2 minutes ago, nashjaee said:

As someone who is doing exactly this (we're organizing an event here in the California Bay Area): yup, that can be pretty accurate. I just categorically disagree with the notion that the players owe me anything as far getting their stuff painted. I just want them to show up and play. I feel it can present as a bit "elitist" to say only the people with the time to paint up their stuff can show up to my event.

Sure because that's not how you run YOUR tournament. But I'm not going to show up and rag on you to ADD painting requirements, or to CHANGE how you calculate match-ups, or whatever. You put in the work, you get to make the rules.

3 minutes ago, TauntaunScout said:

Sure because that's not how you run YOUR tournament. But I'm not going to show up and rag on you to ADD painting requirements, or to CHANGE how you calculate match-ups, or whatever. You put in the work, you get to make the rules.

That's fair, and I can appreciate that. I do, however, think that there can be an issue with things like enforcing WYSIWYG when the rules don't require it. What happens when someone glued the mortar to their AT-ST because they liked the look and felt comfortable they could still run it at an event? They then sign up for an event, but don't want to run the mortar upgrade. These are the things an organizer needs to consider.

1 minute ago, TauntaunScout said:

Sure because that's not how you run YOUR tournament. But I'm not going to show up and rag on you to ADD painting requirements, or to CHANGE how you calculate match-ups, or whatever. You put in the work, you get to make the rules.

Pretty much this. Any of us could decide to run an event, and you could decide to run it under whatever set of rules you choose to, and they can can be enforced as much or as little as you want to.

Games are - and I really do think the main drawback of the age of the internet is that gaming culture seems to have just forgotten this - a matter of negotiation, and nobody is in a situation where they are forced to play a game with another person. Organising an event is a situation where the agreement is that participants agree to the (clearly expressed, one hopes) rules of the organiser. A given organiser might have specific aims - accessibility, or hobby showcasing, or what have you - and any given potential participant can make their own decision about whether the specific aims in mind are something they wish to engage, or not.

1 hour ago, nashjaee said:

That's fair, and I can appreciate that. I do, however, think that there can be an issue with things like enforcing WYSIWYG when the rules don't require it. What happens when someone glued the mortar to their AT-ST because they liked the look and felt comfortable they could still run it at an event? They then sign up for an event, but don't want to run the mortar upgrade. These are the things an organizer needs to consider.

In that particular case you can look at the opponents cards and figure it out if you have to. Impact Grenades and stuff aren't modeled anyways, and can affect the game as much as a mortar.

But people weren't so thin-skinned and hardcore about rules interpretations back when sci-fi gaming was newer though.

The 3 color rule (plus bases and not counting primer) is hardly exclusionary, at least no more or less than allowing players with unpainted is entitled. I could say that making people "qualify" by playing other games elsewhere and prior, is exclusionary. Everyone can come up with very different takes on these things.

Back in the day I used to see things at cons, with publisher prize support, that would confuse the heck out of people today. I'm talking blatantly illegal vehicle conversions. Using modified toys instead of official models. Older metal models with now-illegal-wargear being used at face value, not "counts as".

Yes the models were all painted, but we'd never EXCLUDE someone just because they had raucously illegal armies! That would've been mean! I never used models like that personally but, this is how it used to be. If you brought cool space-guy-toys, you could play toy-space-guys with us at the toy-space-guy-tables. We never actually said they HAD to be painted... they just all WERE. People who hated painting would never have wasted their money on miniatures. It was just how it was. There was always that ONE player without painted stuff, who no one aspired to be like, but we didn't kick them out. You know the one. They had an absolute train-wreck of a personal life, and share unsolicited details of it with strangers. Dressed like a flood victim and never showered, but was quite wealthy, etc. We even let that guy play. So I take issue with this idea that the hobby was somehow exclusionary back when armies were usually painted for tournaments. And the stuff wasn't painted great. You'd paint your rank and file space marines [chapter color] add some black and silver to the weapons, maybe pick some insignia out in white, and that was it. Civil War players would spray paint their 15mm guys blue or gray, put a blob of pink on their face and make the muskets black and that was it. But it looked nice when you had tons of them together on a felt field with lichen trees and gravel for boulders.

At certain point, other styles of game which had low bars of entry and very straightforward, cut and dried, conflict resolution and scoring mechanics, started to change the social dynamic a bit. A sense of entitlement to play anything anytime caught on as a result of the low entry bar of some games. The rules of those games changed the mentality of playing as well. As a result the miniature tables at cons and stores have been flooded with unpainted stuff and people who took the letter of the rules (but not the spirit of the game!) very seriously. Hence, rules at big cons for painting came into place about that time.

3 minutes ago, TauntaunScout said:

In that particular case you can look at the opponents cards and figure it out if you have to. Impact Grenades and stuff aren't modeled anyways, and can affect the game as much as a mortar.

Well... yeah. That's precisely what I'm saying. You don't need WYSIWYG when you have cards that represent the loadouts.

4 minutes ago, TauntaunScout said:

I could say that making people "qualify" by playing other games elsewhere and prior, is exclusionary.

Yes. By definition, yes. I hope that's not a serious concern of yours. Some events are invitationals, others are open...

I'm having a hard time following the rest of your comment. It sounds like you are advocating for NOT having paint requirements? Because you also just want people to be able to play with their toys? I'm advocating for the same thing; hope I haven't come across any other way.

Sorry, I'll get off your lawn now.

48 minutes ago, nashjaee said:

Well... yeah. That's precisely what I'm saying. You don't need WYSIWYG when you have cards that represent the loadouts.

No but sadly it's needed for other things: without WYSIWYG rules, if there's a prize to win players will be using speeder bikes as e-webs and Vader as Boba Fett, and it will get very confusing very fast. At the end of the day it takes human judgement to get the best result. Human judgement is anathema to video games, CCG's, etc. but is and always has been required for playing with rulers and stuff on a model forest. I personally think you should be able to use your AT-RT with flamer as a laser or whatever. But people do manipulate that leeway to try to cheat and that has to be accounted for too.

Quote

Yes. By definition, yes. I hope that's not a serious concern of yours. Some events are invitationals, others are open...

It's not a concern of mine, but it's usually the reason people cite. It goes down like this: "Welcome to the hobby Art Meets Math. Good at art but bad at math? You are cut, go away. If you're bad at art but good at math, you can keep playing because INCLUSION and ACTUAL GAME." I'm not saying there shouldn't be invitationals but I am suggesting that anyone who says a tiered set of tournaments can't have a painting requirement because that would be elitist or exclusionary is just trying to hypocritically justify staying inside their own comfort zone. The whole thing is already exclusionary, just, in a way that excludes others and not them.

Quote

I'm having a hard time following the rest of your comment. It sounds like you are advocating for NOT having paint requirements? Because you also just want people to be able to play with their toys? I'm advocating for the same thing; hope I haven't come across any other way.

First, I defend the right of organizers to have painting (or other) requirements regardless of what publishers say on the matter because publishers aren't putting in the work to make the con and tournament happen. Second, I do lament that it's gotten to where organizers feel it has to be an actual written rule. At the same time however, I'm against players acting like a simple tournament painting requirement is some kind of onerous burden. Or since it's "not in the rules" they act like its tantamount to the con organizers declaring martial law and taking over the city. The actual companies only put in place rules that help their own sales. For this example, using photocopies of cards doesn't impact the "actual game" but FFG wants us to buy those cards so that's a rule. Mark my words, if FFG starts selling their own brand of paint and tools, there will be more and more painting requirements for their organized play events.

At historical conventions there's no such 3-color rules that I'm aware of because that crowd didn't experience the same cultural shift. Though I don't usually do anything at gaming cons now except go shopping so I don't know for sure! But when I do peruse the gaming halls briefly I never see unpainted historicals. It simply isn't done, as it were. Course unlike scifi/fantasy gaming, historicals haven't suffered as much from totally unrealistic painting goals imposed from looking at too much White Dwarf. Thinking anything less than 'Eavy Metal paintjobs is "ruining" a model is as unhealthy as thinking your body has to look like the people on the cover of Vogue or GQ.

As far as I know, Games Workshop was the first ones to have specific painting requirements. And I'm sure it's just sheer coincidence, that they just happened to sell paint...

11 minutes ago, TauntaunScout said:

At historical conventions there's no such 3-color rules that I'm aware of because that crowd didn't experience the same cultural shift. Though I don't usually do anything at gaming cons now except go shopping so I don't know for sure! But when I do peruse the gaming halls briefly I never see unpainted historicals. It simply isn't done, as it were. Course unlike scifi/fantasy gaming, historicals haven't suffered as much from totally unrealistic painting goals imposed from looking at too much White Dwarf. Thinking anything less than 'Eavy Metal paintjobs is "ruining" a model is as unhealthy as thinking your body has to look like the people on the cover of Vogue or GQ.

Historicon's Tournament packet from last year says in numerous places "No unpainted miniatures" and one of the Flames of War listings even states that unpainted miniatures will be pulled prior to start of game. Some games did allow unpainted, and the Bolt Action game actually specifically said new players should come with what they have assembled, regardless of painting. It depends on the game and tournament in my experience.

<Sarcasm>With Historicals you're more likely to catch flak for your tank not having the correct number of rivets.</Sarcasm>

Hmm, I fear we are talking past each other a bit here. I get the sense you have had this conversation with others before and are attaching meaning and preconceptions to my words that I really don't intend.

34 minutes ago, TauntaunScout said:

No but sadly it's needed for other things: without WYSIWYG rules, if there's a prize to win players WILL be using speeder bikes as e-webs and Vader as Boba Fett, and it will get very confusing very fast.

Maybe we mean different things when we say "WYSIWYG". To be clear, I'm talking specifically about expressing the loadout of a unit that has variable loadouts. Which, as far as Legion is concerned, only matters for the AT-ST, T-47, and AT-RT. But will soon also include the two new operatives and two new vehicles. Obviously, using Fett to represent Vader is just crazy talk and anyone who does that is a... I dunno... "try hard"? Call them whatever you like, haha. But really, I haven't seen anything like the examples you give. And to be honest I would guess that if you were to see it, it's more likely to be someone trying to prove the point rather than actually gain a competitive benefit. I think the current rule (players shouldn't avoid confusing representations) works just fine. Out of honest curiosity, is willful misrepresentation of models something that actually happens at events you've attended?

As a tangent: this is partially why I'm not a big fan of major prizes (cash and such). In theory, it encourages the type of behavior you (and I, in case it's not clear) would like to steer away from. But maybe I'm wrong! LVO had cash prizes for the top 2 and I had a pleasant time.

Ultimately I think we are coming from the same place: just let people play with their toys. Any "rules" should be in support of that thesis.

I'll use a personal anecdote to illustrate my thoughts on painting: I enjoy painting my stuff, but I'm quite slow because I can be a perfectionist at times. But that's me, that's how I like my models to look. I lament painting requirements because they may force me to rush a job that I'm ultimately unhappy with. For example, my LVO list was nearly fully-painted. I wish I had the time to paint up my Wookie Warriors before the event, but I just didn't (life happens). Yes, I could have forced 3 colors on there to meet an arbitrary requirement, but I wouldn't have been happy with the results and I'm glad the organizers didn't force me to do so. I would hate to impose that on someone. Ironically, I recognize that Wookies aren't the best example here because they are probably the quickest to paint up, haha. Just base, wash, and dry brush and they should look fine. Yes, I'm saying I didn't have the time to do even that -- to a level I'm happy with -- before the event.

10 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

and one of the Flames of War listings even states that unpainted miniatures will be pulled prior to start of game.

That doesn't surprise me. FOW is much more of the culture of 40k, Warmachine, etc. 40k seems to take bizarre pride in unpainted armies these days for store play.

7 minutes ago, nashjaee said:

Out of honest curiosity, is willful misrepresentation of models something that actually happens at events you've attended?

Yes. Not caring about painting and modelling becomes a very slippery slope. It was usually along the lines of which upgrades (magic items, wargear cards) were on which units: if it's not modeled, and your army list uses lots of shady abbreviations, suddenly that upgrade can be where it's needed most when you could've sworn some other unit had it... But I've also seen where people simply take tons of whatever models are cheapest on the secondary market (all unpainted) and use them for everything, for example, before the start of the game, "just so there's no confusion", they might declare that THIS grey unit of goblin archers are foot knights with spears while THAT grey unit of goblin archers are an allied contingent of dwarves with crossbows, while THESE three grey goblin archers standing next to a damaged 3rd party ballista model are actually a catapult with crew. Space Marine Terminators as fantasy dwarves was a good one I remember one particular game!

And I've run into the complete reverse too! The first time I tried to get into Warmachine I was told by the group that I couldn't use my fully painted army on scenic bases (in home games) because they were on slightly wrong dimension bases. 40mm square instead of 40mm round, stuff I'd done for artistic reasons and couldn't have reasonably been expected to impact the outcome of the game. They were Very Serious Gamers who used cardboard cutouts the diameter of bases, with unit names written on them. 🙄 They were such Serious Gamers that the group founder had been playing for over one year!

6 minutes ago, TauntaunScout said:

Yes. Not caring about painting and modelling becomes a very slippery slope. It was usually along the lines of which upgrades (magic items, wargear cards) were on which units: if it's not modeled, and your army list uses lots of shady abbreviations, suddenly that upgrade can be where it's needed most when you could've sworn some other unit had it... But I've also seen where people simply take tons of whatever models are cheapest on the secondary market (all unpainted) and use them for everything, for example, before the start of the game, "just so there's no confusion", they might declare that THIS grey unit of goblin archers are foot knights with spears while THAT grey unit of goblin archers are an allied contingent of dwarves with crossbows, while THESE three grey goblin archers standing next to a damaged 3rd party ballista model are actually a catapult with crew. Space Marine Terminators as fantasy dwarves was a good one I remember one particular game!

And I've run into the complete reverse too! The first time I tried to get into Warmachine I was told by the group that I couldn't use my fully painted army on scenic bases (in home games) because they were on slightly wrong dimension bases. 40mm square instead of 40mm round, stuff I'd done for artistic reasons and couldn't have reasonably been expected to impact the outcome of the game. They were Very Serious Gamers who used cardboard cutouts the diameter of bases, with unit names written on them. 🙄 They were such Serious Gamers that the group founder had been playing for over one year!

Regardless of how long they've been playing, these sound like unpleasant people. Sorry you have to deal with that!

4 minutes ago, TauntaunScout said:

That doesn't surprise me. FOW is much more of the culture of 40k, Warmachine, etc. 40k seems to take bizarre pride in unpainted armies these days for store play.

Yes. Not caring about painting and modelling becomes a very slippery slope. It was usually along the lines of which upgrades (magic items, wargear cards) were on which units: if it's not modeled, and your army list uses lots of shady abbreviations, suddenly that upgrade can be where it's needed most when you could've sworn some other unit had it... But I've also seen where people simply take tons of whatever models are cheapest on the secondary market (all unpainted) and use them for everything, for example, before the start of the game, "just so there's no confusion", they might declare that THIS grey unit of goblin archers are foot knights with spears while THAT grey unit of goblin archers are an allied contingent of dwarves with crossbows, while THESE three grey goblin archers standing next to a damaged 3rd party ballista model are actually a catapult with crew. Space Marine Terminators as fantasy dwarves was a good one I remember one particular game!

And I've run into the complete reverse too! The first time I tried to get into Warmachine I was told by the group that I couldn't use my fully painted army on scenic bases (in home games) because they were on slightly wrong dimension bases. 40mm square instead of 40mm round, stuff I'd done for artistic reasons and couldn't have reasonably been expected to impact the outcome of the game. They were Very Serious Gamers who used cardboard cutouts the diameter of bases, with unit names written on them. 🙄 They were such Serious Gamers that the group founder had been playing for over one year!

Well the nice thing about FFG games is the cards and numbered unit markers make upgrade loudouts unambiguous. If you own the cards then you own the model because they are packaged together. I think it doesn't matter much if a rebel player has a Flamethrower equipped to their AT-RT and they are running a laser cannon on it. From tabletop distance its kind of hard to spot the difference at a glance anyway.

3 hours ago, nashjaee said:

As someone who is doing exactly this (we're organizing an event here in the California Bay Area): yup, that can be pretty accurate. I just categorically disagree with the notion that the players owe me anything as far getting their stuff painted. I just want them to show up and play. I feel it can present as a bit "elitist" to say only the people with the time to paint up their stuff can show up to my event.

What if I don't care for assembling miniatures and choose to turn up at your event with units represented by coloured and labelled bases topped by blank plastic cylinders occupying the appropriate physical volume for a given model, would it be "elitist" to tell me to jog right on and that just because I don't particularly fancy one part of the hobby doesn't mean I am exempt from it when attending an event with loads of other people?

Don't see it as players owing you anything, instead see it as you ensuring that players fulfill their obligations to each other to make the experience of an event as positive, exciting, and memorable as possible, which for a goodly number of the attendees will mean playing with and against a proper, finished army not a legion of grey plastic.

15 minutes ago, KommanderKeldoth said:

Well the nice thing about FFG games is the cards and numbered unit markers make upgrade loudouts unambiguous. If you own the cards then you own the model because they are packaged together. I think it doesn't matter much if a rebel player has a Flamethrower equipped to their AT-RT and they are running a laser cannon on it. From tabletop distance its kind of hard to spot the difference at a glance anyway.

Theoretically yes. This is where I (and presumably, the Adepticon folks) see the potential for cheating. If I run an AT-RT who cares. But I run two or three AT-RT's with different weapons, the "right" gun card for the situation can magically teleport to the model that needs it, especially before any shots have been exchanged. I guarantee people will be doing stuff like this, it's not if but when. Since people can do this with grenades and gear anyways, it's going to happen regardless so restricting vehicles will only do so much.

From what I heard about X-Wing at least, FFG is notoriously lenient with cheaters.

3 hours ago, nashjaee said:

That's fair, and I can appreciate that. I do, however, think that there can be an issue with things like enforcing WYSIWYG when the rules don't require it. What happens when someone glued the mortar to their AT-ST because they liked the look and felt comfortable they could still run it at an event? They then sign up for an event, but don't want to run the mortar upgrade. These are the things an organizer needs to consider.

At a certain point, as a player, you have to let your painted, as-modeled, collection of models dictate your lists if you are going to go to those events though. It's no different than someone simply not being able to afford to buy the exact units they'd like before the deadline. You draft your list from what you have painted and as-built, and that's that, if the host of the tournament says so. If you only paint exactly 800 points of stuff then yeah you're stuck with using that. But at the end of the day all sides of this debate are a bunch of first world problems.

9 hours ago, TauntaunScout said:

I prefer to call tournaments "formal play". There's nothing casual about skillfully converting figures and writing your own material.

I sit there and do that sort of thing all the time with most games. Guess it depends on what you consider casual.

3 minutes ago, TauntaunScout said:

From what I heard about X-Wing at least, FFG is notoriously lenient with cheaters.

Are you talking about #dialgate?

I've been playing X-wing since the game was new and have never encountered cheating before (and I've been to multiple high level events). Cheaters are a minority, and if you impose too many rules to catch them you harm the fun of the majority that just comes out to have a good time and test their skills legitimately. When I hear about cheating in a game of plastic toys I just feel sad for that person, that they feel like they need to do that to achieve some self worth is just pathetic.

1 hour ago, KommanderKeldoth said:

Are you talking about #dialgate?

Nope I don't know what that is. I just hear from friends who also play X-Wing who complain about it.

1 hour ago, KommanderKeldoth said:

I just feel sad for that person, that they feel like they need to do that to achieve some self worth is just pathetic.

This is how I feel about a many prevalent things in gaming.

Personally if I was to run a miniatures tournament nowadays (please stop me if I try) I'd go with a tournament where painting is not required nor is unpainted specifically allowed. But paintjobs would directly impact the outcome of the tournament.

20 minutes ago, TauntaunScout said:

Personally if I was to run a miniatures tournament nowadays (please stop me if I try) I'd go with a tournament where painting is not required nor is unpainted specifically allowed. But paintjobs would directly impact the outcome of the tournament.

As someone who puts a lot of time and effort into painting, and who doesn't put anything unpainted on the table anymore, I would go to that tournament.

So, lets say I put a Z6 on a different trooper via an arm swap. We should be OK with that- it's not the original model but it's clearly a Z6.

If I put a gatling gun on a droid and put it in the unit, it's going to need explanation and could be confused with a medical droid theoretically. It's definitely not the FFG model anymore but there's not much else to confuse it with. The gun is pretty darn obvious.

If I put an AvP smartgun on a trooper via an arm swap it's going to require more explanation, (those big machine guns are big machine guns) especially if the opponent has never seen Aliens but tournament and corporate types might get tetchy.

A leader from the fleet trooper set could act as an officer for some troopers if there are no fleet trooper units in the army. The single guy in a jacket with a pistol isn't far removed from the other single guy in a coat that FFG have designated as an officer.

If someone kitbashes Boba Fett and a stormtrooper to make a jet trooper on a flying base, it's pretty obvious who it is (as things stand).

If you make a unit that's 1/3 commando, 1/3 trooper and 1/3 pathfinder, it's going to get confusing no matter what you say they are.

These appear to be common sense. But no-one wants to write 'use common sense' in a tournament pack anymore it would seem, possible because people push the boundaries as Tauntaunscout says.

The way I see it, it's easier to make the rules strict and then allow conversions on a one-to-one basis through approval with the TO than make the rules lax and have to explain to someone that they can't use a Panzer IV as an AT-ST or a full commando squad as a pathfinder squad. And if the TO doesn't have time or inclination (which is understandable) then the strict rules will stand.

18 hours ago, BucketheadBits said:

@Senjius hahaha! I know, but it'd just be a little icon + a roman numeral. That's not unreasonable design, but you're right, it might be too cute.

Do not get me wrong, I would love an opponent with his miniatures based in Aurebesh. It would be really cool as long as that is not the only telling factor in which units are rebel troopers and which ones are commandos.😉

My experience in sanctioned tournaments (which is old) is that it was far easier for a TO to grant someone a "pass" on a rule than to try to enforce the spirit of the rules on someone who came up with a clever but **** loophole. They'd cry foul, whine to a corporate employee that "well it's not in the rules!", etc. But no one would've blamed a TO for being too nice to someone.

One reasons for the increasingly strict rules.

22 hours ago, TauntaunScout said:

No but sadly it's needed for other things: without WYSIWYG rules, if there's a prize to win players will be using speeder bikes as e-webs and Vader as Boba Fett, and it will get very confusing very fast. At the end of the day it takes human judgement to get the best result. Human judgement is anathema to video games, CCG's, etc. but is and always has been required for playing with rulers and stuff on a model forest. I personally think you should be able to use your AT-RT with flamer as a laser or whatever. But people do manipulate that leeway to try to cheat and that has to be accounted for too.

Ooooookay...... Let's not be that kid

On 2/27/2019 at 4:40 PM, TauntaunScout said:

And I've run into the complete reverse too! The first time I tried to get into Warmachine I was told by the group that I couldn't use my fully painted army on scenic bases (in home games) because they were on slightly wrong dimension bases. 40mm square instead of 40mm round, stuff I'd done for artistic reasons and couldn't have reasonably been expected to impact the outcome of the game. They were Very Serious Gamers who used cardboard cutouts the diameter of bases, with unit names written on them. 🙄 They were such Serious Gamers that the group founder had been playing for over one year!

I haven’t played in many years, but as I recall base shape is extremely important in Warmachine. It has a huge impact on both lof (seeing and obstructing) and range (engaging in CC, making ballistic attacks, casting spells, etc). Measurement is extremely important, with an emphasis on being as precise as possible. By simply rotating a square based model, you gain the ability to change its effective base size. This changes what your model can see, what your model can obstruct lof to, and what the range to/from your model is.

It’s such an abstract rule set that those players’ card board cutouts would actually lend themselves better to gameplay than your inappropriately but attractively based models. For someone with such a strong opinion on painting in order to play, I’m surprised you’d put such little emphasis on actually learning a game’s rules before playing (I guess we all value various aspects of the game differently). I would hope that those players would have bothered to explain some of this (who knows, maybe they did try, but you couldn’t get past the idea that someone wanted you to play the game the way they thought it should be played). Then again, it probably doesn’t matter, because I don’t think you would have enjoyed that game anyway, and you obviously didn’t think much of the people you’d be playing it with.

38 minutes ago, The Hamburglar said:

I haven’t played in many years, but as I recall base shape is extremely important in Warmachine. It has a huge impact on both lof (seeing and obstructing) and range (engaging in CC, making ballistic attacks, casting spells, etc). Measurement is extremely important, with an emphasis on being as precise as possible. By simply rotating a square based model, you gain the ability to change its effective base size. This changes what your model can see, what your model can obstruct lof to, and what the range to/from your model is.

It’s such an abstract rule set that those players’ card board cutouts would actually lend themselves better to gameplay than your inappropriately but attractively based models. For someone with such a strong opinion on painting in order to play, I’m surprised you’d put such little emphasis on actually learning a game’s rules before playing (I guess we all value various aspects of the game differently). I would hope that those players would have bothered to explain some of this (who knows, maybe they did try, but you couldn’t get past the idea that someone wanted you to play the game the way they thought it should be played). Then again, it probably doesn’t matter, because I don’t think you would have enjoyed that game anyway, and you obviously didn’t think much of the people you’d be playing it with.

Almost all games place such emphasis on the model’s base. But a couple mm’s here or there won’t impact the outcome of the game. Any slight advantage is balanced out by similar disadvantages. Plus, moving and measuring by hand already introduces a greater margin of error than that.

That was the first time I failed to get into Warmachine. The second time I was playing with cooler people but stuff came up. In the end my heart’s never going to be in Warmahordes cause of the models so I gave my army away.

1 hour ago, TauntaunScout said:

Almost all games place such emphasis on the model’s base. But a couple mm’s here or there won’t impact the outcome of the game. Any slight advantage is balanced out by similar disadvantages. Plus, moving and measuring by hand already introduces a greater margin of error than that.

What you’re saying is true about a slight and consistent difference in base size. However, that’s not what we’re talking about.

A square 40mm base has a diagonal measurement of about 56mm. That’s far more than the 1-2mm you’re misrepresenting it as, regardless of whether you’re talking about having different size bases than your opponent, or even the margin of error inherent in the measuring process.

Also, you’re ignoring the important part, which is the lack of consistency, and the fact that you as the controlling player have greater agency over that inconsistency. As you activate your models (as part of their movement/activation), you get to decide where you want to orient that wider frontage (for blocking), or the additional range (for attacking).

Finally, you mention the similar emphasis other games place on this (true to an extent), but I’d argue that Warmachine has specific characteristics that make it far more impactful than most. The game often combines relatively short threat ranges with devastating consequences. Most other game systems don’t present frequent scenarios where allowing an enemy to get within a distance as short as 8”-12” of a certain model means you can outright lose the game. Also, most other games don’t require you to pay as much attention to positioning and blocking in order to capitalize on or defend against this potential threat.

No offense, but I feel like your comments are just wrong, and coming from a lack of familiarity with Warmachine’s rules. It sucks you couldn’t use your models, but instead of ragging on them you should understand that what you were asking those other players (whether you understood it or not), was “hey guys, do you mind if I play with models that would make it really easy for me to cheat?”

I get the feeling that most of your experience is with mass infantry games, and not smaller scale skirmish systems? If so, it would make sense that you’d hand waive something like this as inconsequential, because in mass infantry games that’s more often the case. You’re moving more models (greater margin of error), often moving those models faster, making attacks from longer ranges, and pulling individually painted wound markers at a greater rate.