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 enjoyed randomness when it was sparse and funny (orks, skaven, etc) but GW seems to be on a really big random kick. I completely avoid psychic powers since I don't wanna get sucked into all that madness.
And it is never the mark of a good game where you have to put an insane amount of restriction rules so you can actually have some semblance of a fun/balanced game/tournament/whatever

 Vermis wrote:
That sounds a little more ranty than I intended, but I don't think it's too inaccurate a description of the kind of thing I've seen. That we've seen. (The GWombies walk among us) I can understand the appeal of doing all the hard work with a codex and a calculator before the game, and just letting the models autorun during, but... I just don't understand it very much, and understand it less with every new rule-set I experience and as the gulf between me and the ol' core two grows. It smarts to see this described as tactical, and I perform a little facepalm inside whenever I scroll past a gaming forum's entire '40K tactics' board, on my way to boards where several deeper games are lumped into one.

I just had a skim of one such forum and most of the topics appear to be about weapon loadouts and unit choices than what I'd call tactics. The answer to most questions seem to be "take X weapon/Y unit". Tactics are more unit agnostic, like softening them up with a support weapon to pin them down, before assaulting them with fresh infantry (which has no effect in 40K but is devastating in Bolt Action).

I saw go GW. I love 40k. Fantasy is pretty cool too!!! Id love to play LOTR if anyone played it :(

Warmachine is another alternative. people say its way cheaper but I call BS on that one. A decent 50 point army will run you 500-700$. A decent 40k army might run you a hair more but you will have way more models (usually?)

Herzlos wrote:

 Vermis wrote:
That sounds a little more ranty than I intended, but I don't think it's too inaccurate a description of the kind of thing I've seen. That we've seen. (The GWombies walk among us) I can understand the appeal of doing all the hard work with a codex and a calculator before the game, and just letting the models autorun during, but... I just don't understand it very much, and understand it less with every new rule-set I experience and as the gulf between me and the ol' core two grows. It smarts to see this described as tactical, and I perform a little facepalm inside whenever I scroll past a gaming forum's entire '40K tactics' board, on my way to boards where several deeper games are lumped into one.

I just had a skim of one such forum and most of the topics appear to be about weapon loadouts and unit choices than what I'd call tactics. The answer to most questions seem to be "take X weapon/Y unit". Tactics are more unit agnostic, like softening them up with a support weapon to pin them down, before assaulting them with fresh infantry (which has no effect in 40K but is devastating in Bolt Action).

The fact that 40k games are basically won or lost in list selection is one of the biggest issues IMHO. Warmachine has a lot involved in lists (especially with multiple list formats) but in the end it does come down to tactics and usage. There are netlists, but if you're inexperienced you can't just take a netlist and win because it's a netlist, while in 40k you could probably take a complete newbie, give them one of the powerhouse lists, and they will steamroll a veteran player.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

40KNobz11 wrote:
I saw go GW. I love 40k. Fantasy is pretty cool too!!! Id love to play LOTR if anyone played it :(

Warmachine is another alternative. people say its way cheaper but I call BS on that one. A decent 50 point army will run you 500-700$. A decent 40k army might run you a hair more but you will have way more models (usually?)

Not really, it depends on the list. You can generally get *TWO* 50 point lists for the same price as *one* 40k army, sometimes less depending on the army (a beast heavy Legion army, for instance, will likely cost under $300 for both armies, a Circle list will probably be much closer to the 40k price, but remember you're getting two different armies basically). And those two lists give you a lot more variety to mix and match in Warmachine than in 40k.

40KNobz11 wrote:
A decent 50 point army will run you 500-700$.

No it won't. I will be almost half of that to be precise (between 250$ and 350$).

PhantomViper wrote:

40KNobz11 wrote:
A decent 50 point army will run you 500-700$.

No it won't. I will be almost half of that to be precise (between 250$ and 350$).

No way. Ive got about 70 points of Khador (good for mix and match for 50 or so points) A few jacks alone runs you on average 50$ a piece. Ive got 3. That's $150 just in jacks. Iron fange pikemen $100. We are now at $250 and I don't have and supporting units or caster or anything. Id say minimum for a decent 50 point list is $450 plus or so. And really you want to have more than 50 points just for the variety right...

Herzlos wrote:
I just had a skim of one such forum and most of the topics appear to be about weapon loadouts and unit choices than what I'd call tactics. The answer to most questions seem to be "take X weapon/Y unit". Tactics are more unit agnostic, like softening them up with a support weapon to pin them down, before assaulting them with fresh infantry (which has no effect in 40K but is devastating in Bolt Action).

I've come to that same observation myself. A lot of what is defined as tactics within the game is laughable to anyone who has a knowledge of actual tactics. Apologies to anyone if that sounds elitist, but I think its the truth.

I wish the rules were more realistically tactical, with elements like covering fire, laying smoke, bonuses for flanking, etc, instead of "Victory goes to he who blasts enemies most efficeiently." I particualarly dislike the prevalent trend of using suicide squads to destroy something worth more points than them, before themselves being destroyed. There should be a geater incentive to keep units alive / greater points bonus for wiping out an enemy unit.

40KNobz11 wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

40KNobz11 wrote:
A decent 50 point army will run you 500-700$.

No it won't. I will be almost half of that to be precise (between 250$ and 350$).

No way. Ive got about 70 points of Khador (good for mix and match for 50 or so points) A few jacks alone runs you on average 50$ a piece. Ive got 3. That's $150 just in jacks. Iron fange pikemen $100. We are now at $250 and I don't have and supporting units or caster or anything. Id say minimum for a decent 50 point list is $450 plus or so. And really you want to have more than 50 points just for the variety right...

Again, depends on what you're buying. I've spent a good bit on stuff for my Khador, but it sure as hell feels like I got more out of it than I would on 40k. Also IFP are an exception and not a rule, being the most expensive infantry unit in the game.

I've priced out a 50 point Cygnar list that was like under $250 and would likely perform admirably (it was based on the list that won the IG finals, without the Colossal and with a couple of Jacks), and the recent LCQ winner at Warmachine Weekend used a Legion pair that came to about the same for both of them.

 thegreatchimp wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
I just had a skim of one such forum and most of the topics appear to be about weapon loadouts and unit choices than what I'd call tactics. The answer to most questions seem to be "take X weapon/Y unit". Tactics are more unit agnostic, like softening them up with a support weapon to pin them down, before assaulting them with fresh infantry (which has no effect in 40K but is devastating in Bolt Action).

I've come to that same observation myself. A lot of what is defined as tactics within the game is laughable to anyone who has a knowledge of actual tactics. Apologies to anyone if that sounds elitist, but I think its the truth.

I wish the rules were more realistically tactical, with elements like covering fire, laying smoke, bonuses for flanking, etc, instead of "Victory goes to he who blasts enemies most efficeiently." I particualarly dislike the prevalent trend of using suicide squads to destroy something worth more points than them, before themselves being destroyed. There should be a geater incentive to keep units alive / greater points bonus for wiping out an enemy unit.

I definitely agree; I've been trying to do a series of linked games where casualties count, in order to spice it up a bit and provide some incentive to not have all your troops wiped out to gain victory.

Or at least do something so that running across the open into a gunline is actually dangerous (maybe drop the snap-fire, give +1 to hit (they are running right at you) and no cover saves). Assaulting infantry should be a gritty last resort, and only once you've softened them up first. It's pretty fatal in Flames Of War and Bolt Action, but both have mechanisms for pinning your opponents before charging at them.

40KNobz11 wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

40KNobz11 wrote:
A decent 50 point army will run you 500-700$.

No it won't. I will be almost half of that to be precise (between 250$ and 350$).

No way. Ive got about 70 points of Khador (good for mix and match for 50 or so points) A few jacks alone runs you on average 50$ a piece. Ive got 3. That's $150 just in jacks. Iron fange pikemen $100. We are now at $250 and I don't have and supporting units or caster or anything. Id say minimum for a decent 50 point list is $450 plus or so. And really you want to have more than 50 points just for the variety right...

So 50 pts have now magically became 70pts? And when those still fall bellow you'll move on to two armies of WMH vs one army of 40k as is usual with these posts?

There are 2 Khador heavy warjacks that cost $50+ Beast 09 and the Behemoth, every other warjack in Khador costs $35. You say you got 3? That makes it 32 points of your army right there.

A full unit of Iron Fang Pikemen + UA costs $100 (and is probably the most expensive infantry unit in the game in terms of actual money), and represents another 10 pts of your army.

So far we have $250 and 42 pts.

Depending on your caster selection you have about 17 more points to spend and another 250$ to go before we reach your $500, have at it.

I definitely would not recommend anyone I know start playing Warhammer 40k or Warhammer. Both games are too confusing, take far, far too long to play, have rules which are too poorly written, and are too expensive, with my concerns in that order. I'd have no problem with GW's prices if they fixed all the other stuff, but they haven't and won't.

I would definitely recommend picking up Space Hulk to anyone who enjoys games.

I would not advise anyone to start GW games. Reasons for this:

1. The game is badly designed and very outdated, Table top games have come a long way since the 80s/90s and GW has just not keept up with the times.

2. You need a lot of miniatures to start playing so a very high buy in cost.

3. GW is slowly going out of style and in a few years time I personaly belive it will be hard to find people playing it.

4. Many people who are still into GW games are Hobbiest first and gamers second.. For those of us that are the other way around, or are 50/50 mix GW just dosen't provide the level of gameplay that we require to keep us interested in the long run..

On another note I personaly think that GW miniatures and Army Concept are top of the line. An army should have coherence, when you look at it. Sadly games like Infinity(corvus Beli) have ZERO coherence everything looks exacly the same you cant tell one thing from the other, Factions are a horrible Mix of diffrent styles. Its just a mess. Malifaux is the same a horrible mess, lets throw one hundread diffrent things together and hope for the best? From a desingers standpoint they need a gakload of work, and as a painter and hobbiest they fall sadly short and lack that extra feel you need to want to start to play either game..

Now with that said the Miniatures from both Malifaux and Infinity are very well made and very well sculpted but the overall Faction design is horrible as nothing fits with one another... Warmachine/hordes from privateer press are a bit better but their armys do suffer in places from the same lack of coherence that GW armies are so good at...

same faction3 picks, and they have nothing in common, first you have these Kinda police anti riot dudes, then lets throw in a wolf, and on the second pick hey lets make them all have kilts and look like scotsman?? WTF is going on? really bad Concept if you ask me.. to many ideas stick to one and make a coherent army that looks cool, instead of mixing anything that pops into your head lolz





This is my main gripp with the Competitors of GW games they have better rules but their design is not on the same level as Warhammer.. If you go and look at a faction from Infinity nothing fits, gak the miniatures are not even painted in the same color sheems within the same Faction, I personaly think this is Mayor FLAW. and if you look at Malifaux, your crew is somwhat the same but there are so many crews and so many diffrent ideas that it just becomes one big mess...

Look at Mantic games Kings of War. The rules are free to download and they encourage people to use any miniature plus its fairly easy to learn and play

 zlayer77 wrote:
This is my main gripp with the Competitors of GW games they have better rules but their design is not on the same level as Warhammer.. If you go and look at a faction from Infinity nothing fits, gak the miniatures are not even painted in the same color sheems within the same Faction, I personaly think this is Mayor FLAW. and if you look at Malifaux, your crew is somwhat the same but there are so many crews and so many diffrent ideas that it just becomes one big mess...

What on earth are you talking about? Those units looked like different regiments of the same army (which I assume they were). Infinity is meant to be like a special ops team, not Napoleonic-type ranks of guys in the same uniform with only the ponpon (or shoulderpad as the case might be) distinguishing them.

If the cat/wolf looking guys and the highlanders are part of the same faction, they look like two distinct groups within the same organization.

 zlayer77 wrote:

same faction3 picks, and they have nothing in common, first you have these Kinda police anti riot dudes, then lets throw in a wolf, and on the second pick hey lets make them all have kilts and look like scotsman?? WTF is going on? really bad Concept if you ask me.. to many ideas stick to one and make a coherent army that looks cool, instead of mixing anything that pops into your head lolz

That's like having Death Korps guys next to Catachans.

Only if you have the community, the money, the time, and the patience.

 zlayer77 wrote:

On another note I personaly think that GW miniatures and Army Concept are top of the line. An army should have coherence, when you look at it. Sadly games like Infinity(corvus Beli) have ZERO coherence everything looks exacly the same you cant tell one thing from the other, Factions are a horrible Mix of diffrent styles. Its just a mess. Malifaux is the same a horrible mess, lets throw one hundread diffrent things together and hope for the best? From a desingers standpoint they need a gakload of work, and as a painter and hobbiest they fall sadly short and lack that extra feel you need to want to start to play either game..

I somewhat disagree about Malifaux. Gremlins and Ressers are incredibly cohesive as an entire faction. Neverborn and Guild have a fair amount of unity as well (guards/western and monsters). Arcanists and Outcasts are more all over, but that's to be expected, since they are composed of random elements. But mostly it matters on a crew scale, and you'll generally be taking in-themed models which benefit better from synergy.

 zlayer77 wrote:

same faction3 picks, and they have nothing in common, first you have these Kinda police anti riot dudes, then lets throw in a wolf, and on the second pick hey lets make them all have kilts and look like scotsman?? WTF is going on? really bad Concept if you ask me.. to many ideas stick to one and make a coherent army that looks cool, instead of mixing anything that pops into your head lolz

Well we know you don't know the fluff, or much of Infinity at that. The first pic while the same faction is part of the French sub-faction. The other 2 pics they are SCOTSMAN.

And for the last part of your qoute I bolded, LOL. That is the funnest and kind of the dumbset things every said when comparing any miniature line to GW miniature line.

Yeah, do what GW does and blatantly steal ideas from popular movies and history and make them "grimdark"

 Eilif wrote:
I tend to proxy armies or units that are pretty close to WYSIWYG in terms of size, armor and weaponry though, so counts-as or Alternate Models are applicable as well.

Absolutely. Models communicate information. So while what I would call a proxy might have the wrong weapons or in other ways look drastically different because they're just a temporary stand in to try something in the game out, I have a general expectation that alternative models communicate the game information clearly.

If someone was contemplating starting a GW game, my advice to them would be to try it out either borrowed models (perhaps proxying the army they are interested in) as well as trying out other games. And then if someone still wanted to get into 40k or WFB, I'd still recommend using alternate models if it is appropriate. Even with LOTR, there are appropriate orcs, goblins, trolls, etc., as well as many good miniatures for the humans available elsewhere.

For example, in the mid 90s I used Warzone Blood Berets as my Space Marine scouts and a Vulkan Battlesuit for my dread. They were very chunky 90s designs, but they fight right in with the 2nd edition GW stuff, were armed appropriately and were the right size.

.

 zlayer77 wrote:

This is my main gripp with the Competitors of GW games they have better rules but their design is not on the same level as Warhammer.. If you go and look at a faction from Infinity nothing fits, gak the miniatures are not even painted in the same color sheems within the same Faction, I personaly think this is Mayor FLAW. and if you look at Malifaux, your crew is somwhat the same but there are so many crews and so many diffrent ideas that it just becomes one big mess...

Comparing a game with organized armies and their respective uniforms, standartized equipment or being one organism to Malifaux is not very appropriate. Hell, the list building in the game is described as "hiring a crew". Taking into account the variety of Malifaux population, the chance that you will end up with unlikely team of rag tag unwilling teammates is very high. But If you want coherency, Malifaux offers that. For example in Neverborn alone you can make the following theme lists- Nephilims, Nightmares, Puppets, Swambeasts, Darkened, Mimics and Woes. All of them with coherent and similar aesthetics (probably not that coherent with Mimics and Woes because of their nature). And if you want , you can mix them. I feel that it is quite thematic that Lilith ,given her connections with Nature itself, would field some Waldgeists (basically treefolk) next to her Nephilim.In Malifaux you don't play armies, you play a group of individuals. I guess that it is pretty much the same in Infinity. It'd s compsrison between apples and oranges

Noir wrote:

 zlayer77 wrote:

same faction3 picks, and they have nothing in common, first you have these Kinda police anti riot dudes, then lets throw in a wolf, and on the second pick hey lets make them all have kilts and look like scotsman?? WTF is going on? really bad Concept if you ask me.. to many ideas stick to one and make a coherent army that looks cool, instead of mixing anything that pops into your head lolz

Well we know you don't know the fluff, or much of Infinity at that. The first pic while the same faction is part of the French sub-faction. The other 2 pics they are SCOTSMAN.

And for the last part of your qoute I bolded, LOL. That is the funnest and kind of the dumbset things every said when comparing any miniature line to GW miniature line.

Thank you for understanding i know nothing about infinity and that was the point of my post. I know nothing about the game I look at the Faction and it all looks like a mess, Too a person like myself who knows nothing about the game it is off putting. I do not get interested in the game because of the simple reason that the Miniatures do not have a clear coherent design. I would not have brought this up if I did not think that this is a problem for Infinity as a game. The visuals are important and if you can't get people hooked on your miniatures, even when they all have cool poses and look spectacular, you are doing something wrong. Corvus belli miniatures look great "Alone", or in small groups but as soon as you click on the page and see that the hole Faction looks totaly diffrent, and then you click the next faction and you cant even tell the diffrence betwen them and the faction you just looked at you got a serious concept design problem.

I am not alone in this I know alot of people who feel the same way about Infinity.. So the question becomes would infinity get more people playing the game if they got better at concept design or would they get less? My guess is that more people would play their game if the Factions had better concept design. Now compare this to GW, if I come in as A Noob and look at the miniatures it dosen't take me long to figure out what is what, even if I do not have a rulebook... GWs game is crap but their Concept execution is master class compared with corvus belli.

I will say that Malifaux is better in Concept, but they have mixed so many diffrent themes that it all gets a bit too much...

Important to note here is that I am not saying Infinity have Uggly miniatures and I'm not saying they are bad. What I am saying is that they "Fail hard" to deliver a feeling about what the game and the Factions are all about, and this is sadly not good when you try and attract new players to the game...

We can take another example Prodos game who have reboted Warzone, their art direction is spot on, their concept is spot on, Factions are clear and defined.. When i look at the Faction I do not need a rulebook to understand what they are all about... Privateer press also has a much more simple and elegent Faction design and that helped them get me as a customer... I will probably never buy any infinity miniatures because of the design of the Factions etc.. they do not hook me. And I have heard alot of the same arguments from other players "Yes I heard its good but the miniatures all look the same" etc... I only brought this up because I personaly think Game developers need to think long and hard on concept before releasing a game. You have too make the viewer understand by just looking at an army what it is all about.. Infinity Sadly fails in this department big time...

If Corvus Belli ever want to hit the big time and get alot of people playing their game I think they need to hire a competent desinger to Rework their Factions from the ground up. I have seen a trend though that the newer Miniatures are mush more "flashed out", If you look at latest Ariadna
miniatures for example you can clearly see that they have gone back to the drawing board and are now doing them with clear design concept behind it. Corvus Belli is not stupid and I think that we in a few years time will see a much better Faction representation. Because they have to know that is the main weakness of their game..

And to all the others that pointed out stuff, I have never played Infinity I dont own a rulebook I do not know what the game is about and the Miniatures are not helping me to get any sense of what the game is about = BIG PROBLEMS and less Customers.. pure and simple

 zlayer77 wrote:

Corvus belli miniatures look great "Alone", or in small group but as soon as you click on the page and see that the hole Faction looks totaly diffrent, and then you click the next faction and you cant even tell the diffrence betwen them and the faction you just looked at you got a serious concept design problem.

Emphasis mine

Isn't that the point of a skirmish game? Also I never heard that the supposed lack of cohesion in Infinity is a problem, let alone major. And I don't understand the criticism about Malifaux's variety. Nothing is forcing you to make a schizo mess of a crew. Usually different themes of a faction work quite well with themselves and you are encouraged to hire thematic crews.

 TychoTerziev wrote:

 zlayer77 wrote:

Corvus belli miniatures look great "Alone", or in small group but as soon as you click on the page and see that the hole Faction looks totaly diffrent, and then you click the next faction and you cant even tell the diffrence betwen them and the faction you just looked at you got a serious concept design problem.

Emphasis mine

Isn't that the point of a skirmish game? Also I never heard that the supposed lack of cohesion in Infinity is a problem, let alone major. And I don't understand the criticism about Malifaux's variety. Nothing is forcing you to make a schizo mess of a crew. Usually different themes of a faction work quite well with themselves and you are encouraged to hire thematic crews.

I hate it.

It looks like the justice league. Cartoony, full of random cartoon characters with lots of odd bits and bobs.

It is the reason those games never took off here despite a few really enthusiastic new comers. None of us doubt the rules are good, but the models are far from good. Quality is there. But they lack wow on the table.

Mostly because of how the game LOOKS... and because the models are pretty expensive for what they are.

This is also the first time I've ever heard that there's lack of cohesion in Infinity. It's like saying the Avengers aren't cool because they're not wearing the same stuff.

When it comes to competent design Infinity is one of the most games out there who really puts thought on what they do. I don't even have to read the fluff if I want to notice it.

i'm also confused: you're saying that the miniatures of the same faction don't look like they go together, and yet at the same time you're also saying that they all look like they come from the same faction? I find that confusing.

Take a gander at the photos on this link: http://www.infinitythegame.com/infinity/en/2011/access/infinity-getting-started/

Now, those are what Infinity units look together. For me it certainly feels that each unit is different enough from the others but are also part of their faction (except for Combined Army, since they're a mixture of different alien races). Do you still feel the same after looking at those?


And with regards to the OP, my friend actually asked me if he should start playing Warhammer since he wants to play something else other than M:tG. I asked him if clarity of rules and balance are important to him and he said feth yes. I told him that 40k is not the game he's looking for.

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
Yeah, do what GW does and blatantly steal ideas from popular movies and history

That is true, but I'll presume you know that fact is not exclusive to GW, it applies to almost every modern piece of science fiction - and not just wargaming, -films and novels too. Almost all such works are heavily influenced by either earlier works, or actual events.

=Swastakowey

I hate it.

It looks like the justice league. Cartoony, full of random cartoon characters with lots of odd bits and bobs.

It is the reason those games never took off here despite a few really enthusiastic new comers. None of us doubt the rules are good, but the models are far from good. Quality is there. But they lack wow on the table.

Mostly because of how the game LOOKS... and because the models are pretty expensive for what they are.

It all comes down to preference. After few years spent in the grim darkness of the far future I appreciate the comic relief and not-that-serious aspect of Malifaux. Similarly, I've been wowed quite a few times by its models and opening a new box is always a little celebration for me. But there is something that is not subjective- the way those models are cut and the superhuman feat of assembling them. It is so hardcore that it brings tear to my eye. No human being should be subjected to such horrific suffering! Wyrd should learn some things from GW

 TychoTerziev wrote:

=Swastakowey

I hate it.

It looks like the justice league. Cartoony, full of random cartoon characters with lots of odd bits and bobs.

It is the reason those games never took off here despite a few really enthusiastic new comers. None of us doubt the rules are good, but the models are far from good. Quality is there. But they lack wow on the table.

Mostly because of how the game LOOKS... and because the models are pretty expensive for what they are.

It all comes down to preference. After few years spent in the grim darkness of the far future I appreciate the comic relief and not-that-serious aspect of Malifaux, Similarly, I've been wowed quite a few times by its models and opening a new box is always a little celebration for me. But there is something that is not subjective- the way those models are cut and the superhuman feat of assembling them. It is so hardcore that it brings tear to my eye= No human being should be subjected to such horrific suffering!

I agree, im no fan of 40k either but to me the other popular sci fi 28mm games arent for me either.

Its a pity as the rules look great. I have noticed though, some video games for sci fi are starting to look a lot like infinity etc. Maybe its just ahead of its time...

We can take another example Pan oceanic vs Nomads vs Aleph I look at the miniatures and I start too think what is this RED VS BLUE vs Whitpurple? I could pick models from all the Three Factions and paint them the same and you would probably not spot the diffrence? are they the same faction?

If I swaped heads/legs/arms and weapons and mixed these miniatures and then painted them all the same I can tell you now you would not know the diffrence(unless you picked the miniature up and gave it close inspection on the board) from a distance on the table if I took the bodies from one faction and changed the heads and weapons to the other faction and painted them in their scheeme you would have hard tome knowing what is what... This is BAD on so many levels its not even funny...




Palbots vs Fastpandas = 4 figures 2 humans and two small droid looking things that kinda look the same. Two diffrent factions but they look to alike.. You might not think this is a problem but as a Designer I feel a crinch.. it is just FAIL CONCEPT.. Defining your Faction and make it Uniqe, that is why you have Factions.. if you dont want Factions in a game dont use it.. But dont do it like this because its just confusing..



I know that Infinity is mostly human factions but you could just swap some heads on the aliens and they would look human also.. then paint them all the same...

Fast converstions that you probably would not even spot if I did them:

1.Body off Intruder with arms and head from Eudros.. I paint him White and purple, You have too really look close to spot the armour diffrence...

2. Body off algucil head and right arm from myrmidon...Paint it white and purple pass it off as Myrmidon

They just look to much the same, its Lazy Concept design..

I know people will probably not agree but if you think really hard before posting(I am not putting Infinity down as a game here) My point is only that making all the Factions this close to one another might not be that good a design decission, when the hole Table Top community is about Moddeling and making your army look unique and special... If the other dude happend to paint the same colours as you chanses are high in an infinity game that you can't even tell them apart on the gaming table...

Sorry for my bad english also not my main language..

So now they have too unified of an aesthetic?