unit fillers

[Sleboda]

4 hours ago, Squirrelmaster said:

AoS is a skirmish game, fundamentally more suited for lower model-count armies, whereas old Warhammer Fantasy Battles was a massed-battle system, more suited for multiple blocks of 20-100 models. I honestly prefered the aesthetic of massed ranked infantry, so I was a little saddened by the switch to AoS, but both systems have merits.

100% with you.  I don't see the bogging down of the AoS game with high model count armies as a flaw in AoS. I think the marketing of the game as being able to handle them,  while factually accurate, is a bit disingenuous,  especially with the recent (last year or so) not-so-subtle push toward tournament gaming. 

AoS, especially now,  is a low model count game. Playing with scads o' dudes is a bit of a square peg issue and will probably lead to all sorts of burbledeebits.

[Arkiham]

The unit fillers would in my mind be more for variety than for reducing painting time, you could have say a unit of archers and then have a base which is a stock of arrows,

The arrows would count as a model but look more visually different

[Squirrelmaster]

2 hours ago, Sleboda said:

Agreed. One of the great hidden boons of the death of WFB and birth of AoS was the obliteration of any justifications to use filler.

Along with NMM and Counts As, it was part of the Unholy Axis of HobbySins Evil.

Good riddance.

NMM?

[Rubencm81]

1 hour ago, Squirrelmaster said:

NMM?

Non-Metallic-Metal painting technique. It is awesome if done properly.

[AGPO]

11 hours ago, Spiky Norman said:

That that is even a thing in AoS is a flaw in the game design, if you ask me.

I was worried about all these issues becoming more commonplace with the Massive Regiment change, and it seems it has unfortunately.

 

What it boils down to for me, is that movement trays may ease the task of moving your models, and unitfillers may ease the task of painting your army, but both makes the game look a lot worse on the table, and it raises the bar for players, new and old, to enter the game if it becomes competitive and commonplace (ie 'The standard') to run 140 Plague monks for instance. The visual aspect of the game is perhaps more important to me than others, but I think it matters a whole lot.

That it feels necessary to use movement trays and unit fillers seem to be workarounds to a problem that should be fixed rather than accepted and worked around.

A good movement tray that's painted to match the bases of the unit and/or the board  and has a few extra details actually adds to the visual of the game IMO. THERE ARE far more egregious offenders such as grey plastic hordes, modelling for advantage and putting every model on their own personal mobile hillock. My personal pet hate are "conga lines" and other formations that have no place on a battle field but take advantage of some rule loophole or another.

Personally I only use movement trays for giant blocks, and that's  simply to speed up placement. It makes sense that some units would advance in formation, but when you hit the enemy, that block comes apart as each unit tries to wrap around their opponents' flanks and surround them. They also help massively when playing with very strict measurement. There are players who are happy to measure one model then plonk everything else, roughly where it was in relation to keep things moving, the  there are the guys to whom that extra quarter inch represents a tactical advantage one way or the other. Neither is wrong per say but the latter takes a heck of a lot longer to play if you don't have some way to guarantee perfect range and unit coherence. Trays fix that.

[Sleboda]

49 minutes ago, Rubencm81 said:

Non-Metallic-Metal painting technique. It is awesome if done properly.

And photographed.  And presented only from the one angle in the photo.  But we digress. ☺

[Menkeroth]

Unit fillers were indeed widespread because of rank and file approach with lots of models, mostly in the latest editions when WHFB completely became the awkward monstrosity we knew (its game engine was very old, obsolete and not made for such scales). They were sometimes thematic and creative like a giant spider in a unit of spider riders, but mostly stupid and just because people were lazy even though they themselves had chosen this path of buying and painting hordes of clones. And nothing is more stupid than a crystal or giant mushroom in a unit, like they take it with them as they move on the battlefield. 

[Arkiham]

25 minutes ago, Menkeroth said:

Unit fillers were indeed widespread because of rank and file approach with lots of models, mostly in the latest editions when WHFB completely became the awkward monstrosity we knew (its game engine was very old, obsolete and not made for such scales). They were sometimes thematic and creative like a giant spider in a unit of spider riders, but mostly stupid and just because people were lazy even though they themselves had chosen this path of buying and painting hordes of clones. And nothing is more stupid than a crystal or giant mushroom in a unit, like they take it with them as they move on the battlefield. 

Isn't that the same as all rocks and tuffs of grass? 

 

I believe that's why the clear base is becoming more popular as people try to move away from the old fashioned movement trays and bases matching that onto more dynamic things, 

a base which suits the terrain you're currently upon looks much better than some in a lava pit or grass in the desert 

[chord]

3 hours ago, Arkiham said:

Isn't that the same as all rocks and tuffs of grass? 

 

I believe that's why the clear base is becoming more popular as people try to move away from the old fashioned movement trays and bases matching that onto more dynamic things, 

a base which suits the terrain you're currently upon looks much better than some in a lava pit or grass in the desert 

Agreed that does bother me a lot

[someone2040]

IMO Unit fillers of old don't work at all in Age of Sigmar.

Because each individual model is moved independently, you can't have some piece of 'scenery' fulfil multiple models in a unit. To me, that was the more important point of unit fillers, you put a little diorama or something inside the unit (Which sometimes didn't necessarily contain '6' figures for 6 bases), but it was still fine because it made the unit more interesting.

What I do think is likely fine, are things like the Powder Monkey or Zombies/Skeletons clawing their way out of the ground. They're not necessarily fillers ******, as they are a representation of that model in the unit (Even if a powder monkey may be a stretch for a human wielding a gun!), but they're not necessarily a 'full' or proper model either.

That being said, given that bases are important, I don't think I'd want to see inanimate objects representing models in units. Don't think those kinda fillers really work in AoS.

[Ollie Grimwood]

It’s one of those grey areas that pop up all the time, if it’s done well and looks cool it’s fine but poorly done for gaminess and it isn’t. 

 

[Menkeroth]

14 hours ago, Arkiham said:

Isn't that the same as all rocks and tuffs of grass? 

 

It is indeed. Bases are the second problem after the fillers, and I totally agree with you on the question.

[Squirrelmaster]

1 hour ago, Menkeroth said:

It is indeed. Bases are the second problem after the fillers, and I totally agree with you on the question.

But equally, no warrior is going to remain frozen in the exact same pose throughout the course of the battle. That guy firing/reloading his handgun probably won't be doing that after a few rounds of melee combat (AoS shooting mechanics aside). Is having a rock on the model's base that follow them around really that much worse than having said model perpetually suspended in mid-leap off said rock?

The whole model (base included) represents a snapshot of what could be happening at a given moment during the battle — there's no need for those snapshots to add up, turn after turn, to a complete and consistent story.

[Menkeroth]

It's a model - you can not make her change during the game or at any given time. It's the essence of this - like a photo. 

[Aegisgrimm]

While it's a bit off topic for this thread, I don't really see the problem with limited use of formation trays.  A tray holding two 10-wide ranks of round based figures in base-to-base formation is not any different than placing them one-by-one in the same formation, but makes movement one swift act rather than 20 individual models needing to be moved.  And then if you plan on dispersing them into a wider formation, then you just move them off of the tray and when the last model leaves the tray you put the tray away.

Continuing to rank up units of models (either way) in Age of Sigmar as opposed to them being in an open formation is a little cool characterful visual that can set your army apart, both in 40K and AoS.

[Killax]

Even have to come back on the filler part. I think Id accept it if it looked good and there was no additional room for confusion. It's the latter part that can be really tricky as we often use multiple models on the same base size, which in turn could be either from unit A or B when it clogs up. This can become a larger issue if Heroes are also near it with that base size.

In terms of movement trays, I don't get why people would be opposed to at in larger events, it only speeds things up. Imagne carrying 20 beers without a tray, that's not a quick way to go about it.

In the end though communication is key, if opponents have awesome unit filler that make sence and are logical for that unit, have a blast. The thing is, for many units that option is more or less removed now. I personally prefer playing against miniatures if they are supposed to represent 'soldiers', two crates or a simple tombstone make for a hard soldier representation. On the other hand, half undead are totally fine with me.

[Squirrelmaster]

3 hours ago, Menkeroth said:

It's a model - you can not make her change during the game or at any given time. It's the essence of this - like a photo. 

Yeah, that's my point — if we're going to accept models remaining in fixed poses throughout the game (and we have to, really), then a fixed rock or clump of grass on their base shouldn't really be a problem either — it's basically the same thing imo.

[Killax]

7 minutes ago, Squirrelmaster said:

Yeah, that's my point — if we're going to accept models remaining in fixed poses throughout the game (and we have to, really), then a fixed rock or clump of grass on their base shouldn't really be a problem either — it's basically the same thing imo.

Would you mind playing against a unit that consists out of 10 'warriors' who are just a rock on a 30-32mm base though? 

[GammaMage]

I'd allow it if they were dwarf warriors.

[bsharitt]

13 hours ago, someone2040 said:

IMO Unit fillers of old don't work at all in Age of Sigmar.

Because each individual model is moved independently, you can't have some piece of 'scenery' fulfil multiple models in a unit. To me, that was the more important point of unit fillers, you put a little diorama or something inside the unit (Which sometimes didn't necessarily contain '6' figures for 6 bases), but it was still fine because it made the unit more interesting.

What I do think is likely fine, are things like the Powder Monkey or Zombies/Skeletons clawing their way out of the ground. They're not necessarily fillers ******, as they are a representation of that model in the unit (Even if a powder monkey may be a stretch for a human wielding a gun!), but they're not necessarily a 'full' or proper model either.

That being said, given that bases are important, I don't think I'd want to see inanimate objects representing models in units. Don't think those kinda fillers really work in AoS.

Yeah, that kind of part of unit filler is fine with me. Some of my Zombies are Mantic, and I have some of the half zombies as "full" models in that they're on their own round base the same as everyone else and effectively behave the same way for game purposes.

[Menkeroth]

2 hours ago, Squirrelmaster said:

Yeah, that's my point — if we're going to accept models remaining in fixed poses throughout the game (and we have to, really), then a fixed rock or clump of grass on their base shouldn't really be a problem either — it's basically the same thing imo.

This - certainly. It's the smallest problem of all I'd say.

[Nubgan]

I can't remember where I saw it now, but in regards to movement trays I have seen one that allows you to change the formation and remove singles from the tray. But I can't for the life of me find the picture of it now.

As for unit fillers, I can see the pain of painting some of these big hordes up, and some armies like Skaven Pestilans have no way of doing an army without having 100+ models minimum. I think as long as you have a base with something on, be it a banner or something representative of the unit that you can remove individually it can be a creative way of not having that many plague monks to paint. What I would avoid is having is a different size base that represents many, even if you did stick a wound counter on it. Yeah it would probably look nice, but we are trying to encourage skirmish and get rid of bare tables with a lack of scenery and this just hinders this.

[AGPO]

I've done more than 200 clanrats, so I do feel the pain, but I always disliked unit fillers unless they were truly imaginative. There's always a suspension of disbelief with the scale of WFB, but to my mind it should at least be consistent. A unit of 40 guys should look like a unit of 40, not 30 stood around some rocks. 

Where I think unit fillers had a place is as mini dioramas. Stick five orcs on a 125x25 base and model them in a punch up. By the same note, I have no issue with players stuck with 19 models from an old school unit that used to have a character in doing something fun to represent that 20th model. A daemon unit having a tortured soul, or a unit of skellies with a gravestone and a hand rising up are very cool, so long as the flavour of the unit is not misleading. A rock is just lazy.

[RuneBrush]

I think unit fillers for formed ranks of models are brilliant, but in systems that uses a true line of sight they throw up unnecessary complications which are simply avoided by using regular models.

On 14/10/2017 at 9:40 PM, AGPO said:

A good movement tray that's painted to match the bases of the unit and/or the board  and has a few extra details actually adds to the visual of the game IMO. THERE ARE far more egregious offenders such as grey plastic hordes, modelling for advantage and putting every model on their own personal mobile hillock. My personal pet hate are "conga lines" and other formations that have no place on a battle field but take advantage of some rule loophole or another.

Personally I only use movement trays for giant blocks, and that's  simply to speed up placement. It makes sense that some units would advance in formation, but when you hit the enemy, that block comes apart as each unit tries to wrap around their opponents' flanks and surround them. They also help massively when playing with very strict measurement. There are players who are happy to measure one model then plonk everything else, roughly where it was in relation to keep things moving, the  there are the guys to whom that extra quarter inch represents a tactical advantage one way or the other. Neither is wrong per say but the latter takes a heck of a lot longer to play if you don't have some way to guarantee perfect range and unit coherence. Trays fix that.

Completely agree on this, if you're using movement trays you should spend a bit of effort getting them painted to match the bases of your models.  For AoS I'm also not a fan of the long stick movement trays, they're massively unwieldy and when I've seen them used haven't actually improved the movement of the models - just ensured the unit covers as much of the board as humanly possible.

[Twitch of Izalith]

I think those cloud shaped 5 man move trays are pretty good for speeding up movement while keeping the loose formation aesthetic going. I would still drop them right away once the unit gets into combat though.

I don't like the idea of unit fillers in any game. A diorama with a horde of zombies surrounding a mausoleum looks great on a shelf. The second the mausoleum moves or charges into combat it just makes me cringe...

The bigger bases in AoS leave plenty of scope for adding flavour and "background" variety to units, and plastic models mean even incompetent modellers like me can do simple conversions very easily to add variety to the actual models if we want to.