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.

 Kanluwen wrote:
It's exactly like Unbound. It's so you can field whatever crap you have without penalty. Want to have a ton of specialists that normally you wouldn't? Play vanilla!

Makes no sense.

Vanilla started the game, sectorials came later.

You need a better analogy.

Also, that's just dumb. Seriously, you're reaching so far these days to make people side with you that vanilla is bad. It started the game, it's here to stay. Just get used to it and we won't see as many threads devolve into whinefests.

You know, some people don't play sectorials, because they don't want to.

I have no desire to play either of the 2 sectorials that are currently out for my faction, Ariadna. Never mind they have some pretty nice stuff in them, plus link teams.

I just have no desire to play either of them for either aesthetic or fluff reasons.

You're going to tell me I suck at playing Infinity and I'm wrong because "no sectorials"?

On Topic: Meh, the artwork sucks. Not that enthused with the box, because I have no interest in either faction.
Maybe it will bring in new people because of the "get it all in one place" factor. That would be good for exposure.

Mutts look cool. I'd buy em if I played Haqq. But I don't.

ski2060 wrote:
You know, some people don't play sectorials, because they don't want to.

I have no desire to play either of the 2 sectorials that are currently out for my faction, Ariadna. Never mind they have some pretty nice stuff in them, plus link teams.

I just have no desire to play either of them for either aesthetic or fluff reasons.

You're going to tell me I suck at playing Infinity and I'm wrong because "no sectorials"?

Question:
Do you not play Sectorials because you do not currently have a Sectorial you like or are you genuinely using a variety of models?

 Kanluwen wrote:

ski2060 wrote:
You know, some people don't play sectorials, because they don't want to.

I have no desire to play either of the 2 sectorials that are currently out for my faction, Ariadna. Never mind they have some pretty nice stuff in them, plus link teams.

I just have no desire to play either of them for either aesthetic or fluff reasons.

You're going to tell me I suck at playing Infinity and I'm wrong because "no sectorials"?

Question:
Do you not play Sectorials because you do not currently have a Sectorial you like or are you genuinely using a variety of models?

Personally, I'm genuinely using a variety of models. From both sectorials available to Haqqislam and unit to vanilla.

My last list included a Sekban, an Al Hawwa and a Jannisary (Qapu Khalki), a Barid Lt and 2 Muyibs (Hassassin Bahram), a Ghulam doctor and some Nasmats (all three), Tarik Mansuri and a pair of Kum (vanilla only). It is a super fun list to play

I'd really appreciate it if you could point out the balance problems in my list, since you are so well versed in Infinity game balance, and why this is the equivalent of some of the completely ridiculously broken Unbound stuff for 40k.

Really, I would. Point out the imbalances and tell my why I'm a TFG douchebag.

 Kanluwen wrote:

ski2060 wrote:
You know, some people don't play sectorials, because they don't want to.

I have no desire to play either of the 2 sectorials that are currently out for my faction, Ariadna. Never mind they have some pretty nice stuff in them, plus link teams.

I just have no desire to play either of them for either aesthetic or fluff reasons.

You're going to tell me I suck at playing Infinity and I'm wrong because "no sectorials"?

Question:
Do you not play Sectorials because you do not currently have a Sectorial you like or are you genuinely using a variety of models?

Heh, my list has Yuan Yuan, Kazaks and MRRF in it. I selected those models because I like the look of them, I like what they do and, you know. Annaconda. Granted, I'm not going to play many ITS games with that..

 Kanluwen wrote:

ski2060 wrote:
You know, some people don't play sectorials, because they don't want to.

I have no desire to play either of the 2 sectorials that are currently out for my faction, Ariadna. Never mind they have some pretty nice stuff in them, plus link teams.

I just have no desire to play either of them for either aesthetic or fluff reasons.

You're going to tell me I suck at playing Infinity and I'm wrong because "no sectorials"?

Question:
Do you not play Sectorials because you do not currently have a Sectorial you like or are you genuinely using a variety of models?

Both. I don't like either sectorial, nor would I play them just for power reasons in a game. I play with every model I currently own, mainly because I'm relatively new, and I just don't feel like dropping coin on "gotta have this powerful model to play".

I play my force as a cross faction JSOC/JTF between USAriadna and RUSAriadna. I like their models, I like their fluff, and I like how they play. None of which I like about the MRRF or Caledonia.

I'll go ahead and admit I will most likely try out, and maybe even collect models for both the upcoming Ariadna sectorials. I'm not going to drop my vanilla stuff to play them exclusively though.

Edit: I realized, I do have 2 Paras in my force. I like those models, and I can envision them being seconded to a high speed unit like my task force. The other metros and such.. not so much.

ski2060 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

ski2060 wrote:
You know, some people don't play sectorials, because they don't want to.

I have no desire to play either of the 2 sectorials that are currently out for my faction, Ariadna. Never mind they have some pretty nice stuff in them, plus link teams.

I just have no desire to play either of them for either aesthetic or fluff reasons.

You're going to tell me I suck at playing Infinity and I'm wrong because "no sectorials"?

Question:
Do you not play Sectorials because you do not currently have a Sectorial you like or are you genuinely using a variety of models?

Both. I don't like either sectorial, nor would I play them just for power reasons in a game. I play with every model I currently own, mainly because I'm relatively new, and I just don't feel like dropping coin on "gotta have this powerful model to play".

I play my force as a cross faction JSOC/JTF between USAriadna and RUSAriadna. I like their models, I like their fluff, and I like how they play. None of which I like about the MRRF or Caledonia.

I'll go ahead and admit I will most likely try out, and maybe even collect models for both the upcoming Ariadna sectorials. I'm not going to drop my vanilla stuff to play them exclusively though.

See, I'm purely Corregidor Jurisdictional Command. I have no interest in "powergaming", I am pure and simple theme armies.

 Kanluwen wrote:

ski2060 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

ski2060 wrote:
You know, some people don't play sectorials, because they don't want to.

I have no desire to play either of the 2 sectorials that are currently out for my faction, Ariadna. Never mind they have some pretty nice stuff in them, plus link teams.

I just have no desire to play either of them for either aesthetic or fluff reasons.

You're going to tell me I suck at playing Infinity and I'm wrong because "no sectorials"?

Question:
Do you not play Sectorials because you do not currently have a Sectorial you like or are you genuinely using a variety of models?

Both. I don't like either sectorial, nor would I play them just for power reasons in a game. I play with every model I currently own, mainly because I'm relatively new, and I just don't feel like dropping coin on "gotta have this powerful model to play".

I play my force as a cross faction JSOC/JTF between USAriadna and RUSAriadna. I like their models, I like their fluff, and I like how they play. None of which I like about the MRRF or Caledonia.

I'll go ahead and admit I will most likely try out, and maybe even collect models for both the upcoming Ariadna sectorials. I'm not going to drop my vanilla stuff to play them exclusively though.

See, I'm purely Corregidor Jurisdictional Command. I have no interest in "powergaming", I am pure and simple theme armies.

That does not mean you represent the entire Infinity gaming community, nor the future of it.

Vanilla has its place, and it's here to stay.

Please, please stop dragging threads off topic with trollbait about vanilla being broken, the equivalent of unbound, the games past, or whaever else you want to make up.

Some people play vanilla and like it. The fact you don't see pages and pages and pages of complaints about the balance of vanilla on any forum plainly tells you it's not unbalanced in the least.

I can see and respect that. I just don't think that sectorials /HAVE/ to be played to have a theme for your army.

I play mine like a a Coalition Joint Task Force in current times. High speed operators from multiple coalition forces assigned to one unit for QRF, specific HVT capture, etc.

I just don't like most of the models in Caledonia, and not really enthused for most of the French stuff either. A couple here and there look suitable, like the Paras, Zouaves, and maybe Moblots if they got some new sculpts.

 Kanluwen wrote:
See, I'm purely Corregidor Jurisdictional Command. I have no interest in "powergaming", I am pure and simple theme armies.

Ahhh, so now the real reason for your hatred is revealed

I think.. yeah. I think we can leave that there.

I like almost everything they have for the nomads, though I really like moderators and would use them over the other cheap/cheerleader infantry, unless I was specifically looking to do some kind of coreggedor link. I heavily favor Bakunin, but I'm not going to shoehorn myself into that sectoral, there are too many neat tags and other infantry to splash in.. at least on occasion.

The joint task force nails it for me.

More to the topic, a request to those of you more familiar, which units have we seen unlocked in the image? It looks like a fusileer and.. what an ORC or something? I'm drawing a blank on the nomad units for some reason.

What is 'Unbound'? Is that some 40k reference? Oh never mind if it is.

Is the silhouette on the right of the Father-Knight silhouette an updated Croc-Man? What will we do without ugly Croc-Man to kick around anymore? :(

The nomad units in the starter were 3 alguaciles, 1 Mobile Brigada, a Zero and the (possibly uglier than Croc-Man) Securitate. I suspect this composition is changed.

 Red Harvest wrote:
What is 'Unbound'? Is that some 40k reference? Oh never mind if it is.

GW decided, in their infinite wisdom, to let players create armies free of not only force organisation charts, but single codex limitations as well.

Kanluwens analogy only works if you could also mix every factions vanilla lists and also take advantage of link teams and higher AVA's... in other words, it doesn't work.

40k 7th


Oh, is that a crocman? I'm really unfamiliar with Pan-O. I'm crossing my fingers that it doesn't contain anything I already have for nomads, but I'd take more Moderators over any Auglaciles (or however you spell that), and I can't say no to Observance units.

Meanwhile, in Alpharius's room...

 -Loki- wrote:

 Red Harvest wrote:
What is 'Unbound'? Is that some 40k reference? Oh never mind if it is.

GW decided, in their infinite wisdom, to let players create armies free of not only force organisation charts, but single codex limitations as well.

Kanluwens analogy only works if you could also mix every factions vanilla lists and also take advantage of link teams and higher AVA's... in other words, it doesn't work.

Ah, that explains some of the angst several of my friends have about this 7th ed. I gave up at the beginning of 5th, and haven't paid attention to it since. Sounds really cheesy and a bit desperate.

I, too, would have liked to see the Svalarheim and Tunguska sectorials too, but I realize this is a starter box intended for beginners, and I'm well past the starter stage. Hundreds of points past. The starter box contents have changes too. That is a Nisse in the background on the right...

Still, if the minis are awesome (and I'm certain they will be. CB is remarkably consistent with that) and the price is right, I may get it.

I get the impression some people complain about Infinity more than they play Infinity. Shrug. Witness the toxicity of the Official forum these days.

 GrimDork wrote:
40k 7th

Spoiler:

, play like you always did, or more or less "take whatever". The status quo armies are better at holding objectives, the other one has potential for fluff, and probably more potential for abuse. Kind of like MTG maybe. You can have reasonable fun playing with whatever cards you have if you and your friends aren't trying too hard with deckbuilding, but when they have tournaments with "all the cards ever" it quickly boils down to maybe half a dozen uber unbeatable decks that exist to hard counter eachother . I think it's a bit more complicated than that, but I haven't felt like getting the book yet.

Oh, is that a crocman? I'm really unfamiliar with Pan-O. I'm crossing my fingers that it doesn't contain anything I already have for nomads, but I'd take more Moderators over any Auglaciles (or however you spell that), and I can't say no to Observance units.

Ah, you play Bakunin, Good Sir? And Alguaciles (Pronounced Ahl-Gwah-THEE*-Lays in Spain, and it means more or less Sheriffs.)

*Like a lisped S, so the TH sound as in Thing and not as in These.

 Chemical Cutthroat wrote:

Spoiler:

My. God. Those faces. And you guys are complaining about these being inferior to Angel's painting?

Because I'm seeing those faces and thinking maybe it's time to just give up on miniature painting. I can only stand to be so inferior to the official company minis.

 -Loki- wrote:

 Red Harvest wrote:
What is 'Unbound'? Is that some 40k reference? Oh never mind if it is.

GW decided, in their infinite wisdom, to let players create armies free of not only force organisation charts, but single codex limitations as well.

Kanluwens analogy only works if you could also mix every factions vanilla lists and also take advantage of link teams and higher AVA's... in other words, it doesn't work.

No, it's worse. They let you take anything from anywhere so you'd be able to take whatever you want from Ariadna and mix it with whatever you want from Haqq mixed with the cheesiest from Nomads... with no special weapon limit.. and you'd get link teams. As long as the single unit taken is legal somewhere, you can use it in unbound lists.

 warboss wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:

 Red Harvest wrote:
What is 'Unbound'? Is that some 40k reference? Oh never mind if it is.

GW decided, in their infinite wisdom, to let players create armies free of not only force organisation charts, but single codex limitations as well.

Kanluwens analogy only works if you could also mix every factions vanilla lists and also take advantage of link teams and higher AVA's... in other words, it doesn't work.

No, it's worse. They let you take anything from anywhere so you'd be able to take whatever you want from Ariadna and mix it with whatever you want from Haqq mixed with the cheesiest from Nomads... with no special weapon limit.. and you'd get link teams. As long as the single unit taken is legal somewhere, you can use it in unbound lists.

That is what I said... Maybe 'higher AVA's wasn't specific enough? Basically everything is AVA: Total.

Though your comment about special weapon limit is wrong. Special weapon cost is another points cost. It's not a suggestion. If you break the SWC, your list is flat out illegal. This would be like allowing Unbound armies to break the points limit.

 Chemical Cutthroat wrote:
Its funny, because if Angel didn't exist, and it was just his Padawan, this stuff would still look DAMN good. Way better than I'm capable of.

The shadow that poor painter is living under must be crushing.

When I tell people "I want to paint like an angel", I mean Angel Giraldez.

And vanilla is OP? Like, the default setting of the game?! WWwwwwhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaat. Are we even playing the same game?


Anyway, those minis look good. I think you don't see Kat Dennings, Loki, because her main uh, defining characteristic is hidden with the model's E/Marat in that angle. And her usual hair is darker than that shade of brown.

The paint job seems simply less glossy/pristine than Angel's work. It may not necessarily be Angel-quality, but that doesn't mean they're bad.

The paint job looks "dirty" in a good way. These aren't pristine soldiers. These are moderately trained grunts specialized as field technicians working in a dirty desert environment. Their man-skirts, thigh-leather, and leg armor is chipped and dirty. The cleaner shirts and face/skin look exceptional. The paint style fits these parts excellently. It's only the guns and E/Marats and metal bits that look less shiny than Angel's work.

Also, it's strange than the men have skirts while the women have pants.

EDIT: Here's a BoW close-up image:



The dirt and imperfections look deliberate and are only on the lower region. It works great there. It's only the parts we expect to be Angel-shiny that look imperfect.

But we're grasping at straws looking for something to complain about. The paint job is exceptional, our critique is amateur, and the models are something I (and many others) will gladly buy.

I don't think anyone was really calling the paint job "bad" - saying that they're not as good as Angel's work isn't exactly damning criticism.

 Absolutionis wrote:
Also, it's strange than the men have skirts while the women have pants.

The men are wearing the same pants as the women. You can see the ribbed area inside the thigh and cargo pockets on both. The men are just also wearing something skirtlike.

I'm pretty chuffed with those. While I was originally against doing 2 using their E/Marats, that was because I originally thought they'd keep them as the plunger triggered backpack. Seems the backpack is the jammer (as it does a radial effect from the user) while the E/Marat is the radar like thing (which is a directed template). The two using their E/Marats look great.

Though, I still don't see Kat Dennings in the second female. People keep repeating it (and I know I was the one that pasted the rumour here from the official boards) but I really just don't see it.

 heartserenade wrote:
Anyway, those minis look good. I think you don't see Kat Dennings, Loki, because her main uh, defining characteristic is hidden with the model's E/Marat in that angle. And her usual hair is darker than that shade of brown.

I'm pretty sure that's Hipster Mutt with the deployed dish weapon. I think Kat Dennings is the Shotgun girl. I'm surprised though. I actually really like the girls. There isn't even any chessecake about them. No bare midriffs, no awkward pinup poses. Too bad I have no interest in the Mutts. Looks like the Agema is the only one I'm really liking this month.

Bringing things back to Icestorm for a moment, what is that helmeted Nomad that's hovering? Is that a Zero or a Spektr?

I just noticed, it looks kind of like the Fusilier is using the new type PanO Combi Rifle. I like their more angular design.

 heartserenade wrote:
Anyway, those minis look good. I think you don't see Kat Dennings, Loki, because her main uh, defining characteristic is hidden with the model's E/Marat in that angle. And her usual hair is darker than that shade of brown.

Are we talking about the same one? The one with glasses is based on a Spanish fashion blogger, complete with glasses and scarf. The shotgun model would be the one apparently based on Kat Dennings.

The face is all wrong. It really just doesn't look like her. Also, if you want to get into those assets (I know I wouldn't mind) they wouldn't fit behind the shotgun pulled to her chest.

Oh, that's her? Okay, it really doesn't look like her at all then.

Care to put photos of said Spanish fashion blogger?

Anyway, maybe the bare sculpt is more accurate? A lot can change when you paint the face, from my experience. I mean, almost all Haqq players have painted the Ghulam girl and they all look like different women each time (for me, at least). A different shade, a different stroke and you can really alter how the face looks. This is why I have to study how to apply makeup: so that I know how to contour and highlight certain parts of the model's face to get the "shape" I want.

Makeup: not only for people.

Apparently this is her.

yea, I expected Kat Dennings to be more endowed in certain parts.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Pacific wrote:
I wouldn't go quite that far...

Then you don't know what you're talking about.

It's exactly like Unbound. It's so you can field whatever crap you have without penalty. Want to have a ton of specialists that normally you wouldn't? Play vanilla!

Firstly, I think considering the amount of time we both spend communicating on these forums, you could possibly be a bit more civil?

Secondly, no it's not anything at all alike. AVA restricts usage of units, which stops you from significantly featuring the specialised, sectorial-focused miniatures in the generic list. It's not a carte-blanche for throwing anything you like down on the table.

 -Loki- wrote:
Apparently this is her.

Okay now I see the resemblance and it is much nearer than the Kat Dennings one. It doesn't really look like her at all from the photos.