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.

I've tried to like Warmahordes as one of my best gaming buddies now plays exclusively, but I just don't like the aesthetic and I'm not crazy about the rules either. I suspect there are also flaws in the system that haven't really been exposed yet as the game is still growing, chiefly the paper/scissors/stone nature of some of the combo armies, I suspect in time the constant treadmill of needing new models to maintain any level of competitiveness will feel a lot like 40k.

Infinity however, I'm really excited about. I've only just taken an interest, and have yet to play, but the rules are flexible, the models are great and as others have mentioned, the balance is almost total, so I would very much urge you in this direction. Of course, as the rules are free and a starter is a playable force, you'll lose nearly nothing if you try it amd it's not for you.

 -Loki- wrote:
At higher levels of competition, even amongst friends, poorly thought out army lists will struggle against better thought out army lists. The game can every much be won at the army list stage.

Yeaaaah... no.

This is just as true in Warmahordes as it is in Infinity. In high level play, you will have to give considerations to stuff like hackers, TAGs, RMLs, Infiltrators, Combat Jump, Linked Teams... If you don't have an answer to those things in your list, you WILL loose the game just as handily as you would in Warmahordes!

And in both cases, you can give an inexperienced or tactically inept player the most badass list you can find on the internet, and that player will loose every time to a better player. In both games list building is important, but the player behind the list is what really matters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 azreal13 wrote:
I've tried to like Warmahordes as one of my best gaming buddies now plays exclusively, but I just don't like the aesthetic and I'm not crazy about the rules either. I suspect there are also flaws in the system that haven't really been exposed yet as the game is still growing, chiefly the paper/scissors/stone nature of some of the combo armies, I suspect in time the constant treadmill of needing new models to maintain any level of competitiveness will feel a lot like 40k. .

Yes, you are right, the game has only been around for 10 years with thousands of competitive players world wide trying to pick it apart, I'm pretty sure that there are glaring flaws in the system that haven't been found yet!

And for the last time, there is no such thing as a combo army! Having synergies between units is allot different from having "combo armies", you guys don't even know what you are talking about...

What, so using Warpspeed to benefit from the Feral WW's many attacks and then using the Stalker to use his higher P+S then using Kaya's Spirit Door to pull them back to her to avoid damage isn't a "Combo"?

Considerably less a combo than using an Interventor to mark an enemy model with the Hacking Device Plus supported by an EVO Repeater model through the Moran's repeater, possibly alongside other hackers in a coordinated order, and then firing autohitting Guided Missiles at the model with a GML Zond...perhaps similar to dropping smoke grenades in front of an MSV2 model before proceeding to waste models without MSV2-3 standing on the other side of the smoke without them being able to react.

 azreal13 wrote:
I've tried to like Warmahordes as one of my best gaming buddies now plays exclusively, but I just don't like the aesthetic and I'm not crazy about the rules either. I suspect there are also flaws in the system that haven't really been exposed yet as the game is still growing, chiefly the paper/scissors/stone nature of some of the combo armies, I suspect in time the constant treadmill of needing new models to maintain any level of competitiveness will feel a lot like 40k.

I really don't think you understand the game. Like, at all. The whole 'competetive treadmill' doesn't exist. Not sure where you're getting that idea from. MKI Prime units/casters are still in heavy rotation. The 'Rock/Paper/Scissors" mentality also comes from builds for the most part, not armies.

Infinity however, I'm really excited about. I've only just taken an interest, and have yet to play, but the rules are flexible, the models are great and as others have mentioned, the balance is almost total, so I would very much urge you in this direction. Of course, as the rules are free and a starter is a playable force, you'll lose nearly nothing if you try it amd it's not for you.

You haven't played it, but it's totally balanced?


As someone who plays both games, the amount of mysticism and strawmanning going on in here is breathtaking.

Yes, but there would be other things you could do, whilst it would make a lot more sense to do charge the Warjack/Beast using the combo I just mentioned.

Anyway, that wasn't the guys comment.

For Infinity, because the rules are free, why don't you just proxy some 40k models to see if you like the game? If you do, then get the CB minis, but if you don't, then you haven't lost a single cent!

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
What, so using Warpspeed to benefit from the Feral WW's many attacks and then using the Stalker to use his higher P+S then using Kaya's Spirit Door to pull them back to her to avoid damage isn't a "Combo"?

You aren't making any sense.

Warping a Feral Warpwolf for Speed isn't a combo since its an ability of the model itself (combo implies at least 2 moving parts).
Using a Warpwolf Stalker to attack something because he has higher strength, again isn't a combo since you are using a single model.
Using Kaya's Spirit Door spell to pull a Warpwolf out of combat can be considered just as much a combo as a Sorcerer in WHFB casting Steed of Shadows on a mellee character (forgive me if this isn't possible anymore, I haven't played WHFB since 7th ed.), or a Myrmidon throwing a Smoke Grenade so that the Deva can fire without generating ARO's in Infinity! Its called unit synergy and every decent miniature wargame in existence has it...

LOTR doesn't, and I'd argue that it's the best on the market (that I've played, Hail Caesar or Saga looks intriguing . . .)

But anyway - this is what's described as a combo by good ol' Wikipedia:

In video games, a combo (short for combination) is a term that designates a set of actions performed in sequence, usually with strict timing limitations, that yield a significant benefit or advantage.

So what I said could be considered a combo - you're doing all these actions in one turn (time), you're doing a set of actions performed in a sequence and it yields a significant advantage.

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
LOTR doesn't, and I'd argue that it's the best on the market (that I've played, Hail Caesar or Saga looks intriguing . . .)

But anyway - this is what's described as a combo by good ol' Wikipedia:

In video games, a combo (short for combination) is a term that designates a set of actions performed in sequence, usually with strict timing limitations, that yield a significant benefit or advantage.

So what I said could be considered a combo - you're doing all these actions in one turn (time), you're doing a set of actions performed in a sequence and it yields a significant advantage.

Cool, so moving and shooting a ranged weapon in LOTR is using a combo according to your definition since you are performing a set of actions in a restricted sequence that yelds a significant advantage that you wouldn't have if you didn't perform a part of the sequence (if you didn't move then you probably wouldn't be in range to fire and if you just moved but didn't fire then you wouldn't have killed the enemy model)! Hey a combo in LOTR!

Like I said, you guys don't have a clue what you are talking about and are resorting to spouting things you heard as if they are facts.

That's stupid. That's the action of one model. The example I gave involved three.

Kaptajn Congoboy wrote:
perhaps similar to dropping smoke grenades in front of an MSV2 model before proceeding to waste models without MSV2-3 standing on the other side of the smoke without them being able to react.

Slight derail - but the model being shot at IS allowed to react, but only if it survives the attack. The shooter gives away his position when it shoots. The AROing model still gets the -6 modifier to shoot though.

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
That's stupid. That's the action of one model. The example I gave involved three.

No, it actually didn't.

The example you gave of the Feral Warpwolf was the action of a single model.
The example you gave of the Warpwolf Stalker was the action of a single model.
The example you gave of Kaya involved two models and like myself and other people have demonstrated is not unlike several synergies that exist in almost every miniature game, your own definition of "combo" doesn't state that a combo has to involve more than one model, it only states that the actions performed have to be in sequence, usually with strict timing limitations, that yield a significant benefit or advantage. Like you've noticed, that is a description that applies to almost everything done in a miniature wargame.

Also, I don't know enough about LOTR, but I find it really odd that there isn't a situation in the game where synergy doesn't even exist...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KoganStyle wrote:

Kaptajn Congoboy wrote:
perhaps similar to dropping smoke grenades in front of an MSV2 model before proceeding to waste models without MSV2-3 standing on the other side of the smoke without them being able to react.

Slight derail - but the model being shot at IS allowed to react, but only if it survives the attack. The shooter gives away his position when it shoots. The AROing model still gets the -6 modifier to shoot though.

Yes, I know and I'm willing to bet that Kogan does as well. We were just simplifying things a bit since the odds of surviving a shooting attack without any reaction in Infinity aren't that great...

You're using the three models in a row against a single model in order to kill or disable it. Each model probably couldn't kill the model by itself and so each one used its abilities in a timed sequence in order to kill it.

LOTR doesn't really use much synergy. Well, there may be certain hero actions that work better with certain models (you wouldn't use a heroic shoot with shield-wall Minas Tirithians nor would you use a heroic move with Uruk Hai Crossbowmen) but otherwise there isn't that much. Each model generally looks after itself.

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
You're using the three models in a row against a single model in order to kill or disable it. Each model probably couldn't kill the model by itself and so each one used its abilities in a timed sequence in order to kill it.

So now, using attacks from more than 1 model to kill another more powerfull one is a combo?! You can do that in EVERY SINGLE GAME IN EXISTENCE... EVER! I've played dozens of miniature wargames, from Confrontation to Star Wars to Battletech, I haven't seen a single instance of a game where you couldn't combine attacks or abilities from more than one model to kill another more powerfull model... ever... you can even do it in chess FFS! And I would be VERY surprised if you couldn't do it in LOTR as well.

A better example: I move my Argus up to the enemy and Doppler Bark an enemy warjack and thus reduce it's defence (IIRC, it may be armour) and its speed. I then use another warbeast to bash the other model to pieces. Finally, Kaya pulls everything back to within her control range.

Is that not a combo? If it's not, then elaborate on what you think a combo is.

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
A better example: I move my Argus up to the enemy and Doppler Bark an enemy warjack and thus reduce it's defence (IIRC, it may be armour) and its speed. I then use another warbeast to bash the other model to pieces. Finally, Kaya pulls everything back to within her control range.

Is that not a combo? If it's not, then elaborate on what you think a combo is.

I don't think anyone is debating that Warmachine lacks combos, I think they're debating the fact that Infinity and other systems DON'T have combos.

Edit: I'm new to Infinity (thinking about getting back into WarmaHordes in spite of hating the caster system). Some basic noob questions that others who aren't familiar might be interested in:

Infinity miniature scale?
Is there paintline good or do they have one? Or are these pre-painted?
Edit 2: Material?

I think folks are getting a bit muddied on what is the question here te OP is just looking for suggestions on what people like, not which game is better. Asking which game is better is like asking which fruit is better? Apples or oranges? They are two completely different flavors and good in ther own ways.

Infinity - Every army can pretty much do everything, just in different ways. Their unit options, asthetics, and point costs is what gives each faction it's own flavor. The game is more about tactics then combos and franky combos such as the afore mentioned are just cheap parlor tricks. The downside of Infinity is the population is still new so you have to grow it in your area which can be tough and a bit of work at times.

Warmachine - Positioning is king. I have played a few games and the feeling I got from it was MTG meets chess. That is not a bad thing though. The rules are solid as a rock and a versed player could literally quote you the order of mechnics like a legal document. You won't find any of the GW vagueness there.



Since I know Infinity in deep depth let me address the combos thing a little more in depth. Guide Missile Launcher + hacking device plus is the most well known among them. It hurts bad the first time you face it, but it's nothing more then a parlor trick. You move a guy into position wih a repeater or marker (2-3 orders), attempt to mark the target (1-2 orders), and launch a missile (1 order). Assuming there is no hackers or ECM stopping your missle and your target fails it's saves you just spent 4 to 7 orders killing 1 guy. If the repeater is in range of another guy you can spend 2-3 more orders to kill another.

It is easily slowed by a hacker and nearly stopped cold with a hacker + evo. (Which nearly evereyone has in the offical missions) Worse yet it is very fragile. If you lose the GML bot or hacker you are done and both are squishie.

On MSV2 plus smoke, if you left you dudes out in the open by themselves then you deserve that one lol. It's easy to combat with zero vis smoke, camo, or proper use of cover.

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
A better example: I move my Argus up to the enemy and Doppler Bark an enemy warjack and thus reduce it's defence (IIRC, it may be armour) and its speed. I then use another warbeast to bash the other model to pieces. Finally, Kaya pulls everything back to within her control range.

Is that not a combo? If it's not, then elaborate on what you think a combo is.

Why is that a combo? How is that different from the Infinity GML + Hacker plus example? How is that different from a sorcerer in WHFB reducing a units WS before another unit charging in? How is that different from having artillery pinning an enemy before your infantry charging in in FoW? How is that different from an Alp reducing a target Wp value before Pandora uses Self Loathing on it (Malifaux)? How is that different from having a Chaos Predator lascannon blow up a chimera before your Berserkers charge the Guardsmen that were inside in 40K?

Heck, I did a search on GW site and got this:

Gandalf is a mighty wizard and Aragorn is a mighty warrior, but some monsters like the Balrog are far mightier than either of them. To save Aragorn from a grisly death, Gandalf could Immobilise the Balrog with his magic, leaving Aragorn safe to attack it without fear of being hit back

How is that not a "combo" according to your definition?

No one ever takes Aragorn and Gandalf in the same army, hence it never actually happens. Even if someone did, it wouldn't make much sense to do that. Immoblising a monster still allows it to attack.

PhantomViper wrote:

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
A better example: I move my Argus up to the enemy and Doppler Bark an enemy warjack and thus reduce it's defence (IIRC, it may be armour) and its speed. I then use another warbeast to bash the other model to pieces. Finally, Kaya pulls everything back to within her control range.

Is that not a combo? If it's not, then elaborate on what you think a combo is.

Why is that a combo? How is that different from the Infinity GML + Hacker plus example? How is that different from a sorcerer in WHFB reducing a units WS before another unit charging in? How is that different from having artillery pinning an enemy before your infantry charging in in FoW? How is that different from an Alp reducing a target Wp value before Pandora uses Self Loathing on it (Malifaux)? How is that different from having a Chaos Predator lascannon blow up a chimera before your Berserkers charge the Guardsmen that were inside in 40K?

Heck, I did a search on GW site and got this:

Gandalf is a mighty wizard and Aragorn is a mighty warrior, but some monsters like the Balrog are far mightier than either of them. To save Aragorn from a grisly death, Gandalf could Immobilise the Balrog with his magic, leaving Aragorn safe to attack it without fear of being hit back

How is that not a "combo" according to your definition?

Just stop making sense, you're wasting effort.

The GML trick is essentially what in WM/H is termed a "Rube Goldberg Machine" - a complex long chain of events that all need to fire if you are to get full use of it. But it IS a combo, which was the point. Warmachine and Infinity are both essentially about tactics in the essence of positioning and manouvre.

Can I get an answer to my question on scale/miniature size/and material, as these seem like relevant things to consider for potential new players of infinity (like myself).

 BlueDagger wrote:
I think folks are getting a bit muddied on what is the question here te OP is just looking for suggestions on what people like, not which game is better. Asking which game is better is like asking which fruit is better? Apples or oranges? They are two completely different flavors and good in ther own ways.

Don't get me wrong, I never meant to imply that WMH was better than Infinity or vice-versa, I play them both and love them in almost equal ways!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lucasbuffalo wrote:
Can I get an answer to my question on scale/miniature size/and material, as these seem like relevant things to consider for potential new players of infinity (like myself).

Infinity is 28mm true scale AFAIK.

All miniatures are metal and supplied unpainted.

PhantomViper wrote:

 BlueDagger wrote:
I think folks are getting a bit muddied on what is the question here te OP is just looking for suggestions on what people like, not which game is better. Asking which game is better is like asking which fruit is better? Apples or oranges? They are two completely different flavors and good in ther own ways.

Don't get me wrong, I never meant to imply that WMH was better than Infinity or vice-versa, I play them both and love them in almost equal ways!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lucasbuffalo wrote:
Can I get an answer to my question on scale/miniature size/and material, as these seem like relevant things to consider for potential new players of infinity (like myself).

Infinity is 28mm true scale AFAIK.

All miniatures are metal and supplied unpainted.

Thanks!

 gunslingerpro wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
I've tried to like Warmahordes as one of my best gaming buddies now plays exclusively, but I just don't like the aesthetic and I'm not crazy about the rules either. I suspect there are also flaws in the system that haven't really been exposed yet as the game is still growing, chiefly the paper/scissors/stone nature of some of the combo armies, I suspect in time the constant treadmill of needing new models to maintain any level of competitiveness will feel a lot like 40k.

I really don't think you understand the game. Like, at all. The whole 'competetive treadmill' doesn't exist. Not sure where you're getting that idea from. MKI Prime units/casters are still in heavy rotation. The 'Rock/Paper/Scissors" mentality also comes from builds for the most part, not armies.

So I used the term armies rather than builds, you took it to mean factions, but you appear to concede that the point is still valid, so why argue it?

Infinity however, I'm really excited about. I've only just taken an interest, and have yet to play, but the rules are flexible, the models are great and as others have mentioned, the balance is almost total, so I would very much urge you in this direction. Of course, as the rules are free and a starter is a playable force, you'll lose nearly nothing if you try it amd it's not for you.

You haven't played it, but it's totally balanced?

Firstly, i qualified it with almost, i didnt claim it was totally balanced. Secondly having been in wargaming for a quarter century I'm pretty well placed to judge whether a system is solid or not, coupled with a large number of long term Infinity players consistently saying that there aren't really poor model choices just poorly used models, again, to me, I don't feel I've said anything that is really in debate.

As someone who plays both games, the amount of mysticism and strawmanning going on in here is breathtaking.

It's difficult to strawman anything when you're not arguing a point but stating a personal opinion. One that seems to have offended you for some peculiar reason.

It makes me wonder whether you've understood my point, like, at all?

Calm down lad, you're seeking conflict where there currently isn't any.

Sorry lucasbuffalo yes Infinity is 28mm truescale so they look smaller and "more realistic" then Warhammer models.

They are made of metal and are much more difficult to assemble, but the end result is well worth the pain. No plans to move to any other materials and Corvus Belli as clearly stated they are a metal miniatures company. They like the medium.

Infinity is increadibly balanced and pretty much any model is as good as any other. Some options are a little more lack luster then others because they are meant for a sectorial option, but overall there isn't any other game that I have seen that has the level of internal balance it does. Flat out, there is faction stronger then another.

 azreal13 wrote:
So I used the term armies rather than builds, you took it to mean factions, but you appear to concede that the point is still valid, so why argue it?

Well, I argued the first part because you're 'treadmill' statement is patently false. I also do not concede the rock/paper/scissor point. I stated that the mentality comes from specific builds. Yes E-Haley Stormwall beats bane spam, bane spam beats jack spam, jack spam beats stormwalls, etc etc etc. But this comes from very specific lists that are feared and debated on the internet, but exist much less often in the wild. There are competetive lists and scenarios that can be difficult for specific builds, but this fear of 'combo' play is off base. Thats my point.

Firstly, i qualified it with almost, i didnt claim it was totally balanced. Secondly having been in wargaming for a quarter century I'm pretty well placed to judge whether a system is solid or not, coupled with a large number of long term Infinity players consistently saying that there aren't really poor model choices just poorly used models, again, to me, I don't feel I've said anything that is really in debate.

You made several statements about a game, having only read the rules, not played it. Hmm. I respect your experience, but general experience /= specific experience when making statements about a game.

It's difficult to strawman anything when you're not arguing a point but stating a personal opinion. One that seems to have offended you for some peculiar reason.

It makes me wonder whether you've understood my point, like, at all?

Calm down lad, you're seeking conflict where there currently isn't any.

Perhaps strawman is the wrong word. You make broad, un-based statements about one game, and then secondhand experience based statements about another.

I have your point well in hand, good sir. I seek no conflict, only clarity. I'm not really the excitable type.

 azreal13 wrote:

Secondly having been in wargaming for a quarter century I'm pretty well placed to judge whether a system is solid or not,

A quarter century vet basing his judgements on second hand opinions is plain absurd. If you haven't played the game you cannot have an educated judgement about it.

As for the OP:

Oi cara! I collect both systems because they both fill different gaps... If you like anime/manga scifi you go with infinity but if your are more into Cartoony/ steampunk fantasy you go with Warmachine/ hordes. For me visuals are 75% of the deal and both offer a very good package.

I don't know about these games being available in Brazil? but both do have good customer support. ( privateer press does seem to struggle a bit with stock levels)

 NAVARRO wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

Secondly having been in wargaming for a quarter century I'm pretty well placed to judge whether a system is solid or not,

A quarter century vet basing his judgements on second hand opinions is plain absurd. If you haven't played the game you cannot have an educated judgement about it.

Let's actually review what I said shall we?

Infinity however, I'm really excited about. I've only just taken an interest, and have yet to play, but the rules are flexible, the models are great and as others have mentioned, the balance is almost total, so I would very much urge you in this direction. Of course, as the rules are free and a starter is a playable force, you'll lose nearly nothing if you try it amd it's not for you.

What in this statement is offending people so much that they feel they can try and attack what is my opinion and therefore doesn't need to be objectively qualified?

I have read the rules, the scope and potential of these rules, something that my time spent in wargaming qualifies me to assess with a fairly discriminating eye, has me excited to start playing. The same experience, along with reading of the rules and the opinions offered by people who have played the game for a long time leads me to conclude that the balance of the game is really very good.

Coupled with the low entry cost, I felt that the OP should give it a go, just as I am.

I don't need to jump off a cliff to know the landing is gonna suck, I don't need to play Infinity to appreciate it's a good game and encourage others to get involved.

azreal13 What attack and what offense are you talking about? Like you I'm just expressing my opinion on what I read in this thread. Besides I just quoted and replied to you more as side note since if you are going to talk about game balance etc you better play it first and talk later ( as a vet you should know this). The main reason I posted was to express to the OP the visual appeals of both games.

It's the second time you act way to defensive on this thread, take a step back man there's no one here interested in attacking you.