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.

I'd rather work with the models and for it to visible at a glance on them. I don't really care at all what Tom and Bob name their little soldiers, nor do I want to have to constantly ask which one has what.

It seems like missing the point of having models- its a visual game. At a certain point you can just forgo it all and move to dry erase maps and tokens.

 Blackie wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
I dunno, having autogun dude actually (also) have an invisible lascannon sounds kinda confusing to me...

The key is associating models to actual names, which come with detailed datasheets. I mean, I never had trouble with proxies in 40k once we had established pre-game who is who and that's with large armies. Using factions with 5-10 dudes is way easier.

If you get confused so often just paint the name of the dude in the base, some players do it, and keep the updated roster near the table. I'd prefer self made tokens with the name of the models or remembering them by heart as I dislike anything written on bases though.

One of the things that annoys me about Newcromunda is that it hasn't provided an attractive, thorough roster template like Necromunda/Mordheim did. Fighter cards are kind of annoying to deal with (their only advantage is making it easy to randomize fighters when you need to). Generally I'd rather have all the info in front of me at once.

Voss wrote:
I'd rather work with the models and for it to visible at a glance on them. I don't really care at all what Tom and Bob name their little soldiers, nor do I want to have to constantly ask which one has what.

It seems like missing the point of having models- its a visual game. At a certain point you can just forgo it all and move to dry erase maps and tokens.

But the fact it's a visual game is exactly why I consider using the roster to record changes superior.

The whole point of these small skirmish games for me is creating individual, bespoke, usually highly converted, and always fully painted miniatures. That's not something that can be done easily - by me anyway - in the ~week between game nights during a campaign. When I model them I try to think about where I might want to take them in future and add extra gear or holsters accordingly, I might even make a few extra versions of models I think I might want to radically change the gear of midway through, but in the event something unexpected or fortuitous happens, it takes a lot less time and effort for you to glance at a roster a couple of times in a game than it does for me to make a new model from scratch, and I'm certainly not going to take apart a mini I've already finished and try to bodge it back together with different gear.

Anyway, why would you need to ask - if the models are named or otherwise individually identifiable and you have the opponent's roster there in front of you(you do provide your opponent with a proper copy of your roster for every game, right?), you don't have to do anything more than glance at it to refresh your memory. Though why you'd need to do that "constantly" when there are usually ~20 minis on the table I don't know.

you have the opponent's roster there in front of you(you do provide your opponent with a proper copy of your roster for every game, right?)

Nope. Not once in 30-odd years of wargaming have I ever exchanged rosters. Not even a single time. No one has even offered to do so or suggested it to me once. In dozens of different shops and venues and hundreds of different people, no one has ever done anything other than a brief overview of their force, and welcomed questions if they come up.

Its a game about models. When the big stuff (not grenades, pistols, etc) isn't on the models, its a problem. Being surprised by people's 'proxies' has been a problem in the past (suddenly plasma cannons rather than flamers, suddenly armored sentinels that you can't hurt with S4!... after the charge move), and I've a low tolerance for it.

Perhaps not exchange rosters, but there is at least a roster written out for both sides right. Ergo that both of you can consult the other's army list/roster on paper rather than doing it from memory or such.

 Overread wrote:
Perhaps not exchange rosters, but there is at least a roster written out for both sides right. Ergo that both of you can consult the other's army list/roster on paper rather than doing it from memory or such.

If there are questions, people ask. Having the models with the right gear mostly eliminates the need for asking.
Because, again, model-based games. With social interaction!

People generally only consult their lists when pulling out their models to set up.

Eh most game places I've been too its generally expected that you write the list down.

It helps:

1) Avoid over or under costing your army by accident or intention (cheat).

2) It helps remind what invisible items are present on models - eg upgrades, armour, items, spells, powers etc.... ergo all those things that are not typically visible on the model (and are often impractical to model).

3) Remember how many are in each squad/unit - good for when you've lots of units close together (though personally I prefer unique markers per squad - eg a rim base colour or a colour on the model or base feature etc.... ergo something which, at a glance tells one squad from the next).

 Overread wrote:
Eh most game places I've been too its generally expected that you write the list down.

Yeah? It is.

But in my experience people don't need to consult their own during the game (at least not any more, since magic items and wargear have been wittled down to basically 1 or 2 choices for the general and maybe another character). And if the other person wants to know something, they ask. They don't just wander over and go through the opponent's list.

JWBS wrote:

 Mr_Rose wrote:
Use superglue. If you ever need to change, stick the mini in the freezer and it will go brittle. Then you can apply torsion to remove the part you don’t want. Then you can clean up the joint with superglue debonder (contraindicated for the first step as it will mess up the paint).

Necromunda models work out to around £1.50 each. Buy two boxes per gang instead of doing this.

Where can you get them for £15 for a box discounted? That’s a really good deal if so?

Voss wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Eh most game places I've been too its generally expected that you write the list down.

Yeah? It is.

But in my experience people don't need to consult their own during the game (at least not any more, since magic items and wargear have been wittled down to basically 1 or 2 choices for the general and maybe another character). And if the other person wants to know something, they ask. They don't just wander over and go through the opponent's list.

I've never played a single GW game in over 20 years in which the opponent didn't have the list to show me. Exchaning rosters has always been considered the norm.

In a skirmish like Necromunda it seems pointless to play without knowing the opponent's models stats. I mean other than wargear represented to the model there are also the rank (leader, champions, etc..), advancements, skills, invisible upgrades to consider and those can't be obtained by looking at the miniature. At that point having access to an additional line with the updated wargear doesn't sound unreasonable.

In a game that size I don't see the need of constantly wandering through the lists, a look at them before the game starts should be enough. And as you said, if the other person wants to know something (for example where's the Lascannon dude), they ask. I may want to know which Goliath model has the Stimm-Slug Stash or which Orlock dude is carrying the Demo Charges and no way I can determine those things by looking at the miniature so asking which one has the invisibile heavy weapon if I have lost trace of it shouldn't be any different.

It also seems pointless to me that in a skirmish game with 5-10 models someone has to own 30-50 models just to cover all the basic combinations he might want during a campaign. Having a specific model only because it could be a option for the 15th game during a campaing seems like a waste to me. Most of those combinations are also impossible to get outside conversions or kitbashing from 40k since there are no Necromunda bitz for Missile Launchers, Lascannons, Long Las, etc...

In conclusion I'd ask WYSIWYG (not even strictly, I mean a Van Saar model with Rad Cannon can definitely count as a model with a Plasma Cannon or Multi Melta IMHO) for pick up games, that's reasonable since lists are pre-planned. But in a campaign? As long as it's clear who is who I don't see the issue. What I'd do is to start with WYSIWYG lists though and avoid all the "too similar" options for the same faction that might generate confusion: I mean consider Escher, they can have Laspistols, Auto Pistols or Stub Guns but the kit only comes with lots of Laspistols and a couple of Auto Pistols. Since those weapons are basically identical just stick with Laspistol the entire campaign. I wouldn't mix different types of knives (Power, Fighting, Stiletto) as well: pick up one and stick with that. I'd later add weapons that could make some difference instead, like a Plasma Gun.

Having a 3-4 dudes with some invisible weapons after several games doesn't break any visual but that of course it's just my opinion.

Damnit, every time I see this thread bumped I think a new FW release or the upcoming Cawdor set has been spotted - as this is news and rumors, perhaps the discussion on model-weapon proxy permitidness could be moved to a dedicated Specialist Games discussion?

Like every thread in the news and rumour forum.
One place, maybe it was Warseer? They used to have a rumour round up.
We should have something similar. Maybe, anyone can post, but it has to be info about the release. Then all the discussions are elsewhere.
I suppose it’s too hard to police as some stuff is a fine line between news and opinion conversation etc.

On topic though.
Was Necromunda absent from today’s reveals?

Danny76 wrote:
On topic though.
Was Necromunda absent from today’s reveals?

We won't know for a few hours yet for sure, but it wasn't listed as one of the games to be featured when that was released on Monday - though why they don't include that info in the initial announcement, I have no idea...

Danny76 wrote:

JWBS wrote:

 Mr_Rose wrote:
Use superglue. If you ever need to change, stick the mini in the freezer and it will go brittle. Then you can apply torsion to remove the part you don’t want. Then you can clean up the joint with superglue debonder (contraindicated for the first step as it will mess up the paint).

Necromunda models work out to around £1.50 each. Buy two boxes per gang instead of doing this.

Where can you get them for £15 for a box discounted? That’s a really good deal if so?

£18 at Loot Room, so I low balled that a bit. Still, disassembling them seems way too much work even at £1.80 each. (btw Loot Room only works out great if you make a large purchase every few months rather than smaller frequent orders, as there's a subscription fee and they charge for shipping too. Having said that, most GW stuff is 31% off gwrp, so big savings if you make large orders).

Clockpunk wrote:
Damnit, every time I see this thread bumped I think a new FW release or the upcoming Cawdor set has been spotted - as this is news and rumors, perhaps the discussion on model-weapon proxy permitidness could be moved to a dedicated Specialist Games discussion?

News posts tend to spawn discussion about related game issues. That's just the nature of the beast.

But yes, that particular tangent is a fairly big discussion, and would be better continued in the relevant sub-forum.

So, is the WC post a suggestion of Redemptionists or a Cawdor release? One of those images definitely looks like a model.

Ohhh my goddddddddd





redemption as extra gang for cawdor book?

Redemptionists, 100%.

Eviscerator and Exterminator, plus the symbol.





Could House of Faith be coming sooner than Q2?

I hope it doesn't end up being just fire specialists for Cawdor sprue 2.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I hope it doesn't end up being just fire specialists for Cawdor sprue 2.

This right here is my concern. I want real Redemptionists.

I feel like putting the barrel of the flamer where it is on that eviscerator is going to cause problems..

The chainsword heavy flamer thing makes no sense at all. Also, neither flamer appears to have a pilot light, so i guess it's internal - nice and safe


I know science fantasy doesn't always need to make sense but come on

Billicus wrote:
The chainsword heavy flamer thing makes no sense at all. Also, neither flamer appears to have a pilot light, so i guess it's internal - nice and safe

It makes perfect sense

First up that's chainsaw so you know its going to be oiled up to keep the chain running. Why waste that oil just for lube! Set it a blaze!
Then its going t obe in close contact already and when you're driving it into a thick armoured ambull what better thing than to flick on the flamer and cook as well as cut and slice. Heck when the chainsaw jams (and it will) you've got a flamer ready to go; you're not left holding a hunk of metal that's now just a beat stick.

Billicus wrote:
The chainsword heavy flamer thing makes no sense at all. Also, neither flamer appears to have a pilot light, so i guess it's internal - nice and safe


I know science fantasy doesn't always need to make sense but come on

Sense and sanity is kinda in short supply in the Underhive, let alone when considering religious maniacs.

I was going to say "I'm not sure how you're meant to pump that shotgun", but looking again it might be an indented handgrip rather than a pump...

beast_gts wrote:
I was going to say "I'm not sure how you're meant to pump that shotgun", but looking again it might be an indented handgrip rather than a pump...

That or the whole fore-grip slides, including the nozzle mount…

As for the lack of pilot lights, single-use pyrophoric igniters are a thing and have been since the beginning. Which is probably preferred too, since the exterminator cartridges always used to be one-shot.

Aaah... exterminator cartridges... oh yeah.

Looks more like an automatic shotgun than a pump gun to my eye.

Burning off the lubricant of the chainsaw is what makes it impractical, imo, but I think there's a healthy level of tongue in cheek going on. Surely whatever the chainsaw is stuck in is the only thing that won't get burned, since it's going to get deflected away to the sides / bounce back and burn the wielder and/or explode.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
I feel like putting the barrel of the flamer where it is on that eviscerator is going to cause problems..

What, you don't want melt the end of your chainsaw and splatter the people next to you?

I'm just curious about the vertical grip and the lack of a place to put the second hand. I guess you could sort of latch awkwardly onto big bit above the skull and hope you don't accidentally mash the big firing button? But the chainsaw teeth look like they're set up backwards for pressure from above... the layout is actually too much like a normal chainsaw.

How is the eviscerator supposed to be held? The mid “handle” doesn’t actually look like a handle.