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.

A general, for-no-reason-in-particular question:

Do you guys prefer miniatures games where the units come with one set of gear and stats, and can't be modified? Systems like WarmaHordes.
Or do you prefer variable loadouts? Like 40k or Infinity.

I've picked up Infinity recently, and I've been struck by how much more engrossing list building is in that game than in, say, WarmaHordes; the flip side, of course, is that variable loadouts are a little overwhelming, at least at first, and wysiwyg can be a whole can of worms (where it's required, of course). For the longest time, I'd sung the praises of static loadouts, but Infinity's made me rethink my position a little. (Of course, there's a world of difference between "do I take a Dasyus or Naga as my hacker" and "Do I give this tac squad a rocket launcher.")

I have no preference. Both can be fun.

Same.

It really depends on the game though.

I'm using defined loadouts in my game simply because its easier to balance. Each loadout can be fine tuned to be an interesting trade off.

With discreet gear (and lots of it) there's more likelyhood that someone will just find the optimal gear set for the meta. However, that's often a good thing if the designer does their job and makes the setting's most common configurations match with what the players are doing.

I like gear options, within reason. From a modelling standpoint it allows for the best conversions. In Malifaux or Warmahordes, there's no real converting other than poses because each model is essentially a character with fixed stats and loadout. Going crazy with a conversion and still having a model that works in the game is one of 40k's greatest strengths.

I never ever thought to compare Infinity structured and static options which I personally compare much towards warmahordes to the gear option selection mess that is 40k.

my opinion is evident from above too, I hate with passion the gear selection option GW has in their rules, it makes imbalance and broken combos guaranteed.

I prefer loadout over static hands down. Being able to have it my way goes a long way toward my satisfaction with a game. The modelling aspect it opens up is a big part of it as well since that is what got me into wargaming and still holds 70% of my interest in relation to it.

It honestly depends. If a game has a small model count and an easy system of tracking gear for each model such as load out cards and models with actual gear options then I'll go for the gear if not keep it static as it's a pain to try to work out and remembr which model with identical rifle is the one with night vision and which is the one with thermal grenades.


I thibj if you are going to do gear include in the game include it with the model. If the model can take night vision and grenades then stick in an extra head with night vision goggles and a small grenade you can attach to the model.

Warmahordes doesn't really have static loadouts, though... They just have a separate model and unit entry for each option, rather than a single unit with those options.

True, but it still is not the mess of GW systems were a character (or unit in some cases) can have a bloated options menu which is never used and only a few exceedingly optimal combinations (or broken) that a game designer would have prevented if he had used a fixed system are used.

40k's mass of options are a result of it being essentially a legacy system going back to Rogue Trader and it's semi-RPG aspects, along with the fact that sculpting, converting and modelling cool looking models has always been a huge part of the game/hobby.

I quite like the variety offered in 40k, simply because it means more (legit, WSYWIG) scope for cool looking models.

I am in the both can be fun. I enjoy customizing my characters/units with options like in 40k. On the other hand my all time favorite game, LOTR SBG, has 99% static options or change by wysiwyg. The customization comes from the combination of models/units vs their gear.

For modelling and converting, different options and possibilities are fun. For playing, I definitely prefer the approach where listbuilding isn't the main part of the game.

If its a small scale game where an individual model matters, and a set of rules detailed enough for different equipment to matter then yes I love it, knowing that model has a Jx46-1 and not the Jx46-2 (whatever they actually are) and knowing it makes a difference no matter how slender I love.

However in a larger scale game, not so much, its detail that gets in the way of a large scale rule set.

Sort of like drones in SFB, in a ship to ship duel I want to play with the customisation rules, in a fleet action or gork forbid a carrier duel... less so

I personally enjoy systems that give many options. Though I like being able to chose loadouts, that main reason is when it comes to building the actual model. For me there is visceral sense of satisfaction in kitbashing to make a unique model or the process of altering models for magnetization.

Mewens wrote:
A general, for-no-reason-in-particular question:

Do you guys prefer miniatures games where the units come with one set of gear and stats, and can't be modified? Systems like WarmaHordes.
Or do you prefer variable loadouts? Like 40k or Infinity.

I've picked up Infinity recently, and I've been struck by how much more engrossing list building is in that game than in, say, WarmaHordes; the flip side, of course, is that variable loadouts are a little overwhelming, at least at first, and wysiwyg can be a whole can of worms (where it's required, of course). For the longest time, I'd sung the praises of static loadouts, but Infinity's made me rethink my position a little. (Of course, there's a world of difference between "do I take a Dasyus or Naga as my hacker" and "Do I give this tac squad a rocket launcher.")

I think 'static' and 'gear options' a matter of perspective, to be fair. I think the whole thing is a bit of an illusion.All that's different is how the options are presented.

You say warmachine is static. Well, it is and it isn't.

Pp's current design philosophy is that every load out essentially gets its own 'card'.you have a juggernaut, destroyer, decimator and marauder and they're all different unit entries. Is it really that much different to gw's format where you have a 6pt basic frame, and upgrading with either an open fist and ice axe for 1pt(juggernaut), twin ram Pistons for 1pt(marauder), a bombard cannon and annihilation axe for 3pts (destroyer) or rip saw and dozed for 4pts.(decimator) You get exactly the same thing in the end.

Infinity is a halfway house between the two. And In the end gives you exactly the same thing. You have the set unchanging weapon loadouts exactly like in WMH, but they just but all the variable loadouts for unit x in unit x's profile.

I'm with Carlos. As the model count gets lower I want more detail (and control over said detail). If I have only a handful of models I'm happy to track every item they have, individual health and even a few limited shot items/ammo. As the scale goes up and individual models become less important I want them to be more generic, more rank and file.