Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

From what I understand, a player is not required to disclose his army list until after a game, (and the following question comes to mind if this is true)

That being said, If I was, for example, to take a War Priest of Sigmar and give him a magical weapon like a Sword of Power, would it be considered bad sportsmanship to represent said weapon with a Hammer, as this would be the more classic weapon choice of a priest? An opponent might assume that the weapon shown could not be a magical sword and change his plans accordingly, or should a player by standard try not to make such assumptions?

Input would be very welcomed. I like an army with character, but I certainly want to be fair.

I'm pretty sure that if you read the magic item list, a "sword" of power is the same as an "axe" of power or a "hammer" of power.

the representation of type doesnt matter.

Thats what I figured, but I couldn't find a direct referance, I'll take another look!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yes Indeed!, Pg 501 "What's in a name"

Well that certainly made me look foolish

Working on a good track record answering questions of mine, Thanks much!

Have a look at the BRB FAQ - essentially you should discuss before the game whether or not you will disclose lsits in advance.

Ah, I see, totally dependant on the players!

Good to know

Yeah, what Nos (and the FAQ) said.

It's not like 40K WYSIWYG or whatever. The BRB specifically says you can have different models in the same unit showing different weapons, for flavor, as long as a majority are showing what they really are.

I think the only reason you'd want to mention it beforehand is if it's completely different. Bows being really crossbows (have a very different range). Or that all those units have shields, etc.

But a CC weapon doesn't really matter. In fact, it's just fluff if it's a Sword of Cutting Heads Off or a Flail of Cutting Heads Off. If you were trying to say it was really a Catapult of Cutting Heads Off(!) I'd be a bit annoyed as an opposing player if you didn't clear that beforehand. You don't even have to say it's a magic weapon, just that it's a ranged one and maybe the type.

Actually 40k only has a requirement on WYSIWYG for characters, or the entire Eldar codex....

One thing that helps in fantasy is you have ranks, so simply having tghe front rank with the correct items makles it clear enough. However 40k doesnt have that luxury, hence people can get very confused if things arent quite right.

If you show a dude with a Melta he better have a melta. Same with a Termi hauling around an auto cannon. Vehicles are like that too. The 40K forum is full of, "can I get away with saying unix X is really unit Y?" Strict tournaments won't let you, but hell, you canke a Coke can a Daemonlord if your opponent doesn't mind. "Die by the twisting winds of carbonation."

Duke - thats the point though, the *rules* only state that characters must show all options, nothing anywheere else.

Which is why tournaments have wysiwyg rules.

Lastly - given that *every* game you play is *always* opponents permission its only mildly relevant wha tthe rules say about it

Must have been my 40k background that was setting alarm bells off in my head then, Especially since my IG were pure wysiwyg, down to scout bodies for carapace armor.

Its what I get for trying to relate the two more than I should