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.

 dementedwombat wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:

Be fair. Aleph is one of the factions built on anime stereotypes. All of their females look like that.

There's 7 other factions where the majority of their female models are not anime skin showing stereotypes. The biggest offender after Aleph is the Nomad Bakunin sectorial, which is half of the Nomad range.

You're cherry picking to prove an incorrect point. The majority of Infinitys female models are fine.

I was honestly not aware of that. I did some research on the factions, found out ALPEH was the advanced AI machine dominance type faction, immediately decided that was the one I was interested in, then went to look at the models and did a rapid backpedal out of the online store. Darn shame the faction that had the most interesting backstory to me is also the one most laden with the kinds of models I don't like.

Anime is to Infinity what 1980s comic-book scifi is to 40k - The influence is pervasive but subtle, and often mixed with a dozen other pop culture references.

That said, I don't find ALEPH models so anime. Sure, a couple of their female miniatures channel Motoko Aramaki, but 1960-70s pulp sci-fi and superspy influences (chrome, spandex, mao collars and miniskirts) are also all over the place. "Serious" sci-fi also permeates the faction, too - Some of their models (Devas and Posthumans, precisely) are just how I imagine the Special Circumstances agents from Iain Banks' Culture series would be.

Frankly speaking, the only female model of the entire Infinity range that really turns me off is the tactical heels-wearing, boob armored female NeoTerran Bolt. And still I'd probably won't mind if it wasn't for the stupid Kamen Rider helmet.

As for the Kum bikers, amazing minis as they are, the inked, muscley Biker Muslims from Mars are proof that male miniatures can be over-sexualized, too

 dementedwombat wrote:
EDIT: that said, I'm looking through the rest of the faction ranges, and they all have a few annoying (to me) female models.

So avoid them. It's a portion of the range I dislike (and often complain about) profusely, but Infinity's game balance leaves nothing you can't do without.

Waaaghpower wrote:
I'm curious: Are there any tabletop games out there which center around tiny groups of infantry or strike teams or whatever? Games where 10+ models is a whole hell of a lot, each guy is his own unit, and it takes place in a much more confined setting. (Preferably with clear and consise rules.) Maybe similar to 40k Kill Teams, but with a ruleset tailor-fitted to little squads.

First RT 40k was like that, old warzone rules, Necromunda, warmachine leans toward smaller games, Dust tactics and warfare can also be like that.

There are lots of games that fill this criteria
- As has been said 'Infinity' seems to be the current hot property. Take a look at this thread for info about starting http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/440048.page In fact, the whole Infinity section on Dakka has got lots of threads from guys just starting.
- Deadzone is also pretty popular at the moment, and very cheap/easy to get into.
- MERCS is a very small-scale game, also seems to be growing in popularity.
- DUST Tactics, very easy to pick up a boxset and nice pre-painted minis.
- If you're into historical games, why not give the new 'Skirmish in Sangrin' a try? Heard very good things about it.
There are more I'm sure although can't think of them for the time being..

 dementedwombat wrote:
A lot of the infantry and robots are really legit. It's the annoying (to me) anime girls thrown in that ruin the rest for me, that and the dang hollow wheeled motorcycles. Just look weird.

You realise any criticism of this miniature whatsoever automatically imposes a 3-day ban from Dakka, on the grounds of insanity?

On a side note, this miniature was designed by someone who really knows their motorbikes and understands the tech. There are a lot of really astute observations about current developments in motorbike design in this model (the swingarm being mounted directly onto the engine casing etc.), let me bore you about it sometime

 MarcoSkoll wrote:

 dementedwombat wrote:
EDIT: that said, I'm looking through the rest of the faction ranges, and they all have a few annoying (to me) female models.

So avoid them. It's a portion of the range I dislike (and often complain about) profusely, but Infinity's game balance leaves nothing you can't do without.

That's a very good point, it's incredibly easy to make an infinity army by just picking out 5 or so models you love the look of then sprinkling a few more models you like on top (depending on the points you have left).

Seriously, I was browsing their site a week ago, decided I liked the look of the Metros, threw together a list made up of each metro model and a few other cool ones from the same subsection then bam, $160 later I had a new army on it's way to me and the slightest feeling of shame...

Infinity or some ww2 skirmish game.

I'm going to recommend some free rules that are already 40k model friendly.

In The Emperor's Name
http://iten-game.org/

Solid set of rules. The core rules were good enough that they got published for Victorian Science Fiction wargaming by Osprey Publishing in In Her Majesty's Name.

FUBAR

http://thegamesshed.wordpress.com/2010/06/17/fubar-one-page-sfmodern-rules/

Simple rules that fit on one page. Lots of ways you can hack this to your liking.

Star mogul/ Salvage Crew.

http://www.megaminis.com/MEGA/CATALOGS/SALVAGE-CREW-Star-Mogul-Game.pdf


In a word, cheap, as in free.

There are plenty of problems with Infinity though, such as over reliance on way too much terrain on the tabletop due to the rules.

Also, overly complicated rules. The ARO stuff if fine, but everything else around it gets wonky. And their rules writing used to be atrocious. Thankfully they fixed that in some recent rewrites, but there's still some leftovers.

It's a good game, just be prepared to spend time and money building tables full of fully solid terrain (as in no windows or gaps that you can see a head size portion of a model through). Also, it's near true-scale, so be prepared for lots of skinny models with tiny bits. We're talking slivers of metal that you're supposed to glue down.

MERCS, on the other hand, is reliant on paper mats and finicky cards for movement. It's almost a boardgame masquerading as a miniatures game. Boardgames are great, but this one has issues figuring out what it is since there's no rules at all for playing on a table with your own terrain.

Dead zone suffers from being part of Mantic's crusade to not so subtly clone everything GW does. So even if Deadzone is edgy, it still carries that baggage of coming from a generic game and minis line. Also has a little of the MERCs issue, but at the same time, they provide terrain in the box and the using the play mat helps speed up the game via its grid movement rather than limit how you play.

Same for DUST Tactics, if you're used to playing miniature wargames, you will definitely find Tactics too simplistic. But that's where Dust Warfare comes in, assuming that's still being worked on.

 Vertrucio wrote:
There are plenty of problems with Infinity though, such as over reliance on way too much terrain on the tabletop due to the rules.

Also, overly complicated rules. The ARO stuff if fine, but everything else around it gets wonky. And their rules writing used to be atrocious. Thankfully they fixed that in some recent rewrites, but there's still some leftovers.

It's a good game, just be prepared to spend time and money building tables full of fully solid terrain (as in no windows or gaps that you can see a head size portion of a model through). Also, it's near true-scale, so be prepared for lots of skinny models with tiny bits. We're talking slivers of metal that you're supposed to glue down.

MERCS, on the other hand, is reliant on paper mats and finicky cards for movement. It's almost a boardgame masquerading as a miniatures game. Boardgames are great, but this one has issues figuring out what it is since there's no rules at all for playing on a table with your own terrain.

Dead zone suffers from being part of Mantic's crusade to not so subtly clone everything GW does. So even if Deadzone is edgy, it still carries that baggage of coming from a generic game and minis line. Also has a little of the MERCs issue, but at the same time, they provide terrain in the box and the using the play mat helps speed up the game via its grid movement rather than limit how you play.

Same for DUST Tactics, if you're used to playing miniature wargames, you will definitely find Tactics too simplistic. But that's where Dust Warfare comes in, assuming that's still being worked on.

So is there a game you do like? Just curious.

 Vertrucio wrote:
There are plenty of problems with Infinity though, such as over reliance on way too much terrain on the tabletop due to the rules.

Some people overload their Infinity tables with terrain*, but the amount of terrain Infinity is designed to use (based on what the designers have shown in the past) is not particularly atypical by skirmish game standards.
*It's common misconception that you shouldn't be able to draw any lines of sight from one side of the table to the other, but setting up tables with that much terrain gives a horrendous advantage to the first player in most of the tournament missions.

Also, overly complicated rules. The ARO stuff if fine, but everything else around it gets wonky.

The rules are certainly unusual, but at no stage of my involvement with the game have I found them to be complicated. (Although, I accept my memory for rulesets borders on the pathological).

When there's wonkiness, I tend to find the most common cause is a player deciding that it's "not realistic" for all the skills and AROs from the same order to be simultaneous and non-conditional.

just be prepared to spend time and money building tables full of fully solid terrain (as in no windows or gaps that you can see a head size portion of a model through).

It's a bit disingenuous to say that. Players are supposed to discuss how they're handling the terrain before the game, at which point the very common ruling that you can see into or out of buildings (and other suitable terrain elements) but not straight through them tends to fix most such ills very quickly.

Infinity may 'require' more terrain than 40k or similar... but you could probably buy 2 Infinity forces and a table full of terrain for less than the 40k rulebook...
There are a LOT of companies out there producing high quality modular MDF terrain. The Deadzone terrain will also work very well for Infinity.

Dust really doesn't work for what OP wants. Dust Tactics is more of a board game, and Dust Warfare is probably more comparable to 40k than any other game.

Trasvi wrote:
Infinity may 'require' more terrain than 40k or similar... but you could probably buy 2 Infinity forces and a table full of terrain for less than the 40k rulebook...
There are a LOT of companies out there producing high quality modular MDF terrain. The Deadzone terrain will also work very well for Infinity.

Very true - there are tons of terrain makers on the market now, and a lot of them are reasonably priced.

Of course you can also make your own terrain - click my sig, there are loads of different threads and links right here on this very site.

If you already have some 40k stuff then I'd recommend Inquisitor, which plays just as well in 28mm as 54mm. More detailed than Necromunda, we had a lot of fun with it many years ago.

 Vertrucio wrote:
There are plenty of problems with Infinity though, such as over reliance on way too much terrain on the tabletop due to the rules.

Also, overly complicated rules. The ARO stuff if fine, but everything else around it gets wonky. And their rules writing used to be atrocious. Thankfully they fixed that in some recent rewrites, but there's still some leftovers.

Funny - what you call "over-reliance on way too much terrain" is "*Finally*, a game that uses proper amounts of terrain instead of the lame and cheap 40k table featuring 2 ruins and a grassy hill!" from my side of the table.

As for the rules - I don't find them really complicated, but then I came from RPGs to tabletop gaming so my pain threshold may be different. I'll grant you that the rules layout and the writing (at least in the translated edition) are pretty questionable, though - but there's a nice fan-made re-edit of the rules that deal with these issues pretty well.

Link teams are the worst offender really. Also their propensity to lump a bunch of common rules under one, give it a different name and different interactions.

Also, just because I can point out problems in games, doesn't mean I don't like them. I've just had to go through a lot of games and rules in the past year while writing my own. You tend to be critical as a rules writer.

It's still an over reliance on terrain if the rules can't handle a single open field or corridor giving "horrendous advantage" to one player.

I agree that using terrain is a very good thing, even using a lot. One of the reasons why I don't play Warmachine much (or 40K at all) is that those games never use terrain in an interesting way due to the way the rules handle it. Meanwhile I play Flames of War despite not being a history buff, mainly because you can use a lot of terrain and the rules handle it well without bogging down the game.

However, since we're recommending games, it's important that he knows exactly what he's getting in to if he chooses infinity. All you guys are already telling the positives, someone has to make him aware of the hurdles and downsides of getting into the game.

Heck, my group would probably still be playing infinity if we could all pitch in for the terrain. At this point I may eventually use some free game texture, print and paste them onto some foamcore to make solid walls and buildings to play.

Terrain is always an added cost for the game, no matter what you play. It's more expensive than people think, both in cost if you have someone else build it, or time and cost if you build it yourself. And as I said before, the cost is higher due to the amount you need to have a good game of infinity.

 Vertrucio wrote:

It's still an over reliance on terrain if the rules can't handle a single open field or corridor giving "horrendous advantage" to one player.

They don't. You have things like cautious movement, coordinated orders and smoke to deal with open fields and corridors.

What you call an "horrendous advantage to one player", I call an actually pretty good way to represent a modern day ranged fight. You don't actually see people running in the open against automatic weapons except in bad action movies and in 40k for a reason...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vertrucio wrote:
Link teams are the worst offender really.

Link teams are an abstraction meant to represent a close knit unit and giving it an in game advantage that would offset the limited choices that a sectorial player usually has to deal with. I don't find that they add any extra complexity to the game.

 Vertrucio wrote:

Also their propensity to lump a bunch of common rules under one, give it a different name and different interactions.

I have no idea what you are talking about when you say "different interactions". Any examples of this?

 Vertrucio wrote:

I agree that using terrain is a very good thing, even using a lot. One of the reasons why I don't play Warmachine much (or 40K at all) is that those games never use terrain in an interesting way due to the way the rules handle it. Meanwhile I play Flames of War despite not being a history buff, mainly because you can use a lot of terrain and the rules handle it well without bogging down the game.

I don't understand this comment, both WMH and FoW handle terrain in a very similar fashion...

So, first. WTF is this with picking apart any critical post line by line?

Link teams are a poor abstraction. But I do agree something is necessary. I just think link teams was a poor route to go.

Basically, you have one basic rule concept, such as No Wound Incap. That same concept is then also lumped into another, bigger rule for some hero unit and written out completely instead of referencing the smaller rule's name. Within that bigger heroic rule, those smaller rules sometimes interact differently, or get canceled out in ways different from the base. I think this is more a problem with the rules writing style. They should take big rules and break them into smaller rules using their smaller names.

As to my comments on terrain handling in various games: WMH (Warmachine and Hordes) and FoW handle terrain pretty differently. In WMH, going through rough terrain is always a blanket 1/2 speed. That's a huge penalty in a game that's about movement and charge ranges. That, and other penalties, makes it so that you almost never want to get into terrain, although most of the list building is about trying to fit in pathfinder to get around it.

In FoW, infantry ignore most movement penalties from terrain, except that they can't double (run) through rough terrain. This is due to scale abstraction, but it's a nice touch. Infantry just get around anywhere on the table unless its impassable. Tanks can move at a decent rate through terrain, going from the average of 12" to just 8", sure it's only 2" more than 1/2 speed, and you have to take a bog check to see if the tank gets stuck, but the advantages aren't outweighed by the disadvantages.

There's more to the differences, but that's a good example.

 Bomster wrote:

 Vertrucio wrote:
There are plenty of problems with Infinity though, such as over reliance on way too much terrain on the tabletop due to the rules.

Also, overly complicated rules. The ARO stuff if fine, but everything else around it gets wonky. And their rules writing used to be atrocious. Thankfully they fixed that in some recent rewrites, but there's still some leftovers.

Funny - what you call "over-reliance on way too much terrain" is "*Finally*, a game that uses proper amounts of terrain instead of the lame and cheap 40k table featuring 2 ruins and a grassy hill!" from my side of the table.

.

To be fair on 40k, that's mostly the fault of the players - the book recommends that at 25% of the table is covered by terrain.
It's just that most players can't be bothered setting up the table that way.

The Judge Dredd game may work for you.

Also, check out A Fistful of Kung Fu (an Osprey/Ganesha games offering), several of the Wild West games out there (Deadman's Hand, Blackwater Gulch, The Rules with No Name, A Fistful of Lead) or some of the Pirate games (I like Cutlass but there are others out there like Under the Black Flag).

 Vertrucio wrote:
So, first. WTF is this with picking apart any critical post line by line?

I just prefer to answer it that way, makes it more organized...

 Vertrucio wrote:

Link teams are a poor abstraction. But I do agree something is necessary. I just think link teams was a poor route to go.

Oh, I agree with you there, I don't really like the link team rules as well and I also think that CB could have gone with a different route, maybe with some kind of general sectorial bonus like WMH has for theme forces.

 Vertrucio wrote:

Basically, you have one basic rule concept, such as No Wound Incap. That same concept is then also lumped into another, bigger rule for some hero unit and written out completely instead of referencing the smaller rule's name. Within that bigger heroic rule, those smaller rules sometimes interact differently, or get canceled out in ways different from the base. I think this is more a problem with the rules writing style. They should take big rules and break them into smaller rules using their smaller names.

I'm aware of the lumping of small rules in bigger ones, I'm just not aware of any instance of said lumping generating different interactions from when the single rule is used.

 Vertrucio wrote:

As to my comments on terrain handling in various games: WMH (Warmachine and Hordes) and FoW handle terrain pretty differently. In WMH, going through rough terrain is always a blanket 1/2 speed. That's a huge penalty in a game that's about movement and charge ranges. That, and other penalties, makes it so that you almost never want to get into terrain, although most of the list building is about trying to fit in pathfinder to get around it.

In FoW, infantry ignore most movement penalties from terrain, except that they can't double (run) through rough terrain. This is due to scale abstraction, but it's a nice touch. Infantry just get around anywhere on the table unless its impassable. Tanks can move at a decent rate through terrain, going from the average of 12" to just 8", sure it's only 2" more than 1/2 speed, and you have to take a bog check to see if the tank gets stuck, but the advantages aren't outweighed by the disadvantages.

There's more to the differences, but that's a good example.

Its the same thing! In FoW rough terrain generates movement a penalty for some units (all non-infantry) while in WMH rough terrain generates movement a penalty for some units (all non-pathfinder or flying). In FoW my all Panzer list doesn't want to go anywhere near terrain while in Hordes my Legion army absolutely loves all difficult terrain. Lumping all the different types of armies of both games into "this game loves terrain" and "that game hates it" is a huge over-simplification... And both FoW and WMH are allot deeper games, tactically, than that.

There are tons of games like this. Unlike large scale mainstream games where it is all but necessary for an opponent to have their own army, games with less than 10 miniatures make it practical for one person to own multiple forces. Thus, you can have everything you need to play. Thus, defunct games are just as viable as currently produced ones.

In terms of recommendations check out
Deep Wars (Underwater action, and some suits like bio shock)
Atomic Cafe 1957 (1950s gang action)
Zynvaded (Aliens in a Chinese food container)

For what it's worth, Infinity's reliance on terrain can be solved from grabbing whatever happens to be in the house and putting it on the table.

Alternatively, imperial guard tanks make great terrain.

I'd put in another vote for Deadzone. Opinions on the minis are of course subjective, but I struggle to think of more than a couple I don't like, and the terrain is awesome. It's also one of the cheapest to buy into, around £50 from online retailers for a mat (Very good quality, not flimsy), terrain, 2 teams, and all the rules and cards/dice ect. The rules are very cinematic, balanced and fun, and easy to pick up after a game.

I'd also second In The Emperor's Game. The thing I like about that one (apart from being free) is that, as there are no set profiles, you've got a blank slate for really making it your own vision of 40k. When setting up my own profiles (super-easy as there's a points calculator on the site) I tried to make the Space Marines a little more fluff-accurate, so that a couple of marines vs 15 Guardsmen is an even match. On the other hand, if you prefer more toned down marines you can do that too.

It's also a very nice alternative to Inquisitor/Necromunda, as you can build a good Inquisitorial Retinue/Hive Gang due to the easily variable stats and skills.

Deadzone
Infinity
Mercs recon (on kickstarter) looks good

If you want something less sci if

Ronin
A fist full of Kung fu
In her magestys name.

There is also Song of Blades and Heroes and it's expansions if you wanna use whatever fantasy models you have laying around.

I really need to stop reading this thread. I've already committed to Infinity now...the absolute last thing I need is to start acquiring more wargames I'll most likely never get the chance to play.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
Pfffft, that bike is one of the best models in the entire range.

Kum Bikers would like a word with you....



I started Infinity as a game with my very F-GW buddy. Now I'm really thinking of selling off my attic full of GW stuff and buying a corvette.


If you want a game where you have to think during the game and not so much what optimal list to bring, play Infinity.

That model with the guy holding his weapon outward is fething amazing.

HeroQuest.




....no?

 Vertrucio wrote:
It's still an over reliance on terrain if the rules can't handle a single open field or corridor giving "horrendous advantage" to one player.

You have me completely wrong. It's NOT having a reasonable supply of open fields and corridors that gives the first player the "horrendous advantage" I talked about in those scenarios.