Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Is there a discussion somewhere that discusses the most popular table top games and compares and contrasts them. I am curious what gamers are saying about the various games.

Are some considered too unbalanced with only a few models that really are game changers?
Do some games offer too few tactics and feel samey after a few plays?
Are there tabletop games with too many rules or rules that are not clear?
Which games have the best company support - best user community - best tournaments?

I am most interested in hearing players thoughts about Malifaux, Warmachine, Infinity, and Wild West X. Are there some other under appreciated Tabletop games?

Thanks!

I don't think so. Could have the discussion here, if you like. I'll be
on again sometime tomorrow to comment on what I can tell
from Warmachine.

I have no idea about Wild West X, but I can comment about Malifaux, Warmachine and Infinity.

jwfortune wrote:

Are some considered too unbalanced with only a few models that really are game changers?

No. All 3 games are pretty well balanced to the point that player skill and not army selection is the determining factor in who wins the game.

jwfortune wrote:

Do some games offer too few tactics and feel samey after a few plays?

Changing what parameters? If you always play against the same person with both of you using the same models, terrain and mission, then yes, eventually all the games will feel "samey", but that is true for all miniature wargames that I know of.

jwfortune wrote:

Are there tabletop games with too many rules or rules that are not clear?

Infinity still suffers from a few less than clear rules, but nothing that can't be clarified with a trip to their forums.

But all 3 of them will overload a new player with the sheer amount of rules options available. They all have pretty steep learning curves.

jwfortune wrote:

Which games have the best company support - best user community - best tournaments?

All of them have amazing company support and very helpful communities (unless you're talking about your local community for each game, in which case I have no idea). WMH has the most popular tournaments since it is the most popular game of the three, but the other two also have a pretty good tournament scene.

With all of that being said, I have no idea why you would wan't to compare those 3 games, apart from being played with miniatures, they couldn't be more distinct from each other and your criteria seem a bit strange if you are trying to choose to start one of them...

On Warmachine

jwfortune wrote:
Are some considered too unbalanced with only a few models that really are game changers?

Every army has game changers in Warmachine. Some hurt more than others, but every faction has its game changers and not everyone uses only those things.

jwfortune wrote:
Do some games offer too few tactics and feel samey after a few plays?

At a certain level of play, Warmachine players try to minimize the effect of an alpha strike while setting up their own. Given the variety of models in the game, I don't think it feels samey at all.

jwfortune wrote:
Are there tabletop games with too many rules or rules that are not clear?

Warmachine rules are very clear as they are intended to be interpreted as RAW (see what I did there?)

jwfortune wrote:
Which games have the best company support - best user community - best tournaments?

PP has its own forums with its own vocal fanbase. Privateer Press also provides the basis for most of Warmachine's tournament play, with the majority of venues using the official Steamroller document. This document has been updated every year. I very much enjoy these events.

Malifaux had horrible imbalance, power creep and special rule spam in 1st ed. (When you played Hoffman and his constructs vs. Mei Feng and her constructs, army selection was absolutely a factor) 2nd ed improved all that, but not enough for my tastes. Also, the publicised playing-card mechanic is like a separate game - the main game, in a way - with the expensive minis as add-on elements to determine range. Has the effect of pulling you right out of the miniatures action, such as it is.

For malifaux for me..

Are some considered too unbalanced with only a few models that really are game changers?

Malifaux seems incredibly well balanced. Due to the mechanic of the game, you can't really be in a position to build a power list and there are no unbeatable factions or models.

Do some games offer too few tactics and feel samey after a few plays?

The schemes and strats (the mission you win or lose a game by) are varied enough that you aren't going to have the same games again and again. and the factions all play very different which helps the variety

Are there tabletop games with too many rules or rules that are not clear?

Rules have been well written, and there isn't the ambiguality you see in other games systems. The company are really good at supporting the system as well, which helps in the odd time you get a question. And all rules are massively playtested in house and in the community before making it to the new book.

Which games have the best company support - best user community - best tournaments?

The tournament scene is meant to be awesome, the guys I play with at my FLGS rave about it, said it's freindly and well supported. These are people that have played games like WM and 40k. I'm not a competitive player but I'm thinking of going to a comp, just for the laughs.


It's the best game I've played, the most balanced and most importantly, the most fun. The world is brilliantly written, the card mechanic works perfectly and the models are the best around in my opinion.

Mali faux has a unique game play mechanic that I like in theory. Poker hands in place of dice adds some crazy flavor to fate and randomness

That's what I love the most. It has the randomness, but with the abilty to cheat fate, there's a tactical aspect. like having the ability to play with loaded dice for a throw

 Vermis wrote:
Malifaux had horrible imbalance, power creep and special rule spam in 1st ed. (When you played Hoffman and his constructs vs. Mei Feng and her constructs, army selection was absolutely a factor) 2nd ed improved all that, but not enough for my tastes. Also, the publicised playing-card mechanic is like a separate game - the main game, in a way - with the expensive minis as add-on elements to determine range. Has the effect of pulling you right out of the miniatures action, such as it is.

Malifaux was never supposed to be played "blind" like that. You are supposed to know what the mission and your opponent factions are before you select your army.

Bolt Action has really earned a following in my local group. Two big factors:

1) Randomized Activation: the order dice mechanic requires much more attention and consideration of moves during the game. Not knowing who gets the next activation or taking risks based on your liklihood of getting the next activation can lead to some decisions you wouldn't normally make.

2) Balance: for the most part, all the armies have similar capabilities. Every country has a few special things for flavor but a regular American rifleman is the same as a regular German rifleman, which is the same as a regular British, Italian, etc.

I've gotten into Relic Knights, and there's some clear pros and cons:

pros
- the game rules are completely different from every other tabletop miniatures game- innovative in turn structure, combat resolution, deployment, etc.
- for the most part, the minis are nice and paint up well
- plays quickly, and both players are constantly engaged
- $50 starter box actually has everything you need to play (full rules, tokens, cards and minis).

cons
- the game plays completely differently from every other miniatures game- experienced gamers have a hard time figuring it out.
- some of the casting for the initial run of kickstarter minis was poorly done and resulted in poor casts (sodapop is switching to a resin range to fix this).
- the game's initial run has a few issues that need errata (the second book is going have the full rules, complete with fixes)
- Some of the starters are better min-maxed than others (Circe has some strong support minis, but not much to support).

What do you guys think of the dumbed down rules complaint I see some people post about Malifaux 2ed? Does Malifaux offer enough choices and variability to keep it interesting?

Does is seem like Malifaux is catching up with Warmachine in popularity or does WM have too much of a lead and loyalty among their followers?

Is WW X as interesting to play as Malifaux and Warmachine?

Maliefaux has some interesting rules. It's kind of quirky and full of character. It requires a lot of scenery like Infinity. Doesn't have a good starter box or anything so it might be hard to know where to start, but the crew boxes are really good.
That said, I see a lot of hobby people loving Malifaux for that aspect, they love making terrain and scenery. I saw a full wild west looking town with graveyard. It was amazing. More girls play this than other games. Not sure why, but it does seem to be a fact. :/

WMH doesn't use a lot of scenery and so it's easier to play in that respect. It's got large, impressive looking armies, full tournament support from PP and well balanced rules. PP cares about its game and players and when something needs FAQ'd it gets FAQ'd quickly and usually with a good explanation. Their No Quarter Magazine has excellent fluff, story based scenarios, hobby articles for scenery and conversions and is all around a great read. Each faction plays differently with lots of variation within the faction so no faction is a one trick pony.
The two player starter set is good, but not great. The small starter boxes are usually a great place to start though. I've never had two games of WMH that were alike due to army variation, player style and scenery that affects the game in a large way. (for good or ill) Balance isn't perfect, but its darn near close enough that player skill is what will determine the winner. Also, they get top notch authors to write their books. Dan Wells, author of the "I'm not a Serial Killer" and "Partials." Larry Correia, "Monster Hunter International" and "Hard Magic." Howard Taylor, "Shlock Mercenary" web comic. (Which is really awesome.)
The Iron Kingdoms RPG is FULL of fluff, lore and information about the setting.

Infinity has perhaps the best looking minis, a great starter box with scenery, tokens and well balanced armies. Infinity has a lot of small companies making really cheap scenery for it. (cheap but good) They're growing and growing fast. The rules are fast and once you learn them, quite intuitive and easy flowing. Great balance, probably the best of the three I've listed. The action is far more tactical than most other games where every movement has to be thought out. You can't just charge down the middle and hope for victory. You have to take cover, go around, throw smoke grenades, use thermoptic camouflage, etc. Lots of good backstories to the different units. An RPG is coming out that also looks really good. Scenery is also very big in this game because how you go around, over or through it will play a huge part in the game.