Representing weapons on Fantasy models.

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.

**MechaEmperor7000**

A bit of a noob question, since I only collect fantasy models and have only played two fantasy games in my entire life: how do you go about representing the Magical Weapons and armor of characters? In 40k, there's clear depictions of most of the weapons, and WYSIWYG is pretty clear cut in that department. Fantasy though, I have seen little indicators of how magic weapons are represented. generic swords, staffs and shields seem to run on rule of cool more than any uniformed depiction. I'm asking because I have a few characters in the process of being assembled and want to know if I need to make any special distinctions for their weapons (such as a Bretonnian lord's Heartwood lance) or if it's ok to simply leave them as is and tell the opponent what he has.

**Aerethan**

My general rule of thumb is item type representation.
If you are taking a magic 2 hander, be modeled with a 2 hander. If you are wearing magic robes, be wearing robes.

For example: my High Elf Prince has a great weapon, armor of caledor(dragon armor) the silver and, and the radiant gem of hoeth. For this model I used the dragon rider torso that has a gem in the middle of it as well as the Prince on Foot legs and the dragon rider 2handed axe. In his off hand he has the dragon mage book to show that he is a caster as well as melee. So all my bases are covered: great weapon, obvious mage gear, magic armor.

If you are taking a magic spear, have a spear etc.

**MechaEmperor7000**

I have the bretonnian lord with the lance. Would it be appropriate to say that he has the heartwood lance, grail helm and grail shield? (forgot if this was the actual stuff I gave him, but for the purpose of the example only). He does have a shield, a helm and a lance.

**Casper**

There are three ways of doing this:

WYSIWYG: Aerethan covered that one already

Painting: if he has a grail shield - paint his shield with a cup on it.

List: this is common sense, some of my characters i haven't been able to WYSIWYG simply because I made the model with a different set up after i already put him together. Have your list on hand in case they ask and there should be no questions.

Also: pg 501 says

The magic weapons listed below often have a name that describes them as specifically being a sword or another particular type of weapon. This doesn't mean that the model has to have a sword to use the 'Ogre Blade'. We can simply assume that his ax, hammer or other suitable hand weapon has the same properties as is, for example, an 'Ogre Axe'.

**MechaEmperor7000**

So it (can) largely works like the Daemon Weapons from the 3.5 CSM codex.

**Malleus**

The BRB is pretty careful to say that a magic weapon can look like anything, and that carrying, say, a hammer, doesn't mean you can't have an item called "sword of might."

The only thing I try to do with my models is make sure that a model with a great weapon is a) ideally, either holding his weapon in both hands or b) at least holding a very long weapon.

I've gone further at times... usually, any character of mine that's holding a speculum is represented by this guy:
http://www.reapermini.com/OnlineStore/brother%20vincent/latest/02803

However, that level of detail isn't necessary. I'd usually try to make sure characters with a shield have a shield stuck to them somewhere, and that characters with two hand weapons have two weapons, and great weapons as above. Beyond that, I'm in favor of artistic license. Certainly, even in tournament play, I'd never ever consider objecting to a character on wysiwyg grounds unless it was really out of control (man-sized infantry model representing a GUO or something).

**MechaEmperor7000**

WYSIWYG seems to be a bit more lax in Fantasy, especially since it largely has defined base sizes unlike 40k.

**RiTides**

Casper wrote:Also: pg 501 says
The magic weapons listed below often have a name that describes them as specifically being a sword or another particular type of weapon. This doesn't mean that the model has to have a sword to use the 'Ogre Blade'. We can simply assume that his ax, hammer or other suitable hand weapon has the same properties as is, for example, an 'Ogre Axe'.

Exactly! Magic weapons can look like pretty much anything. I do think it's good, for the sake of your own sanity, to have a shield of some kind on a model with a magical shield, and the like.

But I don't think it's necessary to paint a cup on a "grail shield"... not even close to necessary, actually! It's magical, and can look like anything. And what if you decide you want him to have the "charmed shield", instead? Better to just have a generic shield that can count for any of them, imho. Again... for your own sanity!

**Grey Templar**

Fantesy really doesn't have much of a WYSIWYG rule inforce.

as long as you keep the weapon represented within it's class(2 handed, single...) you should be fine.

don't bother representing items like Talismans or magic rings unless you feel up to the modeling challange.

if he's wearing Magic Heavy Armor he should be wearing Armor of some kind at least.

Feel free to substitute an items exact description if it is suitable. My ogre tyrant has an Enchanted Gutplate standing in for an Enchanted shield. it doesn't make much problem.

**Casper**

RiTides wrote:
But I don't think it's necessary to paint a cup on a "grail shield"... not even close to necessary, actually! It's magical, and can look like anything. And what if you decide you want him to have the "charmed shield", instead? Better to just have a generic shield that can count for any of them, imho. Again... for your own sanity!

I never said it had to be golden daemon quality. Just feel like it would be something a Brettonian would do (theres a really good painted Brettionian army at my FLGS so I have a biased view on how they should look).

If he doesn't feel like it then he doesn't have to.

**RiTides**

Regardless of quality, what I meant was that if he paints a cup on the shield, he's limiting himself to using that type of shield... and from what I've seen, people tend to change up magical items on characters quite often, so it's helpful to have them a bit more generic.

**HoverBoy**

Or make the chr models with switchable arms.
It may take extra work but for a character its worth it to have some cool looking stuff.

**Grey Templar**

Not everyone can do magnets.

and Fantesy humans are small. 40k at least has some fair sized models, but Humans are teeny tiny in Fantesy.

**MechaEmperor7000**

I was sculpting a bruiser from scratch and was trying to duplicate one of the gutplates from the description. Glad to know I dont need to do that anymore.

**RiTides**

As long as it's a magical item, you have a lot of flexibility. As far as mundane items, they should be represented (armor, shield, etc if a model has it) but are usually much more general and so a lot easier to have shown on the model!

**HoverBoy**

I wasn't really suggesting magnets, my oldblood has a pin like machanism to switch arms around, granted saurus are fairly large.
I do stand behind my statement it's worth the extra work it if it's only for characters.
Besides some times you just have that great idea for making an item that you just can't resist...
Damn blade of realities making me brake my lazyness vow...

**MechaEmperor7000**

Similar thing to this, what's the legal status of "filler" models? I've seen alot of people model things on bigger bases that fit into a section of the unit rank, filling it out. I know this is to allow for easy removal of mass casualties, but to what extent is this allowed? I was thinking of using some as a way of bulking out some of my skeleton hordes. I've also seen some people model Unit champions and musicians on them, are those characters removed first or are they the last ones to die? Thanks (for the record, I do own the rulebook, but am too tired to actually flip through it right now to see how combat works, and I want to know if I should model Command units like that, since I saw a Heavy Skeleton Cavalry in the Tomb Kings Armybook with such a style of modelling).

**HoverBoy**

Filler goes anywhere form taking the space of 2 to as far as 15 models (or bigger with custom bases) in a unit, it is usually best used for larger blocks as it also saves time on raking them up and means transporting less models in general (nit to mention the potential cash savings for have one large model take the place of 4). Around here i've seen noone have a problem with them ruleswise even in tournaments, YMMV depending on local TFG saturation.

**MechaEmperor7000**

I was considering skavens as a potential Fantasy army (after I finish up my current brets and Tomb Kings), but the prospect of lining up some 200+ rats was not something I was looking forward to. For the Tomb Kings, I have an excess of arms and heads that I can model coming up from the ground. I was thinking in place of 4 skellies, I'd have 5 heads or so poping up from the ground on a 40mm square base or something.

**RiTides**

MechaE wrote:Similar thing to this, what's the legal status of "filler" models?

The "rule of cool" applies... if it looks awesome, it's not going to be a problem. People might poke fun a bit, though. A guy here modelled some fallen stonework/ruins to fill in some large skaven units, and I was apparently the only person who didn't poke fun at it

(I thought it was a great idea!)

It's a pretty common thing and in large blocks of troops shouldn't be much of a problem anywhere, imho, as long as it's clear what everything is.

Edit: Ninja'ed, the TK idea sounds great! And the skaven one, too, similar to what the person here did.

**Melkhiordarkblade**

In WHFB you can be quite free when it comes to magic items.

I had a Lizardman Oldblood once,I was able to give him 3 sacred spawnings and a few nice items too. The only modeling I did for him was his Great weapon,nobody I played with ever minded.

**MechaEmperor7000**

Fantasy always appealed to me a bit more than 40k, but it's not as popular here, so my army is largely for show. However I still want it to be viable and ready to kick arse when the need arises. There is a much more lax enviroment for WYSIWYG and there isnt a huge saturation of one faction (While I do hear of high proferations of a particular faction here and there, there's no way they're on the scale of Space marines in 40k).

**Grey Templar**

I use a 40mm base to fill in my Gnoblar units, each one generally has a couple of Gnoblars to make it seem fitting.

Heck, Ben Johnson from WD uses filler in his Skaven

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/blogPost.jsp?aId=15000016a