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.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 MARC C wrote:
Its the problem of all «combos/pump up» games. Any game that requires you to have two list against possible «Bad Match Ups» reveals a serious flaw in game balance. This raising many red flags in terms of true competition.

It's a bit disengenuous to complain about the min-maxing that happens in Warmahorde and keep silent about similar combos/power-plays that happen in Infinity. You also failed to mention some of the mechanics in Infinity that draws the ire of newer player, such as cheerleading or the Lt. rules.

To the OP, I actually recomment to start both. On a competitive level, I've never had more fun than playing my pSorscha or my Karchev, and the later one was not considered competitive at all at the time. To me, that's the mark of a truly succesful gaming system, that it'll allow you to lose horribly while still drawing a lot of entertainment from it. But Infinity is also an amazing ruleset, and a VERY nice change of pace over the alternative turn game cycle. In a way, both system are very challenging to anyone coming from a non uber-competitive 40k meta. Warmahorder kicks you in the teeth for bad list composition, when you didn't build your list around making sure you were prepare for all enventualities. Infinity will generally kick you in the teeth for assuming that your plan was airtight and that you shouldn't adapt it on the go at all times.

Since the initial investement to kick in both games is still lower (by over half) than the investment for 40k or fantasy, and since both games scratch a different gaming itch for me, I'd recommend both. Warmachine can be taken up very slowly, with a 60$ investment lasting you for a few months as you'll get used to play Caster & Jacks only games (a format called Mangled Metal). The amount of enjoyment you can get from 3-4 miniatures and a 20-45 minutes game is really surprising.

To this statement, I have to say it is almost right on the ball and agree with it. Main argument is that there are some grey areas still in the Infinity rulebook and the wording is a bit odd. That does not mean it is bad, I actually think it is a fun ruleset and very unique from most of the alternating turns that most games have, and is very fun. But, I tend to see that Warmahordes is much better supported by PP and its tight rules makes it easier and uniform to play a tournament one place to the next. Again, every game is going to have min-maxing, that is just a player thing.

As again OP, I love both games, but I have to say Warmahordes is more suited as a competitive game as of now, and Infinity has that potential if they clear up some rough spots.

To my knowledge there are no "power-play" combos in Infinity, there is synergy and there are counters to everything, even from units not properly equipped for the situation.

I will agree the book needs some clearer language and there is a movement to address this.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
To my knowledge there are no "power-play" combos in Infinity, there is synergy and there are counters to everything, even from units not properly equipped for the situation.

I will agree the book needs some clearer language and there is a movement to address this.

ODD+Smoke
Shasvatii full TO
Métros 5 linked-teamed HMG

Dig a little and you'll find others. Infinity is very well balanced, over all, but I find it's unofficial slogan ''it's not your list, it's you'' to be deceiving. Proper list building is more important with Warmahorde, it's true, but that's also because a lot of forces in Warmachine will have more than 10 individual models in it, and thus more interactions to figure out. That there are counters isn't really sufficient. That's the bare minimum, because you just can't go around and give everyone plays that can't be countered by their opponents. The question is wether or not you can acheive diversity and redundance to the point where you can answer all threats effectively. It's hard to do in Warmahorde, but I'm not convinced it's substantially easier in Infinity.

Well on the opposing end last week a friend of mine made a really good list just with models he liked from the store and it was not a rules choice purely aesthetics.

The 3 examples listed are hardly power playing combos, in my opinion at least.

Meh, JSA can also do a full TO list (4 ninja, 3 oniwaban for example).

It probably won't kill a lot and against MSV3 doesn't do much, but it's more about the mind game with that list (same with shas).

Haqq with it's Impersonators and Holo1s is a similar mind game (although that's more of a shell game).

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Well on the opposing end last week a friend of mine made a really good list just with models he liked from the store and it was not a rules choice purely aesthetics.

This here is why I'm currently focusing on building up my Merovingian force. CB minis are, IMO, the best minis currently supported by a ruleset (unsupported I'd go with the Confrontation range from Rackham).

While I don't have the strong dislike for PP's aesthetics you often see displayed on forums generally populated by 40k enthusiasts, I think its obvious, between the two ranges, where the greater talent lies.

WM/H is a MUCH tighter developed game. As much as I love infinity, it really is designed to have minimal rule ambiguity and is elegant in a lot of ways.

It's probably the current best 'army game' in many ways, as the level of precision needed to play a high level is quite good, while options at low level are extensive.

Infinity is substantially more cinematic meanwhile, and is even more player decision dependant, as the state of the game board has a much larger possibility space than a well defined WM/H board. This makes it less competitive in some ways, but more capable of giving you interesting surprises.

I've been looking into branching off into a non-GW game for a while now just to mix things up.

If the only criteria for choosing was based on a more competitive experience - I'd go with WM/H

However, my personal choice between the two would be Infinity by a long shot. The gameplay is very unique, the small model count is great for the budget and it is vastly different from 40k. The miniatures are also fantastic - one reason I haven't committed to the game is that I can't choose a faction... sigh

Competitive play? --> Warma/hordes no doubt

The system is build around it.
1)Compared to most other games it has less randomness involved thanks to a 2w6 dice system.

Why thats good?
well you have a higher chance for average rolls.
The sum of 2w6 will be average (means 6,7,8) for about 50% of the rolls... makes a damn fether blowing up your best stuff with a lucky roll nearly impossible...

2) That lucky roll is impossible thanks to a good assignment of livepoints.

Man i hated it when my Terminators died thanks to a lucky roll.
Not in Warmachine/Hordes a little example:
My Warspears (heavy inf.) have a Armour of 16 and a normal CC weapon of a standard enemy inf.-model has a str. of 10.
If such Inf. would hit my Warspear (another roll) he could make a maximum of 22 Damage (10 str. +2w6) this would not kill my warspear thanks to his 8 HP (8HP (-22Damage + 16 armour)).
Not to mention that this max damage could only be reached by a chance of 1/36.

3) Huge competitive community
-Many Podcasts and strategie threads
-The last tournament for Infinity near my location was ages ago.

4)Balance
-it has the best balance of every Army TT i have played. Every list has a "bad matchup" but thanks to 3 ways of winning (scenario, caster kill and attrition) it is never a sure thing.

5)Rules!!!
never had any talk about LOS or other stuff...

6)no initiative you attack in your round the opponent in his own.

the only bad thing is = cost i would say 300-500 for two or three tournament lists (depending on faction and caster)

Infinity
I love this game but it feels more like a rpg to me.It tells great storys over a single game and it is more tactial than most GW games out there .
But why i think it's not great for competitive play:
1)
-There is a lot of interaction even if it's not your turn. And dice rolls of your opponent influence many actions you do in your turn. For example you never know how high your chances are to hit a enemy.
more precise example (d20 system):
if you shoot at a opponent you roll 3 d20 and you have to roll under a certain number. BUT your oppoenent rolls also a dice negating every roll under his single d20 roll. if you would roll 1,2 and a 7 (with a need staying under 12) but your enemy rolls a 10 you will not hit him (even though all have been successes ) worse now he has a chance to kill you outside of his turn thanks to a single roll...
2)
Rules LoF, Boardbuilding (terrain cover) enough said

Infinity is cheap to buy that's why i would say in short ...start both

xeper wrote:
But why i think it's not great for competitive play:
1)
-There is a lot of interaction even if it's not your turn. And dice rolls of your opponent influence many actions you do in your turn. For example you never know how high your chances are to hit a enemy.
more precise example (d20 system):
if you shoot at a opponent you roll 3 d20 and you have to roll under a certain number. BUT your oppoenent rolls also a dice negating every roll under his single d20 roll. if you would roll 1,2 and a 7 (with a need staying under 12) but your enemy rolls a 10 you will not hit him (even though all have been successes ) worse now he has a chance to kill you outside of his turn thanks to a single roll...

This doesn't make it less competitive. On the contrary, it emphasises tactical movement, as you want to get around flanks to avoid those face to face rolls.

I fail to see how making movement and positioning important, and having retaliatory actions to every action done in Line of Sight, make a game 'less competitive'.

xeper wrote:
2)
Rules LoF, Boardbuilding (terrain cover) enough said

What rules for terrain building are hard or uncompetitive? It requires different terrain, a lot of it, but again, I fail to see how requiring different terrain sets changes the competitiveness of a game. LoF rules... eeeehh, maybe. It doesn't have the 'everything is a column' rules of Warmahordes, but you need someone really anal to have issues with the LoF rules (like the above 'what is a gap' is basically just trying to make a problem).

xeper wrote:
Infinity is cheap to buy that's why i would say in short ...start both

Well, unless you simply do not like Warmahordes.

Not that I'm saying Warmahordes isn't a more tightly written ruleset, just that saying 'LoF, Boardbuilding enough said' really is not enough said.

This doesn't make it less competitive. On the contrary, it emphasises tactical movement, as you want to get around flanks to avoid those face to face rolls.

I fail to see how making movement and positioning important, and having retaliatory actions to every action done in Line of Sight, make a game 'less competitive'.

I would say not knowing how high your chances are to do something is bad for competitive play. While it's true this all leads to trying to avoid "frontarcs" but this does often not protect from LoF...
Also i think it's not good if you can get shot outside of your turn (without your opponent dedicating orders for it).
Both is stuff i love in Infinity but also i don't think it's good for competitive play.

What rules for terrain building are hard or uncompetitive? It requires different terrain, a lot of it, but again, I fail to see how requiring different terrain sets changes the competitiveness of a game. LoF rules... eeeehh, maybe. It doesn't have the 'everything is a column' rules of Warmahordes, but you need someone really anal to have issues with the LoF rules (like the above 'what is a gap' is basically just trying to make a problem).

How to build terrain for a balanced game? If you don't have enough you have LoF over the hole board(good for snipers). If it's too much you can easily walk into anyones backarc...
How far has terrain to be from any objective?
And for LoF= seeing two guys talk about if something can hit or not in a non tournament situation... moving their heads all around the board for many minutes shows it's not great written...

edit: i was giving such a short answer to the rules not to provocate only because that stuff was already discussed

I would say not knowing how high your chances are to do something is bad for competitive play. While it's true this all leads to trying to avoid "frontarcs" but this does often not protect from LoF...

You still have to make judgement calls, and I'd say that since it's relatively hard to 'mathhammer' the game it comes much more down to experience and the 'gut instinct'.

All part of the more organic style of Infinity. Just think, IRL you wouldn't know that you had a 72.8% chance of a hit, but you *would* know that you've got a damn good chance at it.

xeper wrote:


I would say not knowing how high your chances are to do something is bad for competitive play. While it's true this all leads to trying to avoid "frontarcs" but this does often not protect from LoF...
I Fail to see how this hamstrings competitive play.
Also i think it's not good if you can get shot outside of your turn (without your opponent dedicating orders for it).
I think this is good for competitive play. It allows for a diversity of balanced tactics and allows for some actual player choice instead of formulaic list building. EG: (Do I want a lower BS model with total reaction for defending on my inactive turn, or a higher BS model so I can bring the hurt on my opponent during their turn?)

How to build terrain for a balanced game? If you don't have enough you have LoF over the hole board(good for snipers). If it's too much you can easily walk into anyones backarc...
[b] This is a better argument. You've got a point, but is someone midigated by the official ITS scenarios as well as the terrain placement guidelines
How far has terrain to be from any objective?
Why does this matter ?
And for LoF= seeing two guys talk about if something can hit or not in a non tournament situation... moving their heads all around the board for many minutes shows it's not great written...
LoF is reciprocal. So if they get a shot, you get a reaction order. This does not mean that it is not well written, only that the LoF may, in some cases, take longer to figure out due to the placement of the minis. Again, the shorter game length of ITS addresses this.

edit: i was giving such a short answer to the rules not to provocate only because that stuff was already discussed
where has this been discussed before?

So 1/4 of your points actually hold water.


To The OP: I'd say infinity, because it's very different than anything else currently out there.

I like Infinity more than almost any other game I've ever played. The rules, scenarios, miniatures, terrain, and fluff create one of the most unique and challenging games I've been lucky enough to play. There are so many options and incredible things you can do. Every time I play I figure out something new and have a great time doing it.

While I like Warmahordes I don't LOVE any specific model line, the fluff is pretty meh, the bad matchups suck, but the rules are pretty great.

I'd play Infinity over Warmahordes every day of the week.

I Fail to see how this hamstrings competitive play.

Well not knowing if you have a chance of 2/20 or 10/20 BEFORE making a decision is simply bad for competitive play. If you want to compare your decisions with those of your opponent you can't really say who made better decisions, if no one can say how high the chances were!?
(my definition of who should win in competitive play)

I think this is good for competitive play. It allows for a diversity of balanced tactics and allows for some actual player choice instead of formulaic list building. EG: (Do I want a lower BS model with total reaction for defending on my inactive turn, or a higher BS model so I can bring the hurt on my opponent during their turn?)

never said there is no interesting list building in infinity.
But loosing a unit in your turn is a desaster. You loose a Order, your opponent has done nothing for it also he still has all orders for his next round. It's basically your unit tripping over its own feet and dying...
Imagine a tower (chess) failing to "kill" a peasant and also because of that the tower has to be removed?! wtf?

And before someone wants to go that route:
Yes chess is the most competitive Boardgame but he/she hasn't asked for a comparison with that...

How far has terrain to be from any objective?
Why does this matter ?

Balance?

LoF is reciprocal. So if they get a shot, you get a reaction order. This does not mean that it is not well written, only that the LoF may, in some cases, take longer to figure out due to the placement of the minis. Again, the shorter game length of ITS addresses this.

look at the first page even here there is a lot of discussion what you can shoot ...
Every LoF "break" is not good for competitive play, each game in a tournament can only run for a certain period of time.
There should never be problems with the rules that can't be solved in seconds.(for tournaments)

where has this been discussed before?

this thread ...begins on first Page...with LoF...later Terrain

btw. :simply saying :" na it's not true" is no counterargument^^
4/4 true

You can determine the chances of doing something in infinity. Normal rolls are easy, but FTF rolls are a mess.

I don't play warmahordes but honestly, from everything I've heard, it's a far more competitive game.

That said, I have zero interest in the system. If I want a competitive game I don't play tabletop miniature games. To be truly competitive everything has to be black and white, simple and regimented. As an example, chess is a million miles from warmahordes and infinity is another few miles down the road. If you want a competitive tabletop wargame then warmahordes is probably a good idea but, for me, it's not what the genre is about.

Being competitive is largely academic rather than creative and that takes the fun out of the hobby for me.

I think Warmahordes kind of carved a niche for itself as being a 'competitive' game - really, more than anything, I think it presented a far tighter, more competition-focused ruleset than 40k (which is where a lot of its players came from originally), and the community and system has kind of grown up around that.

I don't think one or the other is particularly better suited to it than the other - Infinity has certainly got enough layers of tactical depth to make it great for a competitive game, compared to a lot of other games that focus more on strategic elements (list building etc.), but I haven't played enough of Warmahordes to comment in that regard. To me, they are both great games that offer a different setting, gaming experience, miniature aesthetic - preference is likely to come down to an individuals subjective opinion.

 Casey's Law wrote:
If I want a competitive game I don't play tabletop miniature games. To be truly competitive everything has to be black and white, simple and regimented. [...] it's not what the genre is about.

That's a tired old argument that gets debunked on every thread where competitive play must be justified. Worse, it's something you could hear the bloggers at Bols say.

Having odds decide the outcome of situations resulting from the choices of the agents does not diminish the necessity of those agents to plan in the best manner possible. It result on the need for a balance between the amount of decision-making events and the instances of odds played, to the sharp advantage of the first. I consider 40k (and probably Fantasy) weak on that aspect, as most of the decision-making takes place during listbuilding and deployment, while the action relies on a ridiculously high number of dice throwing and very few actual rich dilemmas.

In this aspect, both Warmahorde and Infinity are vastly superior. For that, I consider both more or less equally competitive. What meaningfuly seperates the two games are the force building rules, the fact that WarmaHorde scales relatively better up to games including 40-50+ models(but it eventually breaks in spectacular ways), the win/quasi-win conditions of Lt killing (Inf) vs Caster kill (Wm/H), the ressource allocation system of Orders (Inf) vs that of Focus/Fury (Wm/H), and, of course, the exotic flow of turns in Infinity. Because both games essentialy pits two decision-makers against each other, instead of simply using the players as dice-throwers, I think the person who wants to decide which game does more for their competitive itch should look at those differences, and decide which one are more to his taste.

Does the prospect of losing the game because he lost one model annoys OP, if that model is usually extremely resilient? If so, Infinity is probably better. You'll still often lose a game because someone capped your Lt, but at least your opponent doesn't know who he is. Does OP like or dislike the idea of not having access to your opponent's list, and that this ignorance is actually a part of the gameplay/strategy? Because that's part of Infinity. Are you opposed to the idea of having a single model use all the actions of every other model in his squad, blazing alone through every enemy he meets while his buddies cheer him up from the sidelines? Yeah, Infinity. Or perhaps you really like being able to play very fluffy, very asymetrical terrains? If so, best to avoid Wm/H. You can play fluffy, asymetrical tables, but the action usually takes place in the middle of the table, in a flat empty space with maybe a single rough terrain to piss off every sucker lacking pathfinder, where both lines will meet up football style, and then on to find the play that will break through and get one of your runner backs across to decapitate the enemy's QB ...err, Caster.

For me it boils down to "I like infinity" and "I don't like WM/H" - and this is enough for me. I won't like infinity forever - and when that like turns to loathe, I will find another game.

I don't even like ALL of infinity's models. Just enough of them and that's still more than the ones I like from WM/H.

It's also more than I like from GW.

xeper wrote:
But loosing a unit in your turn is a desaster. You loose a Order, your opponent has done nothing for it also he still has all orders for his next round. It's basically your unit tripping over its own feet and dying...
Imagine a tower (chess) failing to "kill" a peasant and also because of that the tower has to be removed?! wtf?

Bah ah ah ah ah... The ARO and the chance of loosing models in YOUR turn is PRECISELY what makes Infinity such a great game. It forces tactical play.
Its on the ball when it comes to simulating URBAN WARFARE. Its deadly. The gut roll rule is a superb implementation of fear caused in combat.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 MARC C wrote:
Its the problem of all «combos/pump up» games. Any game that requires you to have two list against possible «Bad Match Ups» reveals a serious flaw in game balance. This raising many red flags in terms of true competition.

It's a bit disengenuous to complain about the min-maxing that happens in Warmahorde and keep silent about similar combos/power-plays that happen in Infinity. You also failed to mention some of the mechanics in Infinity that draws the ire of newer player, such as cheerleading or the Lt. rules.

Combo/powerplays in Infinity are easily countered with the correct tool box in your list. Where as in Warmahordes their are numerous situations were the opponents cannot stop you. Bad Much ups being the worst since its an auto loss in competitive play. I find warmahordes suffers from the same problems one face when playing CCGs. After playing warmahordes in both editions i've come to think of it as a 3D-CCG. Its feels like playing Magic with models and scenery. Not my cup of tea.

Cheerleading will generate low amount of victory points in YAMS competitive play. One model can't be everywhere!
Lt rule is more generous then arbitrary win for Caster Kill. And what about Chain of Command which effectively cancels the effects of loss of Lt.

 MARC C wrote:


Cheerleading will generate low amount of victory points in YAMS competitive play. One model can't be everywhere!
Lt rule is more generous then arbitrary win for Caster Kill. And what about Chain of Command which effectively cancels the effects of loss of Lt.

Or the EI ability to give you the middle finger if you if your hunting there Lt.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Casey's Law wrote:
If I want a competitive game I don't play tabletop miniature games. To be truly competitive everything has to be black and white, simple and regimented. [...] it's not what the genre is about.

That's a tired old argument that gets debunked on every thread where competitive play must be justified.

I disagree. And I know you are intentionally flaming for comic effect, but to clarify: It was not an arguement, it was a point and my opinion; It has not and cannot be debunked because...

This is clearly an issue of semantics. For me to enjoy competition on it's own merits I require it in as pure a form as possible, otherwise I'll enjoy it passively as part of another activity. Obviously tabletop wargaming is an extremely impure form of competition, you are not simply putting your skill at tasks against your opponents skill at the same tasks. To do that you must remove the unknown from the equation. Removing the unknown from this hobby removes the fun and creativity.

Why is this semantic? Because you take pleasure in a lower bar of competition than I, so our meanings are not aligned. If only we all sang from the same hymn sheet and wore grey bags, eh?

 Casey's Law wrote:
you are not simply putting your skill at tasks against your opponents skill at the same tasks. To do that you must remove the unknown from the equation.

You are exactly doing that. In both cases the players are odds calculator trying to bank on the serie of actions that will give them the best odds. Any way, your argument implies that there cannot be competition in asymetrical games. Netrunner disproves that pretty well.

It has not and cannot be debunked because... This is clearly an issue of semantics.

It is precisely because your argument relies on a badly defined concept of competitivity that it can be debunked.

For me to enjoy competition on it's own merits I require it in as pure a form as possible

So that's you, and not competition. Also, 'pure'? Since you're the one bringing semantics into the question, maybe you should refrain from exporting moral terms to gaming.

Obviously tabletop wargaming is an extremely impure form of competition

That is in no way obvious.

Why is this semantic? Because you take pleasure in a lower bar of competition than I, so our meanings are not aligned. If only we all sang from the same hymn sheet and wore grey bags, eh?

ಠ_ಠ

Chess is that way --->

Aye no worries mate. Enjoy, I'm done.

 Dakkamite wrote:
Chess is that way --->

Nah, Chess is unbalanced as well. White wins 52-55% of the time due to first-movers advantage. In order for black to win, there needs to be a skill gap between competitors (which tends to be razor thin in high-level competition).

If we discount any asymmetry from allowing a game to be competitive, then it removes just about every game in existence (short of many sports and video games which, due to being played in real time, can avoid a lot of problems of turn-based games). But seriously, it is possible for balance to be "good enough" that the skill difference is what makes the final difference.

With all that given, I definitely say Warmahordes has competitive gaming in the bag between the two. While both have a wide skill gap (the distance between a poor player, and average player and a good player), Infinity brings something to the court that is anathema to most competitive play. And that is a very high degree of randomness brought about by the dicing system.

Skill gap is an important concept in competitive gaming. Basically, the more distance a good player can put between themselves and a player that isn't as good at them, the more their skill will be a factor. Warmahordes has this in spades with a lot of ways to basically get a "Scholar's Mate" on their opponent. Infinity, is much the same. A game of Infinity can easily be lost before the first turn has even started from shoddy deployment (and it has many "gotchas" to throw at your opponent.

But in Warmahordes case, this is backed up by a fairly reliable dicing system. The probability (I hesitate to call it a) curve provides players with enough information to make proper risk assessments on a given action. If you perform an action where your roll needs to be a 5 or less, then you know it is a fairly safe action to take. If it takes a 7, then it will most likely succeed (but carries some risk). If it is taking 9 or more, then you may want to think of an alternate method (or spend resources to improve your chances). It gives you various resources to alter rolls in your favour and the outcome is always very easy to see. Upsets can still occur, but they are rarer than rolling average (and doing poorly on a single roll is unlikely to do too much damage). In Warmahordes, your actions are reliable and it always gives you tools to tilt the odds in ways that will matter.

Infinity, however, doesn't really have that outside of Normal Rolls. The way the crit system works; not only trumping a potentially better set of rolls but (in the case of BS usage) causing an automatic wound can cause for a lot of capricious events over the course of the game. Though not overly common, it is possible for a higher-than-average amount of crits on one side to eliminate the skill gap between two players. It ignores all the methods (save for forcing Normal Rolls) a player has of increasing their odds or decreasing the enemy's. Because every roll has a 5% chance of just plain winning and not just winning, but winning better than any other given result (short of a higher crit). Now, this isn't (I repeats ISN'T) a bad thing in general. I find that this hews a lot closer to how a wargame should go ("Everything in war is very simple. But the simplest thing is difficult." - Clauswitz). Actual war is a fairly poor competitive game, it will do unfair things and sometimes a less skilled opponent will trounce the other guy. This is something I love about Infinity, but if you're looking for something that works well in a competitive sense, it probably isn't the way to go.

And with all that said, I find Warmahordes to be a bit better balanced (internally and externally) than Infinity. A lot of us vets don't tend to overanalyze the units in our armies we wont ever take, that due to our experience, we can tell right of the bat if they are totally useless or not. Things like line infantry MSRs and hackers, TO camo or AD2 lieutenants and various other units (up to and including all options for a particularly bad one). So while Infinity has some great intra-faction balance (i.e. it is hard for two equal players playing different factions to make a bad list in comparison to another) the internal balance is actual kind of bad (though there is enough variety for it not to hurt too much).

But with all that said, I find Infinity to be more fun as a wargame in general, even if I have witnessed nearly half a dozen games go to simply because one guy managed to keep rolling crits. It feels like a fairly accurate representation of small-unit tactics with a bit of sci-fi flare to it and it definitely rewards out-of-the-box thinking (though on that latter bit, Warmahordes is pretty good as well). But of the two, it feels more like a wargame. Warmahordes is a great game when you feel like playing something akin to chess with steam-hammers. It is a very cerebral game with a lot of feints and maneuver between both sides waiting for that opening from the opponent. It plays very much like a game of chess mixed with a bit of MtG (or a Rube Goldberg machine due to how activation timing tends to work). And at the end of it, you can look at your victory or defeat and know[/i] that it was [b]you's rather than chance snatching away ever opportunity. Because while that is very indicative of the state brought about by war, it tends to not make for good competitive play.

Either way, I love 'em both for different reasons.

 Dakkamite wrote:
Chess is that way --->

i.e. "Your gaming is wrong''

i.e. ''blah blah blah I'm confusing my subjective appreciation of a game for an objective appreciation of the level of complexity and agency a game allows''

i.e. ''You should all disregard my opinion''

I don't even know if thats directed at me or at Casey's Law, but in either case your interpretation of the post is entirely unrepresentative of its actual meaning.

I play Retribution of Scyrah. I think I'm going to make the jump... and play both.