Infinity Review by the Painting Frog

The Infinity game has been reviewed by the “The Painting Frog” blog.

From their announcement:

It offers a nice introductory article about the game sharing the views of the author, as an average wargamer, about a completely new gaming system.

  • KelRiever

    Well, in the world of games, miniature games are not known for having the best rules evah. Particularly when it comes to being able to use all your ‘pieces,’ (i.e. balance), but anyone here knows that miniature games are, for most, not played for strictly the rules. There’s the hobby, the scene, yadda yadda, whatever. Infinity is absolutely not an exception in this regard. In particular, despite the pheromones driving every game towards a ‘tournament’ (read Win At All Costs) format, with outriders and all that blech, it could be one of the WORST games for that setting I have ever seen. Those who play it in a tournament, in my opinion, could have fun juggling chainsaws. In other words, admirable perhaps, but generating no desire to replicate.

    Having said ALL that nonsense, I love Infinity for what it is. Best played with companions, pretty cool miniatures (with the occasional exception), low model count (with a bit of an artificial cap from making it an endlessly expanding numbers game for miniatures you use), and rules that may be a bit absurd, but which certainly make an entertaining enough game.

    This review was off the mark for me. But that doesn’t mean that Infinity isn’t a great game if you buy it for what it does best (and ignore second coming prophecies about it).

    I’m still buying, let’s put it that way.

    • Psychotic Storm

      I will ask, have you even played a game?

      Infinity is one of the most well balanced and fine tuned gaming systems out there were no model is obsolete and were the army list is secondary in importance to how the player uses in game the models he has.

      I feel your comment is way off.

      • KelRiever

        LOL. Well, you certainly are entitled to your opinion. I’d ask have you ever played a game that isn’t a miniature game? Because if you had, I’d find it lacking serious credibility for saying what you have. I won’t get into a deep discussion about it, but if you play miniature games for any length of time, you start to make the decision of whether you want to pursue good games or miniature games. Because the two aren’t the same, as much as they should be. I play miniature games, but certainly not because they are good games.

        • Psychotic Storm

          I think I should clarify since I think my initial comment has been misunderstood.

          “Have you ever played a game of Infinity?”

          Believing that wargames are not, or better cannot, be good games just by the virtue of been wargames, is in my opinion single minded.

          Yes, I have played many genre of games in many forms and for me a good game must be balanced, captivating, repayable and have longevity.

          This is something all games despite their nature, be it miniature wargames, card games, computer games, console games, boardgames and whatever else I might have forgot can struggle with.

          Miniature wargames do not have an inherit flaw that prevents them do well on any of the above mentioned fields.

          • KelRiever

            They shouldn’t have a flaw but those sold do. To save repeat type, I’ll continue this in the posts below.

  • It seems odd to review the game without having played a single session. That said, it was a good write-up. for me it seems more suitable as an “impressions” post or something.

    • Gereth

      Hey Jarret.

      I did play a game before writing the review but I failed to mention it on the English version of the text. Sorry about that.

      As I just didn’t translate one version into the other, the english evrsion didn’t include the paragraph where I mention not only getting to watch a game (between Nomads and Ariadna) but also getting a game myself. Text has been updated with that information.


  • scottjm

    Juggling chainsaws should be an Olympic event.

    • KelRiever

      Listen, I would explain myself but the fanbois of Infinity are exactly the same as those of Games Workshop and exactly the same as Privateer Press. There is literally no difference. I’ll simply mention that I play WHFB, 40k (from time to time, if I can stand it), Infinity, Warmahordes, and probably most of the games that you guys do and I love them all….but none of them for the rules. If you want to play a game with good rules, try some of the well-known strategic board games. That’s all.

  • cegorach

    Kelriever, I honestly have no idea whatsoever what point you are trying to make. Could you explain please?

    • Veritas

      +1 KelReiver is using a lot of hyperbole likening the game in a tournament setting to “juggling chainsaws,” just calling the rules “slightly absurd,” or saying that Infinity fans regard the game as Messianic without offering ANY reasoning.

    • +1. He must have been drunk when he wrote that. Not having much clue about the topic does not help either. 🙁

  • cegorach

    I am sincerely not able to tell whether he’s being positive, negative, both, or neither.

  • KelRiever

    Okay, so I can see I smacked the hornets nest here, and while I get a sick sense of self satisfaction out of that, this is one of those discussions that can lead to some uncivil conversation (no offense, Veritas, but you seem to be taking the lead in this). Its not unlike one of those conversations where people argue about painting requirements, or the latest war against Games Workshop and their evil empire.

    I’ll simply state that I believe that while, after all this time, there should be a miniature game that is really a good game by any standard, that there is not. You either get to chose to put up with less than amazing, or ‘good enough’ miniature game rules and love playing with the little toy soldiers everyone is supposed to paint, or you look to play a game with actually good rules. And that’s good by common terminology, not an opinion if it is good. A game can be liked and not good. And when it comes to miniature games, I’ve been saying for some time that I think when you play miniature games, there isn’t one that I’ve seen sold at your local game store than could ever qualify as a good game. Hornet’s nest away, but you know, I’m really not interested in the lack of civility this time around (catch me on another format for that). I am picking on miniature games, and not any of you, and that should be a pretty clear difference.

    • Psychotic Storm

      continuing my above comment providing examples would help your cause, what is a good game in your opinion and were do the wargames fail to be good games again in your opinion.

      doing a drive by shooting comment accusing a game renowned for its balance and keeping all models viable for being imbalanced and not having all models viable, for example makes veteran players raise an eyebrow, likewise the tournament scene for Infinity goes for a few years now, no complains about how the game handles in tournament environment have been raised and the community has done its best to brink it to a braking point.

      concluding, examples to support what you say and the reasoning about it, instead of saying a few things without supporting them would help the discussion better.

    • Veritas

      I wasn’t picking on you KelReiver, I was picking on your arguments, (or lack thereof.) In both of your arguments thus far, the first specific to Infinity and the second more targeted at miniatures games in general, you offer up many vague negative comments about the genre without anything specific to substantiate your claims. I would like to hear some targeted criticisms of Infinity as you seem to think the game has many negative points so that we can try to answer them. However, your arguing strategy seems to be, rather than to focus in and provide examples as people asked, to simply get more vague and imply that the entire genre of tabletop wargaming is flawed. I’m guessing you’re hoping to go so broad as to then argue that you can’t possibly provide criticisms pertinent to every game. So I ask, once again, please provide examples pertinent only to Infinity so we can actually respond to your “swatting the hornets nest” in a cogent fashion. Otherwise you simply appear to be trolling to get a “sick sense of self satisfaction.”

    • KelRiever, would you care to elaborate on what makes a good rule set? I’ve often heard the opinion that strategy board games tend to have better rule-sets. This was usually meant to imply more clear and balanced rules with less occasions of game situations not overed by the rules. I cannot really judge that myelf, as I do not have enough experience with the board genre.

      I would be really interested to read your thougths on why tabletop wargames cannot (or do not?) achieve such quality in their rule sets. That’s “interested” as in “wanting to know”, not “wanting to argue”.

      To postion myself: I have played WM, Confrontation, WFB, 40k and Infinity, and liked Infinity for the “action flick” feel it had on the table.

      • KelRiever

        Okay, I’ll elaborate, but I just want you to know I am seriously skeptical this conversation will go anywhere. Nevertheless, I’ll bite.

        Here, first off, any miniature game in which there are ‘factions’ or ‘armies’ that differ in rules sets have balance issues. There isn’t a miniature game I know that has each and ever faction compensated perfectly for its detriments by its bonuses. Its okay, that’s what makes a lot of people like them. You know, Cryx doesn’t play like Khador. Ariadna doesn’t play like Yu Jing. But if a good game is a balanced game (and as far as I can tell it is, this is different from liking something), all miniature games are already hamstrung. Now, some do it better than others. Vampire Counts are stupidly more powerful than Ogre Kings. In this regard, Infinity gets some kudos, since your weaker factions certainly have more chance to win a game than in the WHFB matchup I just mentioned. However, ultimately, Infinity is still flawed for this same reason.

        Then, add to this certain things that cause arguements among players who do not necessarily see eye to eye (hence what makes a terrible tournament game, absolutely terrible, unless you know all the players involved and are amiable with them). The one glaring thing in Infinity is True Line Of Site coupled with extremely deadly combat. Now, I LIKE the deadly combat of Infinity. But ‘true LOS’ is yet another thing like facing with unmarked bases, or even arguing over measurements, that gets unfriendly or competative players into too many arguements to make it a ‘good game.’ On this issue, it isn’t about balance, it is simply about making rules that allow players to compete without excessively arguing with each other.

        Third, while some rules seem thought out well enough, some just seem woefully thoughtless. Forest rules are an example. I remember when people were up in arms about the Everblight faction for Hordes because being ‘blind’ in essense, let you fire ‘through’ forests. And while fans ran around trying to explain how this made total sense, it was hardly believable that due to not having eyesight, a creature could fire a ranged attack through a forest as if it were not there. Infinity has, as an example, a similar treatment of visors which allow you to ‘ignore’ the modifier for forests. I’ve had this discussion with our gaming group and frankly, while new rules ideas were pitched, others just wanted to play by the rules that existed, absurd as they are. Still, rules like this don’t make for a good game.

        Those are some examples which, at least hopefully, explain my point of view about why miniature games in general, are not good games, and as they apply to Infinity. And I mean good games outside someone’s personal opinion. Remember, I play these ‘not good’ games, still, and put up with the rules.

        • Thank you, that was very helpful.

          So, there seem to be different aspects on which you are challenging TTWGs in general and Infinity in particular:

          Unbalance because of asymmetrical army lists: I concur. Some of the best tabletop games I had were played with identical armies. Still, this is certainly something the player base demands.

          Rules not covering all aspects: as the rules designers are unable to design the entire game (including terrain and modded figures), this is something inherent to TTWGs. For me, this is a price I’m willing to pay for the flexibility of being able to re-design my game-board for every session.

          Nonsensical rules (firing through woods): this to me constitutes a design flaw of a particular game.

          I agree with the substance of what Kel wrote, but still evaluate such games as fun enough to play. But then again, so does Kel, as it appears. :o)

  • cegorach

    I wasn’t being rude, your post just did not make sense.

    That’s clearer now. you were just giving your opinion which is great, if a little scattershot in delivery.

    I agree with you in some ways, I don’t think Infinity is a good game.

    I think it’s goddamn awesome.

  • antenociti

    Wargames are constrained on quality by who is playing them. Unlike computer games where the ‘quality’ of combat has been pre-made; the gamer just follows a pre-defined route and squeezes a trigger at the appropriate time.

    This is compounded with great rule-sets such as Infinity where the tactical choices given by the wide range of orders, abilities and weapons, means that the choices available to the gamer are vast and varied.

    The archetypal console gamer is bound to suffer, as they are not used to having to think about these sorts of tactical choices and especially longer-term tactics and strategy. Shoot this person, shoot that person, walk, shoot that person, works very well in console games but often fails badly in Infinity.

    So I think it is inevitable that somebody raised on such thought-free diets finds the Infinity banquet rather overwhelming: too many choices can often baffle, confuse and embarrass and result in a reversion to type:

    Unsure of what all the food is, they look for and find the ‘chips & curry-sauce’ as the only things they recognise and then sit down, with a sigh of profound relief, to happily munch their way through their standard fare.

    Afterwards they are surprised at the rave reviews the restaurant is granted by others: “It was only ‘chips & curry sauce!’ they say, “What’s so special about that?!’

    • KelRiever

      That is hardly anything but condescending, and a perfect example of why I don’t have long discussions with people about differing points of view on this, or many, forums.

      • antenociti

        I’m not sure why you think it is condescending as it’s perfectly true: people who turn up with vague interest and spend more time chatting than planning, tend to lose. Those who don’t understand the dynamics and weapons tend to lose. Those with predictable tactics lose. Those who fail to use the terrain lose.

        Listen, I would explain myself but the
        fanbois of Infinity are exactly the
        same as those of Games Workshop and
        exactly the same as Privateer Press.
        There is literally no difference.

        I’m sorry, did you say I was being condescending?

        Okay, so I can see I smacked the
        hornets nest here, and while I get a
        sick sense of self satisfaction out of

        That’s often referred to as “setting out your stall early”

        a perfect example of why I don’t have
        long discussions with people about
        differing points of view on this, or
        many, forums.

        That’s because you started off by going out of your way to piss-off as many people as possible, offered no evidence at all and when first responded to essentially say that if anybody argued with you they were fanbois and therefore had no real value in their comments.

        Now, I don’t know about you, but where I come from if you start off a ‘discussion’ like that, then you really shouldn’t be too surprised when people think you’re nothing but a curry-sauce person.

        As I said, you get out what you put in; the same can be said of your posts in fact.

        • KelRiever

          I think you just proved my point about your post.

          • antenociti

            Well, it does consist mostly of your own comments, so that is to be expected.

          • antenociti

            Over at CB a chap called Kelriever made his one and only post on their forums with the below:

            I can’t believe Infinity is running a
            tournament format. It is the
            singularly most stupid, throwback, and
            catering-to-babies idea I have seen
            Corvus roll out yet. With hope it will
            fail miserably, I can only hope it
            happens fast and violently as it did
            with Rackham. What a lousy way to
            entice people to play this game.
            Nothing could be more dumb. Really,
            Corvus, you are as stupid as they

            So, come on, what exactly is the axe you are trying to grind here? And why do it so nastily and in such a condescending fashion?

          • mathieu

            Did you make sure it was the same person before coming back here to accuse him of something he may or may not have done over 3 years ago on another board?

          • KelRiever

            mathieu thanks, but you know, let’s just drop it. This is one of those where I can’t help but feel I already came out ahead. Second, I’m not really sure the antenociti posts are anything but him taking something personally. At this point, in fact, I’m clear there is something else going on which has nothing to do with me. If it is the same antenociti who makes nice looking sci-fi terrain and miniatures, he can have his last word and then hopefully getting back to making good stuff rather than post this self destructive stuff he seems to be doing. I appreciate the scrutiny, though.

          • antenociti


          • number9

            CONGRATULATIONS! You have won the KelRiever Argument Tournament. If anyone would like a copy of the official International KelRiever Tournament Argument Packet, well too bad. It isn’t for sale because it is an imbalanced system in which KelRiever always loses. In fact one could say the KelRiever faction is mechanically broken and open to logic abuse at the hands of unscrupulous players.

          • KelRiever

            😀 Words fail me. Probably because I don’t have a high enough stat in, ‘Words.’

  • number9

    The great mechanics and faction balance to be found within Infinity are all undone when played on a poorly conceived and constructed tabletop. Too much, too little, too tall, or too short, will cause all manner of issues in the games you play against other people. I’d say it is a credit to design that the rules themselves don’t particularly let you down, but they do allow us to let ourselves down very easily. That, I think, is part of the core of Kel’s view when it comes to Infinity as a tournament game, or pick-up game store game. That combined with certain honesty factors like LT designation, LT order spending, hidden deployment accuracy, exactly which models are under which camo markers when there are multiples of the same type, etc…

    Perhaps when the mission and campaign book is released, these issues will be alleviated somewhat.

    What Antenociti says is true to a point. The quality of game created by player and environment outside the rule system matters to a fault in Infinity. I can’t imagine it really being a positive long-term experience for any but the friendliest, and most flexible and patient of play-groups.

    I do still quite enjoy it however. But I wouldn’t recommend it to every gamer I know.

    • KelRiever

      Myself and the group I play with only find what you say to be mostly true. Infinity demands people pay attention to terrain. We love that, but find a lot of people don’t. Its also why it tends to make for one of the worst tournament games out there; stores are putting together events with terrain akin to what you play with in 40k and it leads to a horrible experience of dicing off rather than actually playing a game with any thought. People who are willing to spend as much time working on a good gaming table with terrain as they are loving the miniatures up will tend to like Infinity more.

      • KelRiever

        You know, I just typed that without reading who posted it. Nice one, 9. 😛

  • elril

    Another simple way to put it, is that people are dicks. And as much as I love infinity, there is room for abuse in it’s system by people who want to abuse it. You run the gamut from chess, with absolute rigid rules and board, to some of the more complex mini games, like infinity. I don’t know a way to put in flavor, variety, and complexity without opening pandora’s box to abuse. When playing with people you know and respect, the rules work. With people looking to stretch them, you get arguments. Oh, and a properly set up board is paramount to Infinity working correctly.

  • Nightbee

    The emphasis on tournament play seems to hurt Infinity as much as any other game, and I’m always surprised when games choose to stress that form of organized play. I would much rather see systems develop campaign rules, either within the initial rulebook or as the first major supplement. I guess it’s a lot easier to write up a tournament packet, though.

    • elril

      I have been sad to discover that the phrase “beer and pretzels” game to be a slur in the sense that the game is not worthy of being competitive. Such people feel that if a game can’t be played in a tournament setting, it isn’t a worthwhile game. Goes to my main motto in life: People suck.

      • Psychotic Storm

        I would bring the counter argument that if a game does not have a rule set that can stand a tournament scene, that means be balanced, clear and well written, then you may indeed playing an inferior game.

        The dreaded “tournament scene” that is so abhorred by some people is nothing more than an organised setup to play some games of a particular wargame, sure one can argue it will bring the worse of the player out, sorry this does not in my opinion stand, WAAC is a myth or somethign really misunderstood, one plays to win and have fun, he did x comb or fielded Z amount of Y units, do the rules allow it, can it legally be in the list? if the answer is yes, why shouldn’t he do it? if you are challenged in a knife fight and can bring a gun why not do it?

        In a tournament any game system is tested to the extreme, loopholes in the rules are found, balance issues internal and external show up and the game itself passes a stress test, clever designers can use this to test their system fine tune it and make it better for everybody either playing tournaments or playing a “casual game”, on the other hand there are developers that prefer to leave their system as is and blame everything on the “WAAC tournament players” that fail to see how the game “should be played”.

        In the end the fault is neither the of tournament scene, nor of the players, if a game system is broken it is the developers fault.

        • Veritas

          Actually, while I don’t agree with all his points, I will agree that KelReiver’s stance on Infinity in tournaments is a disaster waiting to happen if you don’t constantly police the players. All the things mentioned above about hidden deployment, camo, lt. designation, etc… all require the players be perfectly honest. Those rules, in a tournament, aren’t tests of how well the rules are put together, but how much integrity your player base has. It stops being a question of whether or not something is allowed by the rules, (since all of those special rules are,) but whether or not players put in a competition for glory and prizes can resist the urge to cheat the system.

          So while I think Infinity is an amazing ruleset, it does require honesty from the players and tournaments are usually hotbeds of people trying to bend, (or break,) the rules to get even slight advantages. I know from personal experience from organizing and judging tournaments for 40K and Fantasy.

          On this one point I will side with Kel.

          • Psychotic Storm

            Since everything must be written and can be checked, how big a problem can it be?

          • Veritas

            Have you ever played in or organized a tabletop wargame tournament? It really is true that some players will try to get ahead by any means necessary. The problem with Infinity is that while things need to be written down the opponent can’t check them during the game to make sure the other guy is actually doing what’s written. Only the TO or judges would be allowed to do that and most tournaments do not have a judge for every table.

          • Veritas

            …and, as I said before, I love Infinity. I think the rules are some of the best I’ve ever played. It’s just that in a tournament setting that I can see things going wrong quickly. The game requires both people to behave in a responsible, honest, and adult fashion to work properly and tournaments tend to attract some people who have a great deal of difficulty with those things when in a competitive environment.

          • Psychotic Storm

            Unfortunately such behaviour is not a “privilege” of the tournament scene, actually you can check. every information as it happens and courtesy would demand to show the relevant information as it happens, “my Malignos sniper comes out of hidden deployment and shoots your Hsien, here is the written coordinates forward 36 inches, from left 25, third floor (or here is the photograph)”.

            This concerned was raised many times in Infinity’s path, the tournament scene is evident it is not much of an issue.

          • Veritas

            Oh sure, you can demand the relevant info when I actually bring the model out of TO camo, but what’s to say that I didn’t write down three different little chits at the start of the game and then when I see where is most advantageous for that TO troop to be deployed I pick that one? Like I said, judges can’t monitor everything. Infinity demands a certain sort of gentlemanly behavior in that it can’t be policed as well as something like Warmahordes where the player can’t choose any nebulous options for his unit, (other than size and attachments,) or deploy anything in secret.

            Now, I know you are THE number one Infinity fan on the planet, (that’s NOT hyperbole if you’re an Infinity forum regular,) Psychotic Storm. I regularly read the Infinity boards and I’m pretty sure you have more posts than any two people combined so me saying something negative about the game, no matter how reasonable, is unlikely to sway you. However, I hope Kel at least sees that I am capable of liking a game while recognizing that it has flaws. (Even though I don’t agree with all the flaws he listed.)

            Not that I really consider Infinity being a poor tournament game a flaw as I usually find tournament games to be the least enjoyable games ever thanks to people who do play “like they’ve got a pair.” (a pair of hormone imbalances that is) With friends I think Infinity is one of the best rules sets I’ve played.

          • Psychotic Storm

            I am a big fan but I am not blinded by that, I strive to see the game I so much love getting even better.

            The hidden list problems are old and known, its a balance that must be done, but I am not willing to see them sacrificed for a full undisclosed and transparent game since the gameplay is enhanced by having certain things hidden in my opinion.

          • Veritas

            On that point I totally agree with you. I think Infinity is a fantastic game as is. I just think it’s less than ideal when put into a tournament setting where some players are willing to sacrifice honesty and sportsmanship in order to have a better chance at winning a trophy or some models.

          • KelRiever

            I do see Veritas can like a game with flaws, absolutely. And me too. But yes, those points you made about the flaws with tournaments are like you reading my mind.

            When you do have a good group of friends to play this with, and they are open enough to make changes that seem flawed among the local group (‘house rules’), it is pretty entertaining. That goes with almost anything, imo, but yes, Infinity in particular.

          • Psychotic Storm

            Every game system can have flaws, this does not make it a bad game or disqualifies it from been a good game.

            The Infinity tournament scene requires the players to not cheat, unsurprisingly all games in a tournament require their players the same, is the Infinity system more exploitable than the others? no, is it the same probably, all game systems give some and loose some in what can potentially be exploited.

          • KelRiever

            Actually, what Veritas and I are saying, I think, is Infinity is MUCH MORE exploitable for a cheater. You obviously disagree, but I don’t worry about it too much anymore, since after heavy tournament presence for years, I’ve hung it up. Gave up on the entire scene, really. Playing with your friends at homes just seems to be the best, if you’ve got the option.

          • Psychotic Storm

            Indeed I disagree because of a number of reasons.

            There are only three thing that really can be be cheated in infinity, who the LT is that can easily be checked at the end of the game, if the AD lvl 3 models chose to enter as AD lvl 2 and have been unhackable, easily checked as soon as the models enter play and the position of a hidden deployment models again checked as soon as it happens.
            The LT cannot be cheated its in the list, the other two could be “cheated” with multiple papers and some sleight of hand, but it is a bit too much, plus the judge should be present when the deployment phase happens, its not more than a minute taking a note were the models on a table are.

            on the other hand loaded D20s are difficult to come around and less common that loaded D6, the models load out is predetermined and the options belong to specific models so equipment and weaponry cannot conveniently jump from model to model, the army list checking is really easy given the low model count, the provided army builder and the predetermined models load out.

          • KelRiever

            Well, I am glad the tournament scene works out for you, Psychotic Storm. But I don’t think your experience of lack of cheating in tournaments, or even as they apply to Infinity tournaemts, is universal. But dude, if you have no cheaters, I wish I was geographically near you.

  • Psychotic Storm

    I see, No I do not think the strict self contained environment of boardgames is the best there is, or the most balanced, many boardgames have balance issues and one of their prime example, chess, while fine-tuned and streamlined can never deliver an out of the box challenge the parameters will always be the same.

    I would compare the boardgames with a lab experiment, sterilised and pure, if done right, it will always deliver the same result, but rarely behaves as seen in the wilds.

    Speaking of wilds, the wargames are more out of the box experience, depending on the rule set they can deliver a balanced fine-tuned game or an imbalanced experience, but their main difference is that the occurrence of conditions not thought in the rule set will be more frequent than in boardgames, its up to the rule set and its adaptability to overcome or bog down, this does not mean wargames are inherent flawed, the same thing happens to boardgames and usually there while less frequent the fine tuned boardgames system usually breaks completely down.

    the question is does the epitome of wargaming experience is a boardgame with fixed map, mirrored armies and a fine-tuned rule set? I beleive not, a random battlefield, balanced armies with variety between them and a fine-tuned, but adaptable rule set is far far better in my opinion.

    Setting aside this and really focusing in Infinity, I beleive I have the entire international Infinity community behind me when I say the game is balanced, there is no weak faction or an uber faction, there is no bad combinations of opponents and the fact the actions of the player with the models he or she has and not the army list matters talks a lot about the game the system and the balance.

    I am not sure why Hidden Deployment AD combat jump, who the LT is or any other “hidden” information is a problem in a tournament, everything is written down and can be checked when it happens, somebody can try and cheat in chess, that does not make the game having a tournament scene “like juggling chainsaws”

    Yes I can see an issue with terrain not be enough in some store, but playing a game not as intended does not mean the game has problems, only that the people playing it do not play it as they should, you can play chess with two less rows for whatever reason, that will not mean chess is bad, just that it was not played as it should have been.

    You are of course entitled in your opinion, as far as Infinity goes, I carry a few years of experience behind me in my comments and having a community that is more than happy to find a way to break the system and not succeeding so far, gives me quite some faith that Infinity can be seen as a good game.

  • So wait; is the argument here that Infinity is somehow a bad game because it’s not 100% perfect in tournaments? The rules are fantastic, the models are well made and beautiful(with a few exceptions) and the community is generally some of the nicest people I’ve ever met online.

    And honestly; if you’re going to have an infinity tournament your going to make sure there’s things in place to prevent cheating. Be it judges at each table or whatever, I’m sure any TO worth their salt will set it up to prevent such things.

    What I don’t get here, is Kal talking about how bad the tournament scene is with the game and then saying he’s since stopped playing in tournaments because the environment. Seems a little weird to me.

    • KelRiever

      Its actually not weird at all. If you play enough tournament games, you’ll realize what makes good tournaments and what makes pretty bad ones. There are two things going on. One is my own, personal, distaste for the tournament scene. And two, an (attempt) at an impartial statement about tournaments. So, 1 ) I mostly despise tournaments, as they currently exist, for miniature games, and 2 ) even if I liked them, Infinity would be a terrible game for a tournament.

      There’s nothing wrong with you liking the game, obviously. I already stated why I thought it and other miniature games were bad games and the reason I gave wasn’t ‘….because it’s not 100% perfect in tournaments.’ We agree that the models are well made, with the exception of that they are far too fidley for those who aren’t into modeling. And there is the occasional awful pose. I find the rules good enough for friendly play and terrible for anything else. You find them fantastic. I would also say I’m not particularly fond of the online community at the Infinity forums, as they are way in the red zone of fanboi-ism. But that’s obviously fine too. I am glad you enjoy that community if you are over there and posting regularly. So, mostly agreeing to disagree here.

  • Dude

    Guys, I am disappoint. Can’t you tell a flagrant stinking troll when you see one?

    Infinity isn’t for everyone. I’m personally glad that it’s not for you, Kel.

    • KelRiever

      seriously, did you even read what was written? Because it sounds like you didn’t

    • antenociti

      Good point, well presented Dude.

      Must not feed….etc etc.