of Infinity, when literally everyone else in this thread disagrees with you, .
I'm not going to keep forcing this issue.. But there are atleast 5-6 people that have stated with me in this thread they dont like the minis(they have just stopped posting, because the main point has derailed).. then there are about 8-10 of you who are very activly defending it. So No not litterally everyone in this thread disagress with me...
In IRL I have personaly faced the opposite 2-3 people like it and about 20 don't. Now this can just be bad luck or me asking the worng people etc..
But Facts are not everyone likes the Faction design of Corvus belli..
Now let's just leave this subject. The end result will be the same I will not play infinity because nobody in my local Area is into the game (and you all think that is fantastic i get that)... The funny thing is if I heard the same about Warmachine/hordes (I would not think that was Fantastic, I would get concerned as a fan of the game).
But the posts you keep making is "just move along nothing to see here".. and I'm moving along i really dont have a choise now do I hehe..
zlayer77 wrote: Well instead of being hostile all the time you might ask yourself is it a good thing that alot of people do not play the game you like just because they dont like the miniatures?
I mean come on now, All of you who have defended Corvus belli in this thread are spread all over the globe: US, UK, Australia, Philippines, Germany, Canada and many other nationalities.. If your way of thinking was the mainstream mindset towards Corvus Belli Miniatures we would never have had this discussion
Why do you assume you're the majority when it comes to the tastes of Infinity, when literally everyone else in this thread disagrees with you, .
I'm not going to keep forcing this issue.. But there are atleast 5-6 people that have stated with me in this thread they dont like the minis(they have just stopped posting, because the main point has derailed).. then there are about 8-10 of you who are very activly defending it. So No not litterally everyone in this thread disagress with me...
In IRL have personaly faced the opposite 2-3 people like it and about 20 don't. Now this can just be bad luck or me asking the worng people etc..
But Facts are not everyone likes the Faction design of Corvus belli..
Now lest just leave this subject. The end result will be the same I will not play infinity because nobody in my local Area is into the game (and you all think that is fantastic i get that)... The funny thing is if I heard the same about Warmachine/hordes (I would not think that was Fantastic, I would get concerned as a fan of the game).
But the posts you keep making is "just move along nothing the see here".. and I'm moving along i really dont have a choise now do I hehe..
We could continue the conversation if you go, learn up about the game and the factions and then come back with a more educated/supported opinion.
zlayer77 wrote: Well instead of being hostile all the time you might ask yourself is it a good thing that alot of people do not play the game you like just because they dont like the miniatures?
I mean come on now, All of you who have defended Corvus belli in this thread are spread all over the globe: US, UK, Australia, Philippines, Germany, Canada and many other nationalities.. If your way of thinking was the mainstream mindset towards Corvus Belli Miniatures we would never have had this discussion
Why do you assume you're the majority when it comes to the tastes of Infinity, when literally everyone else in this thread disagrees with you, .
I'm not going to keep forcing this issue.. But there are atleast 5-6 people that have stated with me in this thread they dont like the minis(they have just stopped posting, because the main point has derailed).. then there are about 8-10 of you who are very activly defending it. So No not litterally everyone in this thread disagress with me...
In IRL have personaly faced the opposite 2-3 people like it and about 20 don't. Now this can just be bad luck or me asking the worng people etc..
But Facts are not everyone likes the Faction design of Corvus belli..
Now lest just leave this subject. The end result will be the same I will not play infinity because nobody in my local Area is into the game (and you all think that is fantastic i get that)... The funny thing is if I heard the same about Warmachine/hordes (I would not think that was Fantastic, I would get concerned as a fan of the game).
But the posts you keep making is "just move along nothing the see here".. and I'm moving along i really dont have a choise now do I hehe..
We could continue the conversation if you go, learn up about the game and the factions and then come back with a more educated/supported opinion.
But my point has not been about anything other then that "people who know absolutely nothing about the game", do not get interested enough (because of the miniatures and faction design), to even bother looking twice at the game...
And the Fact that Infinity is the only Table Top game I have encountered where people could not find a single Miniature or faction they could get exited about...
My whole argument has been that people do not get exited enough about the game "that they even bother to learn up about the game" :( that is just sad... And I have looked into the game and would try it but I cant get anyone interested in it.. And I have been "told too move along", so that is what I will do hehe... Still got Warmachine/Hordes to play and that is probably one of the best rulesets on the market right now...
In IRL I have personaly faced the opposite 2-3 people like it and about 20 don't. Now this can just be bad luck or me asking the worng people etc..
But Facts are not everyone likes the Faction design of Corvus belli..
Now let's just leave this subject. The end result will be the same I will not play infinity because nobody in my local Area is into the game (and you all think that is fantastic i get that)... The funny thing is if I heard the same about Warmachine/hordes (I would not think that was Fantastic, I would get concerned as a fan of the game).
Agreed. We're getting nowhere like this, but I think we can all agree to disagree here. Except where it comes to 40K as a ruleset (see how I'm trying to nudge it towards topic )
You're always going to get clusters of people who like or dislike something, but at least we're all aware it's still personal preference.
In IRL I have personaly faced the opposite 2-3 people like it and about 20 don't. Now this can just be bad luck or me asking the worng people etc..
But Facts are not everyone likes the Faction design of Corvus belli..
Now let's just leave this subject. The end result will be the same I will not play infinity because nobody in my local Area is into the game (and you all think that is fantastic i get that)... The funny thing is if I heard the same about Warmachine/hordes (I would not think that was Fantastic, I would get concerned as a fan of the game).
Agreed. We're getting nowhere like this, but I think we can all agree to disagree here. Except where it comes to 40K as a ruleset (see how I'm trying to nudge it towards topic )
You're always going to get clusters of people who like or dislike something, but at least we're all aware it's still personal preference.
We are all in agreement that 40k Rules Suck yes hehe. Or are less optimal for "fun" and "rewarding gamplay" because of serious balance issues, and too many random dice rolls..
zlayer77 wrote: Well instead of being hostile all the time you might ask yourself is it a good thing that alot of people do not play the game you like just because they dont like the miniatures?
I mean come on now, All of you who have defended Corvus belli in this thread are spread all over the globe: US, UK, Australia, Philippines, Germany, Canada and many other nationalities.. If your way of thinking was the mainstream mindset towards Corvus Belli Miniatures we would never have had this discussion
Why do you assume you're the majority when it comes to the tastes of Infinity, when literally everyone else in this thread disagrees with you, .
I'm not going to keep forcing this issue.. But there are atleast 5-6 people that have stated with me in this thread they dont like the minis(they have just stopped posting, because the main point has derailed).. then there are about 8-10 of you who are very activly defending it. So No not litterally everyone in this thread disagress with me...
In IRL have personaly faced the opposite 2-3 people like it and about 20 don't. Now this can just be bad luck or me asking the worng people etc..
But Facts are not everyone likes the Faction design of Corvus belli..
Now lest just leave this subject. The end result will be the same I will not play infinity because nobody in my local Area is into the game (and you all think that is fantastic i get that)... The funny thing is if I heard the same about Warmachine/hordes (I would not think that was Fantastic, I would get concerned as a fan of the game).
But the posts you keep making is "just move along nothing the see here".. and I'm moving along i really dont have a choise now do I hehe..
We could continue the conversation if you go, learn up about the game and the factions and then come back with a more educated/supported opinion.
But my point has not been about anything other then that "people who know absolutely nothing about the game", do not get interested enough (because of the miniatures and faction design), to even bother looking twice at the game...
And the Fact that Infinity is the only Table Top game I have encountered where people could not find a single Miniature or faction they could get exited about...
My whole argument has been that people do not get exited enough about the game "that they even bother to learn up about the game" :( that is just sad... And I have looked into the game and would try it but I cant get anyone interested in it.. And I have been "told too move along", so that is what I will do hehe... Still got Warmachine/Hordes to play and that is probably one of the best rulesets on the market right now...
And are point is CB doesn't need you, to keep being a great game with great sells. Their not 40K who are losing player by the boat load, dispite 40K large ass models. So they should sell out and become GW and start a downward sprial. Do you even read what you post.
Herzlos wrote: We're getting nowhere like this, but I think we can all agree to disagree here.
Indeed. Especially, as the topic was starting a GW game, not how some people aren't into Infinity. Personally, I would have liked to be into Infinity, but I have enough on my plate as it is.
Agreed. Reading the 3+ pages of the forum stomp Zlayer77 flat was fun but totally off topic. I'm surprised a Mod hasn't hijacked or locked this thread by now.
Herzlos wrote: We're getting nowhere like this, but I think we can all agree to disagree here.
Indeed. Especially, as the topic was starting a GW game, not how some people aren't into Infinity. Personally, I would have liked to be into Infinity, but I have enough on my plate as it is.
We dont want any threads about starting GW games... the less we talk about them the better .. and if it takes a bit off effort to spend the last 4+ pages not talking about GW games, and having a bunch of people advocationg the greatness of Infinity, I say objective achieved . Would have been fun to have a few more people explain more about how awsome the lore goes with the minis of Infintiy but hey, you cant have it all now can you muahaha
I want a lot of talk about GW´s games, as they are fun to play, have great models and the games have a great universe.
Rules could always use some filing but I have had nothing but fun with 40K. . I learned the rules back when I was 14 years old, anyone with a normal IQ will learn them just the same, especially if you can get someone to demo for you.
If using more money than say for Warmachine/Infinity isn´t a problem, by all means play 40K for example.
If using more money than say for Warmachine/Infinity isn´t a problem, by all means play 40K for example.
.
Unless you wan't a game that requires actual input on the part of the player to win.
There are far, far more reasons to play Infinity/WMH/practically any other game on the market instead of picking up the bloated mess that is 40k other than initial cost.
The main problem that 40k, rules wise, has is that the ruleset is being used for something it was never intended to be used for.
Essentially, it's a 30 year old ruleset for ranks of fantasy troops that's been modded into its current incarnation. Add layer upon layer of extra rules and exclusions and it's going to get muddled.
This was a game for orks and dwarves to pile into each other whilst pansy elves fired arrows all over the place.
I have revised my standing on advising a beginner to start a GW game...
I would quietly say:
"Run! it is too late for me, but as long as you spend no money on them you are safe!"
"Please, come sit down with me and play some X-wing, you will forget that madness."
"If you must build and paint models, come see Privateer Press..."
"OK, desperate now, buy "Space Hulk" but get nothing else, OK??!!"
"What you WANT to throw away your money? I have a cult for you to join I just created... GAH!! <Jazz-hands!!!>"
When reading this thread, prefix every one of the stronger statements (including my own) with "in my opinion..." Because really unless your post enjoys a majority consensus, that's all it it -your opinion! I like debating these things the same as any of you, but I'm still surprised with how absolutely convinced some folks are that the majority of other hobbyists and/or gamers will agree (or should agree) with their appreciation of aesthetics and what are considered good and enjoyable rules.
thegreatchimp wrote: I like debating these things the same as any of you, but I'm still surprised with how absolutely convinced some folks are that the majority of other hobbyists and/or gamers will agree (or should agree) with their appreciation of aesthetics and what are considered good and enjoyable rules.
I think the true intent here is that the 40kGW hobby is not to be entered lightly.
It requires a fair bit of money and effort to get something playable.
My suggestion is to try-out other systems and see if 40k still works for you.
I feel "my opinion" is suspect because I am fine with the rules because I am used to them and seen them change over time.
I just cannot imagine starting over as a new player facing all this uninformed of what has passed, it seems rather insane for a relaxing hobby pastime.
@thegreatchimp.
The point many try to make is that rule sets are functional.
As as such can be objectively assessed.
The preferred game play is subject to personal opinion though.
And as most other games focus on a particular scale and scope of game and defined game play.
Which makes it much easier for players of a similar mind set find the game they want to play together.
This is why 40k is called a poor rule set, as it has no clearly defined game play, scale or scope.
And fails to deliver the very limited game play it has ,in a well defined way.
This is not subjective opinion but objective assessment of primary function.
@ Lanrak I would say overall opinion on the rules is still going to be subjective. e.g. From previous discussions I remember we're largely in agreement about where the rules fail. as players seeking a more realistic ruleset, we think 40k is a poor ruleset. But someone seeking more of a shoot-em up might say its excellent. And that's fine. I just think its pointless when (some) people are jumping down eachother's throats over why they think a game should or shouldn't be played.
Lanrak wrote: @thegreatchimp.
The point many try to make is that rule sets are functional.
As as such can be objectively assessed.
The preferred game play is subject to personal opinion though.
And as most other games focus on a particular scale and scope of game and defined game play.
Which makes it much easier for players of a similar mind set find the game they want to play together.
This is why 40k is called a poor rule set, as it has no clearly defined game play, scale or scope.
And fails to deliver the very limited game play it has ,in a well defined way.
This is not subjective opinion but objective assessment of primary function.
Have you confused 40k for something that the rest of us aren't playing?
At its core, 40k is a functional rule set, although the recent move to create exhaustive lists of things to look up and cross reference has gotten completely out of control. If you dial things back a bit before the recent push to make units more "special", 40k was probably the most functional game out there - the 40k workflow is very straighforward.
I have played a wide variety of games using the 40k rules framework - it is highly adaptable and flexible to a variety of scenarios for themed games scaled from larger skirmishes up to mass battles. The game state was always pretty clear, and the most recent rules demonstrate a legalist approach that removes ambiguity and/or duplication.
It seems to me that you don't know what "objective", "subjective" or "functional" mean, nor do you understand the concept of "scale" or "scope"; my recommendation is that you not use words you don't completely understand.
JohnHwangDD wrote: It seems to me that you don't know what "objective", "subjective" or "functional" mean, nor do you understand the concept of "scale" or "scope"; my recommendation is that you not use words you don't completely understand.
I would say from my experience that the rule-set has a "sweet-spot" where playing above a certain level of points entails a major commitment of time and models to play.
I have found creating scenarios or some "historical" battle with this system is flexible enough to do pretty much what you want but you do need to build-in some balance to get a close game.
The vastly different power levels of lists (despite same points values) does not lend this game well to "pick-up" games.
If this person wants to meet other gamers I would suggest playing something else.
I wouldn't give a beginner 40k at this point. Because formations and super heavies dominate the meta, and it's to much money to ask them to spent on a army they could find ends up being kinda gacky.
Fantasy maby.... not as bad as 40k but can still happen with some army books.
I would feel better giving them infinity in all honest, or bushfire....
If you are playing "for fun", like they do at GWHQ, 40k is fine.
That means it's about having a few beers and shooting the gak with your buddies as the first priority, versus actually "competing" for a "win". After all, anybody can take some sort of "I win" list at this point, so why bother?
Size-wise, if you're playing 500-1500 pts per player, the game is great. I don't much like 1750 or more, as it's just more stuff.
Lanrak wrote: @thegreatchimp.
The point many try to make is that rule sets are functional.
As as such can be objectively assessed.
The preferred game play is subject to personal opinion though.
And as most other games focus on a particular scale and scope of game and defined game play.
Which makes it much easier for players of a similar mind set find the game they want to play together.
This is why 40k is called a poor rule set, as it has no clearly defined game play, scale or scope.
And fails to deliver the very limited game play it has ,in a well defined way.
This is not subjective opinion but objective assessment of primary function.
Have you confused 40k for something that the rest of us aren't playing?
At its core, 40k is a functional rule set, although the recent move to create exhaustive lists of things to look up and cross reference has gotten completely out of control. If you dial things back a bit before the recent push to make units more "special", 40k was probably the most functional game out there - the 40k workflow is very straighforward.
I have played a wide variety of games using the 40k rules framework - it is highly adaptable and flexible to a variety of scenarios for themed games scaled from larger skirmishes up to mass battles. The game state was always pretty clear, and the most recent rules demonstrate a legalist approach that removes ambiguity and/or duplication.
It seems to me that you don't know what "objective", "subjective" or "functional" mean, nor do you understand the concept of "scale" or "scope"; my recommendation is that you not use words you don't completely understand.
No Warhammer has a good core framework and works OK for a fantasy setting and historical (sadly all the extra rules the add for army means it is not good for playing Warhammer), it has never really been a good 40K rule set. It was a good fantasy rule set used for sci-fantasy, but the move to large games destoryed even the OK fit it had with a small scale battle game called 40K.
thegreatchimp wrote:When reading this thread, prefix every one of the stronger statements (including my own) with "in my opinion..." Because really unless your post enjoys a majority consensus, that's all it it -your opinion!
Umm... all a majority consensus means is that it's the opinion of more than half of the people. That's a horrible way to determine how things should be evaluated.
Even if the majority of people think 40k's rules are horrible, that's their opinion.
Now when they point to particular things about 40k and talk about their implications, they're moving beyond opinion. For example, as you push up the model count and have to move each model, the time to play obviously increases. There's no opinion involved in stating that 40k can take longer to play than games with smaller model counts. It's also not an opinion that you'll need multiple volumes to have all the rules for the game and the models you can take in your army, including digital only releases. It's also not an opinion that each point of a given unit choice has a cost in real money per point and different armies and unit choices can result in drastically different costs to get into the game.
And then all these factors can be compared to other games and you can evaluate them without resorting to opinion. The opinion can come back in when it is time to evaluate which of those factors are more important to each individual. But even then, if price is a non issue for someone but speed of play is, then a faster playing game actually is a better option for them even if they can afford the higher model count of a GW game. It's not an opinion that a faster game meets their goals better than a longer game.
I like debating these things the same as any of you, but I'm still surprised with how absolutely convinced some folks are that the majority of other hobbyists and/or gamers will agree (or should agree) with their appreciation of aesthetics and what are considered good and enjoyable rules.
The reason I wouldn't recommend GW games to beginners has nothing to do with that. It has to do with WFB and 40k not measuring up on actual measurable and calculable factors. For me the factor that lead to me no longer playing 40k was the model movement time adding up to produce a long period of time where my opponent didn't do anything but wait and watch. It was a tyranid army with about 80 models and on the turn they attacked, I moved them, fleeted with some and then moved them again into combat. My opponent literally stood there while I did 150+ model movements.
I don't think it's right to do that to another hobbyist, so I stopped playing. And my nid army wasn't even a true horde. Hopefully they corrected this issue with future nid codexes, but I doubt it. Didn't they add in more time taken up with random charge distances? So you end up making the model movements and have to stop and consult a die roll between each unit?
The only opinion in there is that I don't think it's right to make an opponent wait like that. But the actual wait times and rules about moving models and the turn structure? None of that is opinion.
frozenwastes wrote: Umm... all a majority consensus means is that it's the opinion of more than half of the people. That's a horrible way to determine how things should be evaluated.
Even if the majority of people think 40k's rules are horrible, that's their opinion.
Ok, that wasn't what I was trying to convey at all. However to answer as best I can -if 95% of people believe something, it can be said to be a consensus. (Def: a general agreement) So not neccessarily an absolute truth, but a broadly accepted view.
Now when they point to particular things about 40k and talk about their implications, they're moving beyond opinion. For example, as you push up the model count and have to move each model, the time to play obviously increases. There's no opinion involved in stating that 40k can take longer to play than games with smaller model counts. It's also not an opinion that you'll need multiple volumes to have all the rules for the game and the models you can take in your army, including digital only releases. It's also not an opinion that each point of a given unit choice has a cost in real money per point and different armies and unit choices can result in drastically different costs to get into the game.
And then all these factors can be compared to other games and you can evaluate them without resorting to opinion. The opinion can come back in when it is time to evaluate which of those factors are more important to each individual. But even then, if price is a non issue for someone but speed of play is, then a faster playing game actually is a better option for them even if they can afford the higher model count of a GW game. It's not an opinion that a faster game meets their goals better than a longer game.
I wasn't referring to analysis of individual, factual, elements of the rules, but to overall appreciation (or lack thereof) of the collective ruleset and aesthetics, which clearly varies from person to person and therefore is utterly subjective, wouldn't you say? Also I don't believe games can be accurately evaluated by being that analytical. How do you put a value on the myriad of factors that contribure to enjoyment, like aesthetics, setting and atmosphere or tension? I don't believe you can. I'm more of the approach of "see if you enjoy the feel of it."
But the actual wait times and rules about moving models and the turn structure? None of that is opinion.
But on the subject of individual rules. In replying that the current rules for moving models and turn structure are indeed opinionable, I'm referring to the fact that some people like them and others dislike them, just as some people like unbound armies and others think its a disaster. I don't think that's what you're getting at though, is it? Has there been some confusion here on either of our parts, as I'm unclear as to what exactly we're in disagreement about
JohnHwangDD wrote: If you are playing "for fun", like they do at GWHQ, 40k is fine.
That means it's about having a few beers and shooting the gak with your buddies as the first priority, versus actually "competing" for a "win". After all, anybody can take some sort of "I win" list at this point, so why bother?
Size-wise, if you're playing 500-1500 pts per player, the game is great. I don't much like 1750 or more, as it's just more stuff.
I watched a game in a gw store were two fairly new players were playing the game. They types that take the models they like following rules in the books.
So one player took a unbound c'tan necron list to play agiest a dark angles army with a knight. This was a 1000 point game. They said their lists were fun.
Didn't look fun to me.
=/
People starting 40k new right now, all play unbound armies with lords of war. Then get confused why vet players don't want to play them.
Reason I gave up on 40k... playing for "fun" is to subjective.
I would only suggest that you start a game that you enjoy/like the look of and that you can enjoy locally. No use starting Infinity if there are no other players around, no use starting Warhammer if the same applies. If you want to start up a system with others, make sure they're on board with the idea before starting, because there's nothing worse than models sitting on the shelf gathering dust rather than seeing use (unless of course they're just looking pieces) or having to start up a new system just after you've spent all that time building/painting models.
) and you don't usually need that many.
But one thing that attracts me towards Infinity, even without dipping my toe yet, is that the game doesn't hinge on that big flashy stuff it already has. Unlike certain others in the subject of this thread.
