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.

Just going off of rules (not models/fluff), which game is the better competitive game?

My only experience with the Infinity tournament rules has been positive so far, but then so have my warmachine and hordes experiences, so I won't be much help in this. But if I had to pick one I'd go warmachine/hordes, if only because their rules were written for English, cutting down on any questions arising purely from translation issues.

 fables429 wrote:
Just going off of rules (not models/fluff), which game is the better competitive game?

These are two very different beasts all together.

Warmahordes : If you are looking for power ups, combos similar to MtG, and «bad match ups» [meaning you can't do anything against the other caster - hence the two lists or side boards] this game is for you. BUT I have to say that with MKII the rules are pretty tight when it comes down to wording. BUT that doesn't compensate for the imbalance in the game system. So the system is UBER competitive but breaks down at the table.

Infinity : If you are looking for a tactical game where each move must be weighted against possible reaction shots (AROs) by the enemy during your turn, a reasonably balanced scenario system (YAMS), no «unbeatable lists», no unbeatable «model/unit», free rules wiki and free army builder INFINITY is for you. BUT I have to say that a few rules have unclear wording which CB will probably address later on (3E?). But they do answer some in the WiKI. So you have to play by consensus for some rules.

Having played both games extensively I will say that INFINITY is the better ruleset because nothing is truly unbalanced when mixed with YAMS or scenario missions. Every dirty trick has its counter and all powerful models can be hurt by critical rolls. I have yet to find another system that brings a better gaming experience FOR BOTH PLAYERS to the table. I've been playing wargames for 32 years - from Sqad Leader to Infinity.

MARC C

The main issue I've had with the rules in Infinity is simply waffling, rather than translation issues. Like taking an entire paragraph to explain the reason why a rule is working like it is, and then right at the end saying it gives a -3 to hit or something simple. The wording can use a lot of tightening up, but the rules themselves are perfectly fine.

This is because it's a translation.

The Romance languages have a more circumlocutory way of dealing with certain subjects, and so you are often forced to use that wording to get to the point because it is often impossible to use a more "to the point" way without seeming insulting.

The rules are TRANSLATED, not transliterated or interpreted.

So the roundabout text remains as a byproduct of this.

What you call waffling, the native speakers of those languages call "normal".
What you call "to the point" the speakers of other languages call "uncivilised and brutally abrupt, curt or rude."

Such is the thing about language.

Fair point.

I certainly wouldn't mind if they interperated it for English, as it's the one sticking point whenever I come across a rule I haven't used before.

I guess it wouldn't be too much money to just get both.

Also I know 40k gets a bad rep for competitive play, but how do the 6th edition rules hold up against these 2 games? (I'm trying to get back into the hobby, have only played 3rd edition 40k)

In short, they don't.

There's still just as many grey areas in the rules and rules that flat out don't make sense, there's still power discrepancies with the codices (though to be fair it's evened out since those final years of 5th) and even with improved internal balance, there's still cases of must-take and never-take units. The rules themselves have added a lot of dice rolling for the sake of dice rolling. Warlord special power? Roll at the start of the game. Pyschic power loadout? Roll at the start of the game. Enter some terrain? Roll to see if it will kill you. Captured an objective? Roll to see if you get a buff or if it will kill you. Same with charge ranges - 6" away fron an enemy? Assaulting that enemy is not a sure bet (I've had 4 Tyranid units, with fleet rerolls, fail to charge that distance in the same turn against one unit).

That's not to say it's not enjoyable - for all of those problems, I still have great fun plonking down my horde of Tyranids and swamping my friends armies with gaunts while my bigger bigs tear tanks apart, and you do get some very cinematic moments in spite of the built in randomness.

Sometimes though you actually want a game where you need to think, where dice rolling is there to aid gameplay instead of hinder it. That's why I play both 40k and Infinity. If I want to push models around a table and shoot the gak with friends I haven't seen in ages, I'll throw my Tyranids on there. If I want a strategic game where I actually need to outplay my opponent, I'll throw my Haqqislam on the table.

 fables429 wrote:
I guess it wouldn't be too much money to just get both.

Also I know 40k gets a bad rep for competitive play, but how do the 6th edition rules hold up against these 2 games? (I'm trying to get back into the hobby, have only played 3rd edition 40k)

Well, that is a yes and no question. Warmahordes you can drop 50 USD for the battlebox, or a 100 USD if you want to get into it with a friend and want the two faction in either two-player battle boxes. But later on it is still going to cost a lot, but not as much as you would for 40k (although some may argue that, but you ca build a lot more viable list than what you could do in 40k with just one unit, jack/ beast and so on). Infinity on the other hand is you are going to spend about 45 USD on a starter set and that is all you would really need to get a good group going. Also the plus compared to WMH is that their army list builder and rules are free on their website, so you can proxy your 40k models to try thr game out.

Rules Wise, it is from what I have seen:

Warmahordes: Alright, hands down, this has to be the most well-written and tightest ruleset I have ever played with, and Privateer Press keeps up to date with it and usually releases errata on rules that need clearing up if need be, and their tournament/ League support is Bar-none from what I have seen. Downside is it imbalanced some of the times, and there are some bad match-up, hence the two-list set-up at tournament.

Infinity: A pretty unique ruleset that I have played with, and pretty fun once you get the hang with it. Almost everything is balanced and everything as a good, hard counter to it. One major complaint is that the rules are not so clear or concise some of the time, whether it is the Translation from a Romantic Language, just a little convoluted rule-writing, or a little bit of the two I am not sure. Although

Personally I love both systems equally, and coming from a 40k background at first, I was highly refreshed by something new out of those two. I am a little bit new to Infinity so I maybe off the mark. My personal opinion is that Warmahordes is more of a competitive system since Privateer Press generally has a 'Game first' approach to it and try to keep it as clear and uniform as possible to make Competitive play much more standardized and uniform to one thing. Infinity can be as well, but the reasons I stated before could be what is holding it back a bit more, and could use a bit of tightening up.

Infinity is definitely up there with Warmahordes competitively. CB are good at clarifying rules through updates and answering questions on their boards which make it to the wiki and the downloadable rules, and there's very few outstanding issues. Balancing, there's no actual bad matchups, no 'must take' units (though everyone will obviously have their own preferred playstyle and thus preferred units) and very few units considered sub par, and even those aren't 'never take' units.

As you said, the only issue (as I noted as well) is the long winded rules explanations at times - the reason for which was clarified by chromedog. A properly interperated ruleset would be very nice, but it's not needed.

 fables429 wrote:
I guess it wouldn't be too much money to just get both.

Also I know 40k gets a bad rep for competitive play, but how do the 6th edition rules hold up against these 2 games? (I'm trying to get back into the hobby, have only played 3rd edition 40k)

Can't speak for WMH, but by god you cannot even compare 40k with Infinity rules wise. You need to play them both to really comprehend it.

Agree with Loki though - 40k is still good as a (very) casual game with mates. Just yesterday I played my Orks against my friend's Lizardmen just to see what would happen (I got rolled lol). But tournament-wise theres absolutely no contest.

To be fair - one reason you can't compare them is they're simply doing different things. 40k is doing a more abstract large scale combat game with a focus on melee fighting, while Infinity is doing a far less abstracted, much smaller scale skirmish game with a focus on shooting.

Rulesets are going to differ, and differ alot. Even if GW decided to tighen up their rules and get rid of the grey areas, there's going to be very little to compare between the systems.

As it is right now, as long as you're not a mathhammering nut min-maxing everything possible, 40k is still a fun game in a semi competitive environment. The problem with the system is even if GW don't like to admit it, their fast and loose rules writing and huge amount of customiseability encourages overly competitive people to minmax the everloving gak out of their lists. This is fine if this is what you want - I'd say the main strength and weakness of 40k is catering to such a wide range of people. Super competitive people will find the optimal units and min-max the gak out of their army, while more casual players will use a broader mix of sub par units and do more to theme their army. Unfortunately, these two types of people rarely mix will as opponents.

Infinity avoids this problem by units being a lot more structured and also imposing limits on special weapons as well as unit types, so you can't just have an army of HMGs even if the base unit price would allow you to, as well as by making even basic grunts with rifles a deadly opponent to get caught in an ARO with and making orders a precious resource, so you're encouraged to take those basic grunts even if only as order generators.

Lol, it's actually *easier* for me to pull off melee in Infinity than it is in 40k. Boggles the mind to be honest.

Boggles mine as well - especially from an Ork player. Getting into assault in 40k isn't hard, the only real trick is doing it with enough models to make a difference, which simply takes a little movement knowledge and redundancy planning (ie plan to assault with more than one unit).

In Infinity, you're dealing with AROs, and against a smart player, not just the ARO of the receiving unit. Most people will have at least one other model with LoS to their own model, and one shot is all that's needed to protect against CC.

One problem with Infinity along the translated rules and as such some holes and mistranslations and so on to me is the damned True Los system. If you put a model on one edge, you can hide it so no-one can see it. On your turn you turn the model a little bit and magically everything can be seen.

WM/H is doing the right thing with their volumes - a model is considered to take amount of space equal to its base with a height of X. If a similar system was in Infinity, I would be less inclined to whine about it. It's really frustrating that the models block or don't block LoS depending on their modelling and the way you put them. A fat dude blocks more LoS than the skinny dude behind him. If the fat dude was sideways, he wouldn't block LoS.

Yeah, I don't like True Los.

Infinity doesn't use true LoS. You cannot draw LoF through a base, unless the back model is bigger than the one in front. Any part pf the model that overhangs the base does not count to LoF.

Also LoF is drawn from the center of the base, if you can draw from any point in the center of your base up to the head height of your model to the center of their base. Regardless of how much of the actual model is covered you get LoF.

Those are the two big ones people tend to ignore when they assume "true LoS" and skim the LoF rules.

 avantgarde wrote:
Infinity doesn't use true LoS. You cannot draw LoF through a base, unless the back model is bigger than the one in front. Any part pf the model that overhangs the base does not count to LoF.

Also LoF is drawn from the center of the base, if you can draw from any point in the center of your base up to the head height of your model to the center of their base. Regardless of how much of the actual model is covered you get LoF.

Those are the two big ones people tend to ignore when they assume "true LoS" and skim the LoF rules.

Sorry you are wrong. The first ruling is you can't fire through gaps, like the opening between a models legs, nothing about shooting over a base. Otherwise my Chimera would just move up behind her Dodging PH22 pups, sadly it don't work that way. They use smoke instead.

Next you must still see a head size part of the target even if you can draw LoF to it base, you should finish reading that part it's at the end.

They're both solid products, but Warmahordes is hands-down the better game if you're looking for structured competitive play. Infinity has this sort of unique mix of abstracted and "as the model goes" rules, that while kind of dynamic makes some calls far more ambiguous than they are in Warmarhordes. The Warmahordes rules team is (at least in english), far more active about coming up with rulings.

The dice are far less "swingy" in Warmahordes which is good thing if you're looking for a game that rewards formulating & executing a plan. I think the infinity system better captures the chaos of firefight, but that's more fun on narrative level than it is in a competitive sense.

Warmahordes also has a interesting metagame and has a much higher ceiling on system mastery. That is to say there are more moving parts in the engine to understand in Warmahordes and I find this is something most competitive players enjoy.

Perhaps most importantly is company support. PP is super active in doing errata, releasing updated scenarios, providing clear rulings on interactions. You go into a game of infinity your best guideline on terrain is people on the forums telling you "You gotta get it where it feels right". You open up the privateer press steamroller packet and it says "5-7 Pieces of terrain, with sides 4-7" in length, no obstacles within 4" of objectives or in zones, all terrain pieces at least 3" apart, no terrain in deployment zones". It's super clear and super consistent. They're like this with everything.

You play in Warmahordes in Boston, pick up and go to Seattle you know the people in Seattle are going to be playing the *exact* same game. You do that with infinity and they might not be using the same rulings on some of the things in infinity for which there is -no- official ruling, they might be using a different one of the half-dozen fan created scenarios systems, they may have totally different expectations in how you set up tables. That's interesting & dieverse, even healthy in a certain respect. It is not conducive to having a really meaningful competitive scene.

Noir wrote:
Sorry you are wrong. The first ruling is you can't fire through gaps, like the opening between a models legs, nothing about shooting over a base. Otherwise my Chimera would just move up behind her Dodging PH22 pups, sadly it don't work that way. They use smoke instead.

Define gap left by the miniature. Between legs is a single example. What about the armpit gap? Gaps between gun, legs or arms? Where is the hard limit of the gap? When is it no longer a gap but open air?

You can define gaps as the entire base up to head height or define gaps as an area bordered by at least two parts of the model and draw a triangle where they terminate or you define gaps as an area enclosed on 3 sides by the model or base. I play it like the first instance since it cuts arguing about what constitutes a "gap" and I'd argue that this is an exception instance where models are solid cylinders only when drawing LoF through them.

You're right about the Chimera/Pupnik blocks being unfair, but that's CB's fault for synchronizing Pupniks then FAQing with arbitrary wording.

Noir wrote:
Next you must still see a head size part of the target even if you can draw LoF to it base, you should finish reading that part it's at the end.

What happens in the extreme case were a line can be traced without obstruction from a models base center to a models base center, but there is no visible part of the model to be seen?

In that extreme scenario LOF is granted.

Umm... gap as in not the part around the model unless the model takes up the whole base there are many open areas around it you shoot over the base.

Didn't notice the part you wrote of center to center of base, but that's the only time do you not need to see a head size part, for true LoF.

All I'm gonna say is this. The word "gap" isn't defined well enough, and to play it based on eyeballing it makes it a rule subject to interpretation and personal bias, which has no place in a competitive game.
As of right now without further clarification the gap should either be interpreted in the loosest way possible (everything) or the strictest way possible (just between the legs).

As much as I like Infinity and despise WM/H, the fact the LoS rules can be so hazy makes me think the game isn't ready for large scale competitive play. LoS rules are an essential part of any TT game, and to have so much confusion over it is a glaring issue.

Chongara wrote:

Perhaps most importantly is company support. PP is super active in doing errata, releasing updated scenarios, providing clear rulings on interactions. You go into a game of infinity your best guideline on terrain is people on the forums telling you "You gotta get it where it feels right". You open up the privateer press steamroller packet and it says "5-7 Pieces of terrain, with sides 4-7" in length, no obstacles within 4" of objectives or in zones, all terrain pieces at least 3" apart, no terrain in deployment zones". It's super clear and super consistent. They're like this with everything.

Perhaps the reason many of us play the game over here is BECAUSE it isn't as rigid as WM/H.
We prefer some flexibility in our game where common sense has a place (something that can't be said about the WM/H scene here.).
It's mainly played by those people burned out on GW and PP over here.

Infinity wasn't DESIGNED as a competitive rule set. The same way that 40k was never designed to be one.
WM/H was, because the competitive scene wanted it that way, and tbh, the "american" gaming psyche is more keyed for it. Competition and one-upping is written into the American psyche. "Keeping up with the joneses" and all that.


There is no comparison between WM/H and infinity possible bar that they are both miniatures games.
They are chalk and cheese. Beer and garlic, oil and water and other dissimilar things.

WM/H was, because the competitive scene wanted it that way, and tbh, the "american" gaming psyche is more keyed for it. Competition and one-upping is written into the American psyche. "Keeping up with the joneses" and all that.

Fantastic. This applies liberally to the 40k group as a whole on this site too - I've noticed that most of the rules lawyers, WAAC types tend to have a little stars and stripes next to their username

No offense to the ones that aren't like that, it must be hell to live in a country surrounded by that noise

 chromedog wrote:

Chongara wrote:

Perhaps most importantly is company support. PP is super active in doing errata, releasing updated scenarios, providing clear rulings on interactions. You go into a game of infinity your best guideline on terrain is people on the forums telling you "You gotta get it where it feels right". You open up the privateer press steamroller packet and it says "5-7 Pieces of terrain, with sides 4-7" in length, no obstacles within 4" of objectives or in zones, all terrain pieces at least 3" apart, no terrain in deployment zones". It's super clear and super consistent. They're like this with everything.

Perhaps the reason many of us play the game over here is BECAUSE it isn't as rigid as WM/H.
We prefer some flexibility in our game where common sense has a place (something that can't be said about the WM/H scene here.).
It's mainly played by those people burned out on GW and PP over here.

Infinity wasn't DESIGNED as a competitive rule set. The same way that 40k was never designed to be one.
WM/H was, because the competitive scene wanted it that way, and tbh, the "american" gaming psyche is more keyed for it. Competition and one-upping is written into the American psyche. "Keeping up with the joneses" and all that.


There is no comparison between WM/H and infinity possible bar that they are both miniatures games.
They are chalk and cheese. Beer and garlic, oil and water and other dissimilar things.

Like... you get that the OPs post was posing a question, one which I was answering. That question was, "Which is the better competitive game?".

Putting aside the fact that your post is broadly overreaching and more than little condescending, the relative merits of the games outside of competitive context aren't relevant to this discussion.

I agree that the placement of terrain in Infinity is really arbitrary and the game may live or die depending on it. A packet with information on terrain placement such as the one mentioned for Warmachine would do a lot of good. I think they did the first step on that path with the release of this video:

http://www.beastsofwar.com/infinity/setting-infinity-gaming-table/

Chongara wrote:
Putting aside the fact that your post is broadly overreaching and more than little condescending, the relative merits of the games outside of competitive context aren't relevant to this discussion.

For all its precision in rule terms and terrain placement WMH breakdowns at the table. 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. For this reason I believe that Infinity is the more «competitive» game. And it will get even better as CB issues wiki answers to some of the gray areas in the rules.

I gotta say I agree with the terrain thing. The terrain is so important though that I don't know if simple rules could handle it properly

That Beasts of War guide is pretty useful, but as a rule of thumb you can't go too wrong if you remember the following rules for Infinity

- You shouldn't be able to get unobstructed line of sight across the table from one side to the other
- no more than 8" between terrain pieces in most cases
- if you have a high, multi-level piece of terrain, then ensure that there are other high pieces as well to block LoS from it. We use some towers, 3 story MAS buildings, but have 3 or 4 of them as well as walkways which help block LoS down below. The rule here is not to have one really tall terrain piece that dominates the table (unless of course you want an objective there.. in which case make a special rule that units/infiltrators can't start on that terrain piece)

I think TBH after playing a few games you will find a balance, in between snipers and HMG killing everything, to the game being dominated by chain rifles and flames throwers if you have used too much. Anyone with experience running a tournament should know this though and set up the terrain accordingly.

 Pacific wrote:
to the game being dominated by chain rifles and flames throwers

My SAS CRAP has no problem with this.

 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.