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.

Designer Commentary, intended for how to play Index-only models/wargear. One *potential* overly-technical reading would suggest that you must use the appropriate datasheet, but not necessarily the appropriate wargear. In other words, if you give a Bolter Dood a combi-Plas and all sorts of bling, he can be a Tac Marine with Boltgun, but cannot be a Sternguard with Combi. Which is entertaining, but not the only way to read that rule, and nobody I know would ever play that way.

At times, the rules did *not* explicitly say that. They do now. However, the game didn't break back when they *did* say that.

The point on both of these is that some reasonability is necessary for the health of the game. If mathematicians can't even agree A+B = B+A without social constructs (postulates everyone agrees with), how could a complex-ish game like 40k work?

So, clearly, players need to agree on some 'imaginary restrictions' to make the game worth playing. What those are will vary between any pairing of players quite a bit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson,
I'm tempted to say 'screenshot or it didn't happen'. Not because I don't believe you, but because I like the idea of seeing them. That said, I won't make that claim, because I won't be uploading pictures of my guys.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Bharring wrote:

There is technically a rule that you use *the* datasheet that matches your model. Clearly, the Vanguard Vet datasheet matches the Vanguard Vet model, and the ASM datasheet matches the ASM model. A very technical reading would find that it would not actually be game-legal to kitbash VV from the ASM kit or vice versa! And that's a far cry from the counts-as you demean me for not wanting to do with my models. But I honestly know no-one who would play that rule.

At times, this game would break if players tied on the rolloff to go first, rerolled, and tied a second time. Not break as in one side autowon or it became a draw, but break as in no step forward, even for ending the game.

Actually there is no such rule. WYSIWYG isn't a rule any more so you don't even need to have the correct equipment.

And no, the rules explicitly say that you keep re-rolling roll-offs until one player wins.

There are some rules I am totally okay with not enforcing. Like...I have no problem with models on jet bikes attacking units on the second floor if they don't have any room to stand there...cause they are freaking flying.

Just keep the proxies to a minimum!

WYSIWYG may not be an explicit rule, but it is a form of social contract in many games. I mean most of us are willing to let you proxy an Exalted Sorceror as Ahriman if you just want to try him out (or vice versa if you just want to play a cool model as a generic dude) but if every game you have to say your flamers are actually plasma and all of your grenade launchers are meltas, it's going to cause people to stop playing you eventually.

The markings on a model and its wargear are to allow both players to quickly identify what they're looking at without needing to stop and study the models. This is why painted models tend to be better to play against than grey plastic: it makes playing easier because you can more easily recognize what you're looking at instead of stopping to ask or need to take a closer look at the models.

Basically it stopped being a rule because it's become an expectation that when you look at a model that it'll be modeled to represent itself properly. There are exceptions (like if you want chainsword bayonetted bolters on your Assault Marines for a cool conversion to represent bolt pistol and chainsword, or if you don't model grenades on your basic guys when the entire squad comes with them), but when it comes to special equipment (vox, banners, icons, special weapons, ect) there is definitely an expectation that the models will be accurate representations of what they should be.

Likewise, if you paint your assault marines as a FA choice with the markings but spend every game telling people they're actually VVs, then eventually people are going to wonder when you're going to repaint them to represent the first company and the correct markings, or just get some actually VVs to play instead because they're going to get tired of spotting AM markings on your vets and needing to mentally correct themselves constantly.

If you have a simplier paint scheme that ignores such things (despite the Codex Astartes not approving this action), then the fact remains that you're going to need to make sure however you mark your models is still distinct enough that units can be told apart if they end up in a mixed melee or when setting them up next to each other to ensure you grab the correct models for casualties and movement. Which still means markings will remain important regardless of claims otherwise.

While i'll never ding anyone for going into painting things in great detail, no one in my area is going to expect someone to repaint a model when war gear wise there is practically no difference between the models standard wargear. If you have five guys with jump packs and BP/CS then play them as either is normal in my area. If someone expected different to me that's insane when most people do not paint their models to that level.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
While i'll never ding anyone for going into painting things in great detail, no one in my area is going to expect someone to repaint a model when war gear wise there is practically no difference between the models standard wargear. If you have five guys with jump packs and BP/CS then play them as either is normal in my area. If someone expected different to me that's insane when most people do not paint their models to that level.

But this is was about personal standards, not about imposing those standards on others.

The poster above said people would stop playing you if you didn't repaint your assault marines as VV. This seems a step too far. I wouldn't do that.

I find the whole "my melta is a plasma gun" more annoying, because it can feel like list tailoring.

On the other hand if I was playing a friend and he wanted 4 missile launchers say in a devastator squad, but the box forced him to have a hodgepodge of guns, I'd be okay with it rather than insisting he buys sufficient boxes to make it happen.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
While i'll never ding anyone for going into painting things in great detail, no one in my area is going to expect someone to repaint a model when war gear wise there is practically no difference between the models standard wargear. If you have five guys with jump packs and BP/CS then play them as either is normal in my area. If someone expected different to me that's insane when most people do not paint their models to that level.

Congrats on having an environment where people don't push their painting as hard as some do?

It wasn't an argument to have people constantly repaint things, but more a point that if you paint to a high level with unit markings then it becomes like wargear: the occasional proxy is fine, but a constant proxy should be backed by the proper kit. Be it a flamer on your guy properly, or the right unit marking to promote your assault marines to vets then you should take the time to do it if you're going to constantly be using that proxy.

I mean no one appreciates constantly needing to remember that your flamers are plasma, your grenade launchers are meltas and all your power fists are actually power axes every week, like wise no one wants to have to constantly remember what unit is filling in for what this week just because you don't want to update the unit markings to reflect their new unit role.

That said, if you don't care to mark stuff out like that (which makes me wonder why you play Marines since that's part of the appeal: all the icongraphy they have), as long as your opponent can tell units apart when they're next to each other then your doing fine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyel wrote:
The poster above said people would stop playing you if you didn't repaint your assault marines as VV. This seems a step too far. I wouldn't do that.

I find the whole "my melta is a plasma gun" more annoying, because it can feel like list tailoring.

On the other hand if I was playing a friend and he wanted 4 missile launchers say in a devastator squad, but the box forced him to have a hodgepodge of guns, I'd be okay with it rather than insisting he buys sufficient boxes to make it happen.

It was specificially in relation to having a high level of painting and then constantly proxying one unit as another, something that can cause the same level of confusion as proxies if it slips someone's mind during the middle of a game. If you have FA markings on your shoulder pads but proxy as VV all the time, then it's possible for someone to forget that they're actually VV and end up making a tactical mistake based on your proxy, which can cause people to be less likely to play you if you constantly do this kind of thing.

Also, if you want 4 missile launchers and play Marines you can get them easily from the Tactical box (same for Heavy Bolters) The real pain is getting 4 Lascannons for devastators.

This is where the social contract becomes necessary:

A new player's HB/LC/MM/etc being a Grav Cannon once to give it a try before he buys, of course that's fine.

A guy who comes every week and plays popcans as droppods and little plastic army men as Marines, I'm not nearly as interested in spending my time in a game with that.

There really isn't one breakpoint that everyone shares in what they'll enjoy, or at least accept.

The argument in this thread, for the last 6 pages at least, is whether a player can reasonably hold *themselves* to *their own* standards on *their own* models. I don't get the hate and vitrol for those who hold themselves to higher WYSIWYG standards.

Bharring wrote:
This is where the social contract becomes necessary:

A new player's HB/LC/MM/etc being a Grav Cannon once to give it a try before he buys, of course that's fine.

A guy who comes every week and plays popcans as droppods and little plastic army men as Marines, I'm not nearly as interested in spending my time in a game with that.

There really isn't one breakpoint that everyone shares in what they'll enjoy, or at least accept.

The argument in this thread, for the last 6 pages at least, is whether a player can reasonably hold *themselves* to *their own* standards on *their own* models. I don't get the hate and vitrol for those who hold themselves to higher WYSIWYG standards.

Oh I agree, holding yourself to a higher standard should be applauded, I was just pointing out that in some respects that paint schemes can be as important as wargear, and it's possible for it to cause the same confusion as any proxy, meaning that it can become harder to proxy if you have higher standards about your painting.

I do a lot of conversion work. Some much so that it is very, very rare for me to assemble a model out of the box using the suggested instructions.
One of my goals is to always ensure my opponent can look at my models and know what they are and what they are equipped with nearly 0 explanation.

That's a standard we can all strive for, I think, regardless of our personal standards for our own models

-

I think you would find that, more often than not, those who go through the trouble of doing company/squad markings, or model every pistol and grenade, would be *more* appreciative of such conversions, rather than less.

I wouldn't want to run my ASM as Vanguard Vets. However, I have a Harlequin with no pistol. It's flipping over a rock springing up with one hand, bringing a weapon down in the other - so no hand for the pistol. I love that model. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

My point is that I model my models to be something specific. And to be clear about what they are at a glance. In the Harlequins case, it's clear he doesn't have a Fusion or Neuro pistol, so it's assumed equipped stock (Shuriken pistol). Never had a problem with that. Doubt I'll ever run into someone with a problem with that.

The desire is for the model to be evocative of what they represent on the table. Technical accuracy (vet markings, company markings, grenades, pistols) all help. But technical accuracy comes after evocation, which in turns comes after Rule of Cool (yes, no longer in the rulebook - but it was actually a rule in 6th).

Playing my ASM as VV violates the technical accuracy, sure (markings). It also violates evocation - as they clearly evoke "ASM squad". And does nothing for "Rule of Cool".


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Side note - I hope everyone has the pleasure of going up against Nid-riding Orkz or the like. I don't have such an army (closest is a couple Exodite models, but not enough for a full list). So much creativity goes into making it clear what each unit is, while building some awesome and creative models.

Cool conversions are always welcome as long as the conversions are consistent. If you're using pole axes as power axes across the entire army on your biker Marines, don't suddenly say some of them are actually power swords.

And Bharring hits the point well I feel about the whole technical accuracy < evocation < rule of cool. If you take the time to convert something cool, as long as it follows some kind of logic that stays consistent across your army you can have Orks riding Marines piggy back style as your bikers and I'd be okay with it.

The thing is at the end of the day for those of us who take the time to personalize and tweak our models beyond the bare minimum unit proxies become less and less likely because in some cases the unit stops being able to be used outside of the thing is was made for due to how specific the conversions are.

On a different note, after thinking about Devastators earlier, I'm kind of disappointed that I can't have a Rubric squad of Havocs with Soulreaper Cannons (or Heavy Warpflamers) as a heavy support. Grass is always greener I guess.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
The thing is at the end of the day for those of us who take the time to personalize and tweak our models beyond the bare minimum unit proxies become less and less likely because in some cases the unit stops being able to be used outside of the thing is was made for due to how specific the conversions are.

Yeah, 2 of my favorite conversions ever have suffered this:
I originally made these back when the WraithKnight first came out and was basically 2x the wounds and speed of a Wraithlord with better guns.
WKs were Heavy Support MCs back then, so being jetbike themed, I put 2 Wratihlords on Vypers. 2x wounds? Check, 2x Movement? Check Better guns? Check
Then the WK became a LoW GMC and could stomp. I didn't feel my conversions represented WKs very well anymore. So I made slight alterations to use them "Prototype anti-daemon constructs" using the rules for GK Dreadknights:

Note that I took the time to A) paint the head silver and B) give it a Heavy Psycannon. I also had 6 "Wraith guard" altered with the appropriate wargear to be 5 GKTs and a Libbie so I could use the Allied detachment

Fast forward to 8E and I can't even use them as GKs because you can't mix Imperials with Eldar anymore.
I modeled them back with yellow heads and added bigger wing fins (the first pic above) and now I use them as Hemlocks.

-

They are are supposed to be recruits. Tactical squads naturally have been around longer. and served in the 8th company. They basically have more experience and would naturally last longer. They should cost little more than scouts.

The Allfather wrote:
They are are supposed to be recruits. Tactical squads naturally have been around longer. and served in the 8th company. They should cost little more than scouts.

Considering the extra mobility and identical statline to Tacticals, I'd say 1-2 points more than a Tactical since they can bop about the board faster and benefit from the fly key word.

The real issue then is what Tacticals should cost to fix them.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

The Allfather wrote:
They are are supposed to be recruits. Tactical squads naturally have been around longer. and served in the 8th company. They should cost little more than scouts.

Considering the extra mobility and identical statline to Tacticals, I'd say 1-2 points more than a Tactical since they can bop about the board faster and benefit from the fly key word.

The real issue then is what Tacticals should cost to fix them.

You're forgetting the bolter. There's no reason to bop anywhere when you can drop in 2 to three squads of tacticals cutting a field in half. Hard to reach objectives when you're openent drops in a phalix infront of your intended bopping point.

The Allfather wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

The Allfather wrote:
They are are supposed to be recruits. Tactical squads naturally have been around longer. and served in the 8th company. They should cost little more than scouts.

Considering the extra mobility and identical statline to Tacticals, I'd say 1-2 points more than a Tactical since they can bop about the board faster and benefit from the fly key word.

The real issue then is what Tacticals should cost to fix them.

You're forgetting the bolter.

I was talking base price, not wargear costs.

Bharring wrote:

At times, this game would break if players tied on the rolloff to go first, rerolled, and tied a second time. Not break as in one side autowon or it became a draw, but break as in no step forward, even for ending the game.

False - there is not a single point in this game where the rules break.

Why? Because of The Most Important Rule: There may be times when you are not sure how to resolve a situation like tieing the second roll off, for example. A rule may not exist to explicitly tell you what to do, so when this happens, have a quick chat with your opponent and apply the solution that makes the most sense to both of you. If no single solution presents itself (and to be honest, in your example the easiest and simplest solution is to bloody well try rolling again, gents) then roll off and decide on that. Keep invoking this rule until you're satisfied every conflict is resolved.

Then get on with the game.

This is the single most powerful and important rule of the game and everybody with a rules issue where the game supposedly 'breaks' seems to 'conveniently' forget this. It's the coverall rule that ensures the game CAN'T break, because per the rules, if something isn't clear how it should resolve, you discuss it and resolve it this way.

Basically the game breaks, but the players patch it.

 koooaei wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

 koooaei wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 koooaei wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Slayer:
Why do you get so angry and so assertive about this stuff?

He still can't accept mutilators being decent in 7th despite the 6 mutilator list having a 75% win rate.

Nobody cares about your casual local meta. Seriously. Bringing up anecdotes of that nature doesn't even create good discussion.

see

Not to be that guy, but a 75% win rate in locals isn't very impressive. I mean, when you're clubbing baby-seals...

They've won vs lists featuring centstars, multiple ik, eldar standard scatbike+wk spam, even though they mainly scored and denied center vs eldar. Lost to fw artillery list with renegade knights. There were no crushing victories but at the same time no crushing defeats. I'd not call any of those lists casual.

So...that's more of a psychological problem going on. "If a unit is not auto-win or requires some tactics to be used, it's garbage".

Mutilators constantly outperformed obliterators. While being considered 'one of the worst units in the game'. Paradox.

Cent stars? Scatter bikes? What is this, 7th ed?

I could beat a cent star list with my grey Knights dude. Also the argument isn’t that they require know how, it’s that there is a unit that is 1:1 better.

Lemon,
There are technical points where, if both players were being complete tools and hyperliteral, even that rule breaks. For instance, "I assert that I'm $faction, therefore, on a 2+ I win, on a 1+ you lose.". Do you just 4+ that? What if both players assert the same thing, but for their own faction - what order do you resolve that in? Do you 4+ to decide the order?

Yes, it does get pedantic and stupid. I'd just concede long before it got to that point. But The Most Important Rule solves almost all rules problem, and is a great guideline for solving any remaining issues.

It is a good callout that all the other examples in this thread *did* forget this rule (sorry, my bad).

But then lets try to apply it to the points that were brought up: on a 4+, must I rewrite my list to make my ASM who are modeled as ASM be VV? Do you mind if I just concede and play someone else at that point?

Bharring wrote:
Lemon,
There are technical points where, if both players were being complete tools and hyperliteral, even that rule breaks. For instance, "I assert that I'm $faction, therefore, on a 2+ I win, on a 1+ you lose.". Do you just 4+ that? What if both players assert the same thing, but for their own faction - what order do you resolve that in? Do you 4+ to decide the order?

Yes, it does get pedantic and stupid. I'd just concede long before it got to that point. But The Most Important Rule solves almost all rules problem, and is a great guideline for solving any remaining issues.

It is a good callout that all the other examples in this thread *did* forget this rule (sorry, my bad).

But then lets try to apply it to the points that were brought up: on a 4+, must I rewrite my list to make my ASM who are modeled as ASM be VV? Do you mind if I just concede and play someone else at that point?

If your list is gonna be that bad, might as well concede actually. I don't have time to waste playing bad lists.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
If your list is gonna be that bad, might as well concede actually. I don't have time to waste playing bad lists.

I try to refrain from commenting on how people play the game, but honestly that attitude is fething atrocious.

Because I've never won a game with ASM in it?

And never gotten value (learned something or had fun, usually the latter) out of a game I didn't win?

What, really then, is the point of playing Warhammer instead of Candyland?

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
If your list is gonna be that bad, might as well concede actually. I don't have time to waste playing bad lists.

I try to refrain from commenting on how people play the game, but honestly that attitude is fething atrocious.

If you have the option to play the unit as another, more excellent unit, and decide that you cannot because "fluff!!!!!1!" and nothing else outside your own dumb standards that will detract from the game experience, it's gonna be a waste of time as you might do dumb stuff in game too because it sounds "fun". I want to face a dangerous army, not a mishmash hodgepodge of whatever you painted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
Because I've never won a game with ASM in it?

And never gotten value (learned something or had fun, usually the latter) out of a game I didn't win?

What, really then, is the point of playing Warhammer instead of Candyland?

I've won games in 6th/7th with Tyberos and you have Koo rambling about how great his Mutilators did. None of that matters in the long run. At all.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
If your list is gonna be that bad, might as well concede actually. I don't have time to waste playing bad lists.

I try to refrain from commenting on how people play the game, but honestly that attitude is fething atrocious.

If you have the option to play the unit as another, more excellent unit, and decide that you cannot because "fluff!!!!!1!" and nothing else outside your own dumb standards that will detract from the game experience, it's gonna be a waste of time as you might do dumb stuff in game too because it sounds "fun". I want to face a dangerous army, not a mishmash hodgepodge of whatever you painted.

Your attitude of looking down your nose at people for making choices that don't line up with being the beardiest goon in the room seem frankly is the sort of toxicity that no hobby group should ever have pushed onto it. Frankly how you get games outside of tournaments treating people this poorly amazes me.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

If your list is gonna be that bad, might as well concede actually. I don't have time to waste playing bad lists.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

If you have the option to play the unit as another, more excellent unit, and decide that you cannot because "fluff!!!!!1!" and nothing else outside your own dumb standards that will detract from the game experience, it's gonna be a waste of time as you might do dumb stuff in game too because it sounds "fun". I want to face a dangerous army, not a mishmash hodgepodge of whatever you painted.

When people talk about 'toxic competitive attitude' this is what they mean.

I hope I wind up running into more players like Clockwork than Slayer, I guess.

We're probably both better off if we don't play eachother, because we're clearly playing different games.

I would appreciate if you'd stop calling me stupid, stop rejecting my reasons as "not reasons", and such.

I'd also suggest you check out StarCraft and DOTA. Those games seem to be much more in line with caring more about the crunch than putting models together and painting them. They also have "ladder" modes so you can avoid people you feel are beneath you.

Bharring wrote:
I hope I wind up running into more players like Clockwork than Slayer, I guess.

I want to say thanks, but the 'I guess" has me worried that I'm seen as the less toxic alternative here.

I admit I can be a bit strong headed about stuff like this, but that's only because I feel that anyone who buys models should be able to play them, even if they're not great. If you want to throw down a hard list against me, great! I'll play those too, especially in tournaments, but it isn't the only thing I play and my enjoyment of this hobby isn't solely rooted playing games (especially since I only get to game about once or twice a week but have a lot more time to paint and model or pour over lore). Basically it's because of this that I have such a strong feeling about putting stuff you think is cool on the table as you see fit. I mean no one wants to be told that they basically can't play something they spent several hours building, and several more painting, because it isn't good enough to be worth playing against.

The "I guess" was an attempt to just kinda let that statement float and offer an end to this madness. Nothing about you has come across as toxic. I was just trying to minimize the criticism of Slayer in my statement.