WYSIWYG tolerance and sub group units with music flag and chief...

[GeneralZero]

This question have been asked in another thread but I think that it is really something more general.

I'll start with a real example but I think most factions have the same issue.

I have a question about assembling some miniatures and the WYSIWYG  rule (what you see is what you got) (vs rule of cool)

Lets take an example that I'm in actually:

Geave guards. Min unit = 5 max 30 . I got 20. 

I intend to play them mostly by 20 but sometimes by 5. Main weapon: Great whigh blate (one double handed big blade)

For each 5, I can have Chief+Musician+Flag+2 normal.

I'd like to build them like this but

1. when I group them by 20, is it allowed to say: they are all big blade? (even if musician and flagman are single blade)

2. when I build them, there is always one trio (and only one) identified by a skull on the base to say "this trio is the only chief+music+flag of the 20 man".

3. this is a bit extrem when there  is chief + music+ flag in a group of 5 but I had the same problem with skeleton warriors which are in groups of 10 (with a trio Chief/flag/music)  and I needed a group of 40.

Most of us want to be able to use our miniatures in several builds , and sometimes I need 3*10 skellies, sometimes 1*40...

Do I break the WYsiwyg rule? Can I do this in tourney?

Please advice and share before I glue them tomorrow....

 

PS: I don't even remember what a musician and a flag bring to the unit in term of rules 

[Skabnoze]

In the core rules it states that models with things like banners or musicians are considered to be armed the same as the rest of the unit.

Personally, I don't think most people mind if there is a bit of variation in terms of the models in the unit as long as it is obvious what the majority of the unit is armed with.  I mainly play destruction and I don't like my units to look completely uniform because they would honestly never be like that.  So for example, in a unit of 60 grots armed with Spears I might mix in a couple random guys with swords or bows.  The more like an unruly rabble the units looks the better.  But, for game purposes the majority of the unit is armed with the primary weapon so that it is easy for the opponent to tell what they are carrying.

[BaldoBeardo]

In a tournament always assume strict WYSIWYG. It's also just good form in general.

Even in a relaxed group, I think you're on soooper dodgy ground having lots of command models that *aren't*.

[Skabnoze]

1 minute ago, BaldoBeardo said:

Even in a relaxed group, I think you're on soooper dodgy ground having lots of command models that *aren't*.

Most warscrolls allow you to take multiple standards in the unit if you wish.  Some restrict how many you can have, but most don't.  But extras don't generally do anything other than maybe give you some casualty removal redundancy.
Personally I see no issue with someone wanting to put a couple of standards in a unit to make it look cooler.

[BaldoBeardo]

Just now, Skabnoze said:

Most warscrolls allow you to take multiple standards in the unit if you wish.  Some restrict how many you can have, but most don't.  But extras don't generally do anything other than maybe give you some casualty removal redundancy.
Personally I see no issue with someone wanting to put a couple of standards in a unit to make it look cooler.

Which would be okay if that's what he was doing. He's putting extra standards in units and saying they don't have them.

[Skabnoze]

2 minutes ago, BaldoBeardo said:

Which would be okay if that's what he was doing. He's putting extra standards in units and saying they don't have them.

Ah, I misread what he was saying.  I thought he was asking if it was ok if the standard and musician models had a single-handed weapon but could be used as a 2-hand weapon if the rest of the unit is carrying that.  That is exactly what the core rules says under command models.

What I did not notice was that he was going to build the unit in blocks of 5 where each 5 has a command.  So for a 20-man unit there would only be 8 armed with the primary weapon of the unit.  That does seem excessive and I don't think too many people would care for it.

[GeneralZero]

Ok, that means that for this extrem example, groups of 5 for 20 doesn't really work. I'll probably do then 5+5+10 : by the way, the chief has the same grand blade, in this case, that make 3 flags, 3 music and 14 grand blades. I insist that I clearly mark the rela flag+music+ chief of the whole group which has each a real beige skull  on their grey base, that identify clearly the main trio. Does it sound ok this way?     For the normal skeletons with spears, there are 40 warriors with only 4 trios, meaning 28 pears and 12 not spears

[GeneralZero]

what do a musician and a flag bring to the unit (except aesthetic)?

[Choombatta]

Just use them with the 3 (or4) banners and musicians, the champion is the only one you need to single out.

There is no drawback to having 3 (or4) banners in a unit (unless it cannot) and you still keep all your models armed the same and you still keep it WYSIWYG.

I do this with my Bloodletters. I have them in 2 units of 15 currently, but if I want to use a unit of 30, I just say they have 2 banners and 2 musicians in the unit when I play it this way. I just specify which Champion is the actual Champion at setup.

[TheOtherJosh]

1 hour ago, GeneralZero said:

1. when I group them by 20, is it allowed to say: they are all big blade? (even if musician and flagman are single blade)

2. when I build them, there is always one trio (and only one) identified by a skull on the base to say "this trio is the only chief+music+flag of the 20 man".

 3. this is a bit extrem when there  is chief + music+ flag in a group of 5 but I had the same problem with skeleton warriors which are in groups of 10 (with a trio Chief/flag/music)  and I needed a group of 40

When building a unit, WYSIWYG is “not applicable” to Command models.

This has been addressed in the Core Book, p.238:

“Some units can include uniquely named champions, standard bearers and/or musicians. These are known collectively as ‘command models’, and will have abilities that apply only to them. Command models must be represented by appropriate Citadel Miniatures if they are included in a unit. Command models are assumed to carry the same weapons as any other model in the unit unless noted otherwise, even if they are not shown on the model itself.”

Units can (typically) only have one “unit champion” but may be able to have multiple icon/standard bearers or musicians. (The description of the musician/Icon bearer will tell you if there is a maximum limit, or limit.) You will want to identify the “real unit champion” but like @Choombatta said, Icon bearers and musicians will likely not require any special identification.

Additional “skulls on the base” sounds like a good identifier to me. (1,2,3 or 4 or special colors of skulls.)

[Seadee]

magnets also help if you have the arms spare

[GeneralZero]

well, magnet ....if reasonably doable: for such super tiny parts, it is really difficult

[Overread]

I really wish GW would revise the rules with regard to banners and musicians. 

Right now they are in a really odd spot between two states really.

 

 

First up there is no cost and no limit and no negative to equipping your models with banners and musical instruments. So in theory you can equip ALL the models in a unit (with the exception of the lead unit) with both. Therefore ensuring that your opponent cannot disable the banner nor musician benefit for your troops through the entire game until the whole unit is killed off.

Of course visually this looks messy and silly; and the box doesn't give you enough parts to do it anyway. As a result its impractical to model this way.

My personal view is that so long as GW keeps the rules with no limits then its acceptible to "counts as" the entire unit has both banner and musician, but to put down one of each into the unit to represent it. Then whenever either one is killed you simply swap the model for a regular in the troop that isn't killed off; thus representing another model picking up the banner/instrument to continue on the effect. This is how old fantasy used to do it and I get the feeling its sort of what GW want you to do now (or at least expect you to do now). 

 

 

The other option would be for GW to rule that there's a point cost/unit limit on taking them so that the banner/musican on the table is a fixed model and if killed you lose the effect. 

 

 

Either approach is, in my view, sensible but it really requires GW to get their act together on this point and make a formal ruling. Otherwise some are currently treating it as situation 1 and some as situation 2 which creates an unfair playing field and can be a point of contention between players. 

 

 

 

As for you situation I would probably say you've got a few approaches

 

1) If you know you want to keep units viable in 5 man blocks I would assemble each 5 man group with commander, banner and musician. I would then give each 5 man group a unique feature - this might be a colour on the base rim, a hair colour, a detail colour , a symbol etc... - ergo something that tells them apart from each other that you can easily vary through each squad. 

When you deploy you can write in your army list that - "groups blue, black and gold are all in one unit". This lets you use those models as a single unit in a battle and easily tell which is in which unit; whilst also being able to break it down into smaller groups for different battles. 

2) Build the army in blocks of, say, 10 troops. So one command setup per 10 and one "symbol" per ten. This is like option 1 though makes the unit have more "armed" instead of standard/musical intrument models an thus looks better on the tabletop. You might find you have to by a few more if you then want to use lots of complete visually looking units of 5 later. 

Note these two both assume that you are either taking all unit with banner/musican or multiples within the unit but fixed to those models. A point that I think is important to define for your opponent before the match (it not only informs them what is going on but also offers them to use the same appraoch as you or for you to change your approach to make theirs.

[amysrevenge]

WYSIWIG tolerance in general:

Unpopular opinion:  enforcing WYSIWIG doesn't help anyone to play the game, it is 100% aesthetic.  Which is fine, but it's troubling to pretend that it's a gameplay issue when it isn't.

A player either doesn't know a unit well enough to be able to distinguish the modelling choices from eye level across the table (ie. they don't even know Chaos Warriors have the option between halberd and great weapon, or know what the rules differences are, let alone be able to tell at a glance which is modelled in front of them), or they know the unit well enough to understand when told what the models are.

You either are green enough to not benefit from WYSIWIG, or you are too experienced to need it.  It is about looks and not gameplay.  Similar to painted/unpainted.

 

Standards and musicians in particular:

I reckon it would be easiest and best to just give units with standards and musicians a rule more like "As long as this unit has 3 or more models, it gains the following ability" and not even have specific standard or musician model requirements.  Opens up more modelling options, and takes out a clunky bit of gameplay.

[Overread]

Just now, amysrevenge said:

 

I reckon it would be easiest and best to just give units with standards and musicians a rule more like "As long as this unit has 3 or more models, it gains the following ability" and not even have specific standard or musician model requirements.  Opens up more modelling options, and takes out a clunky bit of gameplay.

I rather like that idea; granted it means you lose both once you do down to 2 units or less, but honestly most units are already lost at that point anyway so its hardly a huge game-breaker (and 5 man units with full command are often glass canon/distraction forces anyway). 

But its a simple idea, doesn't rely on models and also conveys basically exactly what GW has the rules say at the moment. 

[stato]

or they just say you can have as many as come in the box, per amount of models that come in the box.  i.e. what they did for goblin netters.

[Skabnoze]

28 minutes ago, stato said:

or they just say you can have as many as come in the box, per amount of models that come in the box.  i.e. what they did for goblin netters.

I hate that rule. 

I have hundreds of goblins, including entire units of metal Netters from back in the day when Netter/Clubbers were a separate unit.  I was very thankful when GW turned nets from a specific weapon choice that you had to keep track of to a unit-wide upgrade that was simply represented by some models.  I was sad to see that the nets turned back into a weapon choice in Age of Sigmar and then that there was a weird errata about how many you could put into the unit.  I really hope that if/when they create a Moonclan battletome they change the nets to a unit upgrade that functions similar to how grot shields work (you get the benefit if the unit has at least X models).

Basically in a unit of 60 guys I don't want to have to keep track of a tiny handfull of specific models - both in regards to how many you can have and their position within the footprint of the unit.

[Galas]

18 hours ago, Skabnoze said:

In the core rules it states that models with things like banners or musicians are considered to be armed the same as the rest of the unit.

Personally, I don't think most people mind if there is a bit of variation in terms of the models in the unit as long as it is obvious what the majority of the unit is armed with.  I mainly play destruction and I don't like my units to look completely uniform because they would honestly never be like that.  So for example, in a unit of 60 grots armed with Spears I might mix in a couple random guys with swords or bows.  The more like an unruly rabble the units looks the better.  But, for game purposes the majority of the unit is armed with the primary weapon so that it is easy for the opponent to tell what they are carrying.

This was actually stated in the old fantasy rulebooks and it is how I have build my greenskin units back in the day. And how I use them now. A mix of weapons with the mayority of the models using the proper weapon of the unit.

[TheOtherJosh]

1 hour ago, Overread said:

First up there is no cost and no limit and no negative to equipping your models with banners and musical instruments. So in theory you can equip ALL the models in a unit (with the exception of the lead unit)

There are units that have explicit limits on the number of models that can be configured as command.

As an example, Idoneth Deepkin - 1 in 10.

Infernal Guard Fireglaives can only have 1 musician and standard bearer in a unit.

Kairic Acolytes have “Scrolls Of the Dark Arts” and “Vulcharics” which are both limited to 1 in 10.

The secondary limitation is as mentioned in the Core Book:

16 hours ago, TheOtherJosh said:

“[...]Command models must be represented by appropriate Citadel Miniatures if they are included in a unit.[...]”

While under friendly games it’s not likely to be an issue... you can’t put a little flag on all of your models and say “they’re all standard bearers”.

For the most part Command models aren’t a huge issue... forcing a Reroll on Battleshock and Improving Movement or bravery are fairly typical.

[stato]

1 hour ago, Skabnoze said:

I hate that rule. 

...

Basically in a unit of 60 guys I don't want to have to keep track of a tiny handfull of specific models - both in regards to how many you can have and their position within the footprint of the unit.

Position of key <special weapon> models in a unit is pretty much one of the key constants within every unit and faction across AoS, Star maces, Kharadron skyhooks, Fish-elves banners, etc.  it wont change im afraid.   Sucks if you have really old stuff, but they are catering for what they sell now.

[Overread]

Josh true some units do have limits, however if the only limit is "what you have a model for" then what's to stop one player arming their entire force with banners and musical instruments? There's nothing in the rules to stop them. Yes it would cost; yes it would look silly; yes it would break the spirit of the rule in many ways; but its legal.

 

Therefore its not up to gamers (or shouldn't be) to try and find the sensible within the rules but for GW to realise that this is a point of confusion/contention and to issue an update that clearly outlines things in a sensible and practical manner for the game. 

 

 

 

[Skabnoze]

17 minutes ago, stato said:

Position of key <special weapon> models in a unit is pretty much one of the key constants within every unit and faction across AoS, Star maces, Kharadron skyhooks, Fish-elves banners, etc.  it wont change im afraid.   Sucks if you have really old stuff, but they are catering for what they sell now.

Nothing quite works like nets though.  It is a very odd rule interaction given that it creates tiny bubbles of altered to-hit rolls for the enemy.  It is half special weapon, since it has its own damage profile, and half a defensive unit rule.  I realize they wrote the errata to handle the way that the unit is sold.

Special weapon positions are mainly for getting attacks on the enemy and I don't mind positioning offensive models in a unit.  The "Fish Elf Banners" defensive function applies to the whole unit no matter where the model is positioned.  It is effectively just a champion and banner rolled into a single model.  I can't think of another unit that has a defensive special upgrade which requires positioning to work - especially not in such a massive unit.  Maybe there is one that I don't know about, but the Nets seems like an odd case that is pretty clunky.

My point is that they could turn it back into simply a unit upgrade that is represented by a model - pretty much the same as a standard or musician.  Moonclan grots already have 2 different standards that they can stack into a unit.  The Bad Moon icon grants the unit +1 to saves against shooting.  The nets have worked like that for 7th-8th ed Fantasy where it reduced enemy strength by 1.  I would prefer that it returned to something similar to that.

[TheOtherJosh]

20 minutes ago, Overread said:

"what you have a model for" then what's to stop one player arming their entire force with banners and musical instruments?

Well, I for one would expect a very cheerful game, filled with music. Because obviously they’ve brought a band.

So, to bite for the evil question.

“If someone wants to bring a Band, with musical instruments to a game ... why should it matter?” 

A proper band, with musicians of all stripes ... and banners waving gleefully into the sunset... I could seriously see a Nurgle player doing that ... 

For units that have special rules associated with Musicians and Icon Bearers for Units they don’t have hard limits indicated, are there truly any rules that are gamebreaking that they provide? That one would need to block someone from using them?

There are special unit options that are not “Command Models” ... (netters comes to mind and special weapons)

But for most Command models? I’m not sure it really makes a difference. 

[amysrevenge]

1 minute ago, TheOtherJosh said:

Well, I for one would expect a very cheerful game, filled with music. Because obviously they’ve brought a band.

So, to bite for the evil question.

“If someone wants to bring a Band, with musical instruments to a game ... why should it matter?” 

A proper band, with musicians of all stripes ... and banners waving gleefully into the sunset... I could seriously see a Nurgle player doing that ... 

For units that have special rules associated with Musicians and Icon Bearers for Units they don’t have hard limits indicated, are there truly any rules that are gamebreaking that they provide? That one would need to block someone from using them?

There are special unit options that are not “Command Models” ... (netters comes to mind and special weapons)

But for most Command models? I’m not sure it really makes a difference. 

Haha I came in here to post just this.  Had to delete what I wrote because you already said it.

[Davros]

It is also interesting to note this bit of rules from the designers comentory of skaven pestilence;

Q: On the Plague Monks warscroll, the option is given for 
models to be Icon Bearers with standards, or Plague Harbingers 
with instruments. The warscroll states that any model in the 
unit can be an Icon Bearer or a Plague Harbinger. Does that 
mean I can equip my unit of Plague Monks with both options 
from both categories?
A: Yes, you may take multiple standards and instruments 
in a unit if the warscroll allows it.

 

Just mentioned warscroll, so not limited to just pestilence. As a general rule of thumb, as long as models are clearly identifiable as what they are (champion with skull) "Rule of Cool" takes precedence. This is war dollies we are talking about after all.