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

[Skabnoze]

1 hour ago, Davros said:

This is war dollies we are talking about after all.

Wrong!  This is all serious business.

[Ravinsild]

On 7/17/2018 at 5:53 PM, GeneralZero said:

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

It depends entirely. Ardboys have 2 different flags. One adds bravery to the unit and one stops people from fleeing during battleshock. They have have a drummer which adds +2 to charge rolls. 

My Blood Reavers have a Hornblower which I believe is +1 to run and charge rolls and a standard bearer which gives +1 bravery. 

[stato]

13 hours ago, Skabnoze said:

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.

Kharadron Thunderers have Fumigators, i used one last weekend, it reduces attacks from enemy within 3" of the model, smaller unit though obviously. 

 

Going back to banner talk (not netters), I would be very against a change of the rule for banner/musicians etc. that just gave the ability to the unit irrespective of the model being present, a huge part of AoSis the selection of models for wound allocation (and especially AoS2 now you cant split coherency without penalty). Placement of banner, drummer, champion models can now be very important if they are key to your unit function.

[Guest]

14 hours ago, Davros said:

This is war dollies we are talking about after all.

Hehe! 'War dollies'. Perfect! 

[stato]

20 hours 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. 

I mentioned above the reason why i think having specific models for banners and musicians is important for aspects of the game....   however if you made a nurgle band, with a little accompanying dancing troupe of nurglings obviously, I would totally want to play against it! ? 

[Nos]

If not WYSIWIG I have no problems so long as:

it is made clear before the game what they are, and that is then written down if it isn't already, to prevent confusion.

There is an essential proxy between what you're playing and what they are. Something with a shield and a weapon is now carrying a shield and another weapon? Yes. It's carrying a bow now though or riding something ? No.

Bottom line is I want my opponent to respect my time, that's all. If they want to treat me as a guinea pig or try something hyper competitive in order to win I'm not interested in playing, sorry.  

This is a time consuming hobby, I'm not into playing it with people who don't respect that aspect. I make the army I do deliberately, thoughtfully and patiently. If you're going to treat it as roadkill or fodder for your legion of constantly morphing proxy most likely unpainted hyper competitive doom,  in a game which is comically unbalanced, I'd rather find someone else to play with where we can bond over the good bits of the hobby.

If it's a friend or whatever it's all good because I know they value my time anyway, but it's rarely happened regardless 

[Sleboda]

On 7/18/2018 at 10:18 AM, amysrevenge said:

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.

I completely disagree.  The appearance of the models actually does matter.  it's why we use them instead of colored chits to play our hobby-game.

I am very experienced.  I have been 'duped' (usually not on purpose} by models that do not look like they are what they are.

If interested in a longer version, click here.

 

It goes on for several pages, but the basic idea is that there is a connection between the model and the rules it has.  Experienced players are actually more disadvantaged by non-accurate modeling as they will have auto-piloted the connection over time and disconnects will be more likely to go unnoticed until it's too late.

[amysrevenge]

I also completely disagree in return, but I also know from watching the internet for a while that we will have to agree to disagree haha.

The gameplay portion of the Warhammer experience can be fulfilled with circles of paper with unit names written on them, or gray plastic, or "these halberdiers are actually glade guard" proxies (I also disagree with the notion that these things can affect the skills of the opposition to a large enough extent to matter).  The aesthetic portion of the Warhammer experience is not met at all by these things, and so the overall Warhammer experience can be harmed, to varying degrees based on the priorities of individual gamers, all the way from This Is Fine to I'm Not Gonna.

[TheOtherJosh]

1 hour ago, Sleboda said:

The appearance of the models actually does matter.  it's why we use them instead of colored chits to play our hobby-game.

I am very experienced.  I have been 'duped' (usually not on purpose} by models that do not look like they are what they are.

So, based off the article, a cardboard standee with a picture of the figure would be just fine? (Assuming an appropriately sized base?)

Your visual clues would be there.

[Skabnoze]

1 hour ago, amysrevenge said:

(I also disagree with the notion that these things can affect the skills of the opposition to a large enough extent to matter)

In my, probably too extensive, experience this sort of thing is only ever an issue if your expectation is to talk or interact with your opponent as little as possible.  If you don't know what something is then it takes a handful of seconds to ask and get an answer.

I ran into the same sorts of discussions when I regularly played Warmachine and I found the concept pretty boggling to be honest.  Once upon a time GW games did not have WYSIWYG as a rule at all.  That rule did not exist in the core rulebook for 2nd ed 40k and the equivalent era of Fantasy Battles.  The first time I remember seeing that rule was Necromunda and it was noticeably called out in the rules - which is why I remember it.

Somehow we managed to play the game just fine back then.  You just asked the other guy what a certain model had on it.  And before GW games I was playing Battletech a ton and that game primarily used cardboard cut-outs for the mechs.

Speak to each other both before and during the game.  Before you set up take 1-2 minutes (it's not long) and look at the other guys army and their written army list.  Ask about anything that you are unsure about or directly ask if they have any conversions.  Do the same for the other guy with your own stuff.  Then feel free to take a second and ask again in the game if you need.  A bit of communication can prevent a whole host of issues.

[amysrevenge]

If I see hand weapons, am explicitly told they are actually great weapons, then proceed to forget and treat them like hand weapons and lose an advantage because of it, I am mad at myself and not my opponent, and take on 100% of the responsibility for the mistake.

[Sleboda]

58 minutes ago, TheOtherJosh said:

So, based off the article, a cardboard standee with a picture of the figure would be just fine? (Assuming an appropriately sized base?)

Your visual clues would be there.

That would address one component, but still fail to measure up. A lot comes together to trigger the proper connections.

[Sleboda]

24 minutes ago, amysrevenge said:

If I see hand weapons, am explicitly told they are actually great weapons, then proceed to forget and treat them like hand weapons and lose an advantage because of it, I am mad at myself and not my opponent, and take on 100% of the responsibility for the mistake.

What if your opponent says to imagine his unit had moved 7.3 inches forward but left them sitting where they were? Are you expected to remember that, too?

[amysrevenge]

That actually comes up.  There are times when a model can't quite balance where it would nominally be allowed, on terrain that is more... visually interesting than it is practical.  So we say "this model sitting over here on the flat is actually up there on the poorly thought out but beautiful terrain piece".  And we all manage it fine.

Or, it is literally impossible to keep 1" cohesion with a unit of 9 Prosecutors.  So we keep track of where they are supposed to be, given their base footprints (these front guys are in the right spot, but the ones behind are within 1" and following the roles, rather than 1.75" as the closest they can fit).  Sometimes even having the unit of Prosecutors standing off to the side with some blank 40mm bases standing in for a combat.

[NemoVonUtopia]

I have not run into any problems with limited proxying. Whenever I do i try to make it logical and universal so all skullcrushers count as having axes pr all bloodreavers have meatripper axes so it is easier for my opponent and I to remember.

For some units proxying is practically mandatory. Stormfiends have very limited options and I would not expect anyone to buy 3 boxes to have a unit of 3 warpfire throwers or to not be able to use what they want. 

Though it can get out of hand. I once had someone want to use cold one riders as bastilodons.

[Sleboda]

Strange. I guess I just put the onus, in a hobby modeling game, on the person using the unit (models+rules) to have the models and to follow the rules.

Not sure how it's on me to make extra allowances to remember additional to things that the game does not require me to while my opponent benefits from me having some the accurate representations and following the rules.

Seems objectively unfair for me to have that extra layer put on me.

As with most things, it's probably a question of where you draw the line. Trying to remember that the dragon is on the hill slope because the model falls over? Sure. Remembering where 27 models are "supposed to" be? Too much.

Remembering that the one guy has a sword instead of an axe? Ok. Remembering that three banners really are banners, two others are not, that unit is actually heavily armored when it doesn't look like it, and that the pistoleers are actually knights panther? Heck no.

[Skabnoze]

1 hour ago, Sleboda said:

What if your opponent says to imagine his unit had moved 7.3 inches forward but left them sitting where they were? Are you expected to remember that, too?

The hyperbole is going a bit too far with this one.  Spacial representation and object identity are not the same thing. This argument is basically the equivalent of saying that chess is just as hard to play with 2d printed tokens of the pieces as it is without a board at all.

I have to say that I disagree with the linked article quite a bit.  Fancy miniatures make the game look much cooler, but they are not at all required for a game to functionally work, be playable, or even to be fun.  There are a lot of games out there that completely use cardboard chits & tokens and there is no obstacle to playing the game.  I greatly enjoy the visual aspect of the game.  I am completely on board with preferring models and I like nice 3d terrain.  I detest that games like Warmachine tend to play with mouse-pad terrain.  But that does not mean that the games require the fancy miniatures and terrain to function - they don't.

The first page of that article used the example of a fully modeled stand of woods and a paper cut-out with the word WOODS on it - and that paper cut-out is perfectly functional.  The only way someone should have an issue using the paper-cut out is if they are not literate.  The same goes for the paper token that says "GREATSWORD" on it.  I could understand the confusion if the token said "STEVE" on it but "GREATSWORD" is the name of the unit type.

And then there is the bit about an Empire Greatsword model no longer working if you paint a Fluer De Lis on the chest plate - really?  Sorry, but there is zero required painting guide and I have no sympathy for someone complaining about the colors that someone else paints their toys.  That whole article seems to fall apart when you start to deal with the multiple different models that GW has put out over the years for the same thing.  They don't always look the same, but they are all still equally valid.  What happens if someone plays Legions of Nagash and paints their whole army in a ghostly theme?  Is there suddenly a huge issue with ghostly colored black knights vs hexwwraiths?  What about if someone has a Bloodseeker Palanquin and a Mortis Engine that are painted with the same color scheme?  Grave Guard and Skeleton Warriors look very similar to each other.  Half of the Fyreslayer infantry looks pretty close to each other from a distance and so does Stormcast.  I find all of the Bloodthirster variant models to look about the same and the names are not much help when trying to match to the model.

This argument is getting rather silly at this point.  As I have to tell my kids: "use your words".  Talk to your opponent - it is not hard.

[Skabnoze]

5 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

Strange. I guess I just put the onus, in a hobby modeling game, on the person using the unit (models+rules) to have the models and to follow the rules.

Not sure how it's on me to make extra allowances to remember additional to things that the game does not require me to while my opponent benefits from me having some the accurate representations and following the rules.

Seems objectively unfair for me to have that extra layer put on me.

How do you deal with things such as relics, battalion abilities, spells picked from an allegiance spell lore?  Those can all layer some very game-changing rules onto units and they have no requirement to be represented on the table.

[TheOtherJosh]

5 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

That would address one component, but still fail to measure up. A lot comes together to trigger the proper connections.

And a cardboard proxy with a picture of a miniature wouldn’t work?

Something like the ones from http://www.braveadventures.com/category/paper-miniatures/

What about folks that are using really really old sculpts?

I mean, if it’s a really old sculpt it won’t necessarily look like a current figure either, maybe you wouldn’t have the appropriate connection triggers there either?

[Sleboda]

But what's the point of choosing this game if we don't expect to stick to what differentiates it from others?

Sure, the basic mechanics of the rules work with pebbles or bits of card on the table, but why even try? 

This AoS hobby of ours is all about the models at its heart. The rules and stories exist to serve the sales of models. That's the origin of Warhammer (pretty well known story, but I can share it if you are unfamiliar).

I can play checkers with pebbles because the game IS the rules. It's not a hobby. There are no models. Same with Monopoly or even Risk.

Playing Warhammer with chits or pebbles ... or models that look like something other than what they are ... Nah.

 

On the subject of old models, yeah, that's true. My old ogres are literally smaller than current 'ard boyz. No way would I subject an opponent to playing against them as current beast claw dudes.

 

I have a pretty simple test I apply to my armies and really would prefer for others to as well (not -expect- them to, just prefer) :

Can I place my whole army on the table and, without me saying a word, you can identify which army it is and what all units are, including the options they have taken that are modeled? If so, game on. If not, I've put a burden on my opponent that I had no right to place there.

[amysrevenge]

24 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

Seems objectively unfair for me to have that extra layer put on me.

What can I say?  Pretty much any act of courtesy is by definition objectively unfair and puts you in a disadvantage.  If it didn't put you at a disadvantage, if it didn't cost anything, it wouldn't count as courteous.  I'm not even talking about the game, I'm talking about things like holding the door for somebody to go through first.

The things I'm talking about - minor proxies (because that is the standard you are claiming, bringing up extreme examples doesn't help - one Chaos Warrior out of 30 holding an extra hand weapon instead of a shield is strictly forbidden in your scheme as presented), or minor fudging of model footprints due to models not fitting where they need to be due to their sculpts - I consider tolerating these things to be below the bare minimum standard of courtesy.  If I were confronted by an unbending unwillingness to accept these things, I would pack up my toys and go home.  A person more willing than me to endure confrontation might raise a stink and get into an argument about it, but I'd slink away as quietly as possible and probably never come back haha.

[Skabnoze]

6 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

But what's the point of choosing this game if we don't expect to stick to what differentiates it from others?

Sure, the basic mechanics of the rules work with pebbles or bits of card on the table, but why even try? 

This AoS hobby of ours is all about the models at its heart. The rules and stories exist to serve the sales of models. That's the origin of Warhammer (pretty well known story, but I can share it if you are unfamiliar).

I can play checkers with pebbles because the game IS the rules. It's not a hobby. There are no models. Same with Monopoly or even Risk.

Playing Warhammer with chits or pebbles ... or models that look like something other than what they are ... Nah.

I don't disagree with any of this.

What I disagree with is everyone having to adhere to a singular concept of what the "hobby" is.  GW has been one of the biggest proponents of conversions over the entire time I have played this game.  The older books used to be filled with almost as many pictures of converted models as standard ones.  Honestly, I don't think conversions would be nearly as common of a thing as they are if GW had not started and continued to promote the idea over the years.  White Dwarf used to be filled with conversion articles and they still showcase them in the magazine and community site. 

They used to sell entire modeling books that have a big emphasis on how to convert models and scratch build stuff.  The Rogue Trader book had a section on making the infamous grav-tank from a plastic spoon & deodorant container.

[Skabnoze]

So here is a hypothetical question:

Lets say there is a game of 40k and someone is playing an Ork army.  In their army they bring a Painboy in their army but they use this converted model instead:

Instead of being a doctor with an ability to prevent damage on models they instead have this guy who hands out booze for that effect.  I highly doubt the idea of putting this model on the table would be to trick the opponent so they don't know that it happens to be the painboy - they just had a fun idea for a hobby project and want to use what they built.  The result is still the same in that it is not the exact model that GW sells for that unit.  Is there anything wrong with someone playing this figure?

[TheOtherJosh]

11 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

Can I place my whole army on the table and, without me saying a word, you can identify which army it is and what all units are, including the options they have taken that are modeled? If so, game on. If not, I've put a burden on my opponent that I had no right to place there.

I’m not entirely sold.

If someone has an old model army and you don't recognize any of them ... then perhaps you’ve not been in the hobby long enough?

The hobby is there to allow us to put little figures on a board and fight out little battles.

I’ll use Dark Eldar as an example, the model appearance from their original release in 3rd edition was pretty darn different than the reboot (2015?)

The Dark Eldar Talos went from being a scorpion thing to a Floaty thing,

The splinter cannons on Dark eldar Kabalite Warriors changed ... the Scourges went from guys with jet packs to flying folks with bird or bat wings.

Mandrakes went from bald guys with a hand weapon and a pistol to guys in Japanese style hakama with fire in the hands ...

Heck, the old mandrakes bore striking resemblance to other models in the line.

Not everyone can afford the latest and greatest, or have the best painted (or painted at all...) miniatures.

[Skabnoze]

The original Dark Eldar range was so hideous.  I remember when they came out and I thought they looked terrible then.  Kudos to GW for the spectacular visual update they made to that force.