On 2/27/2019 at 4:40 PM, 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!

It’s one thing to say you don’t need to model the vehicles with specific hardpoints, because those are WYSIWYG from the upgrade card and the associated Number tokens which the game helpfully supplies to differentiate units.

It’s another entirely to try and use the wrong minis. That’s clear chicanery.

So for the Nancy no funs out there, would you take issue with using a fleet trooper leader painter in the standard khaki scheme being used as a rebel officer in a rebel trooper squad?

15 minutes ago, Tirion said:

So for the Nancy no funs out there, would you take issue with using a fleet trooper leader painter in the standard khaki scheme being used as a rebel officer in a rebel trooper squad?

I'd probably be fine with it, and I bet I'm what you'd call a "Nancy no fun."

49 minutes ago, Tirion said:

So for the Nancy no funs out there, would you take issue with using a fleet trooper leader painter in the standard khaki scheme being used as a rebel officer in a rebel trooper squad?

In a friendly game if I know you and you aren't being a jerk about it, sure.

In a tournament game, my opinion doesn't really matter, it's up to the TO who might care more about you having the official upgrade card. I'm not going to raise a fuss if the TO okayed it, and if you don't have any units of fleet troopers I really don't care. The best way to ensure you won't have issues with any TOs is to make it perfectly clear what the unit is supposed to be, either by using the official model, or, in case of heavy weapons, ensuring that the weapon specified on the upgrade card is on the model.

I feel like WYSIWYG is barely being talked about in this thread. It’s mostly about proxying, with a bit of conversion discussion.

WYSIWYG = accurate representation of a units weapons/equipment on a model.

Proxying = representing a unit with a different model than intended.

Conversion = representing a unit with a model that has been altered by swapping parts with other models, or adding scratch built elements.

There’s often a lot of overlap/mixing of the three elements, but there is a distinction.

Maybe I’m reading the wrong organized play document, or perhaps I overlooked a section, but the Legion rules seem clearly restrictive in this regard. Products/components are tied to rules. The only modification/alteration specifically allowed is how a player chooses to paint their models. I’m not saying I agree with adhering to this in practice (this is where giving TO’s the power to decide comes into play), but I’m also not seeing where so many of you are getting that Adepticon’s rules are somehow more restrictive (aside from the painting requirement).

22 minutes ago, The Hamburglar said:

Maybe I’m reading the wrong organized play document, or perhaps I overlooked a section, but the Legion rules seem clearly restrictive in this regard. Products/components are tied to rules. The only modification/alteration specifically allowed is how a player chooses to paint their models. I’m not saying I agree with adhering to this in practice (this is where giving TO’s the power to decide comes into play), but I’m also not seeing where so many of you are getting that Adepticon’s rules are somehow more restrictive (aside from the painting requirement).

That certainly seems to simplify things. It's a very Imperial solution.

11 hours ago, The Hamburglar said:

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)....

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.

Dunno, probably not gonna find out. The other Warmachine group thought it was fine to use assorted bases. If I'm gona manipulate the game by intentionally positioning a base corner just so, how pathetic am I? I'll put it to you this way: if I cared that much about an advantage, I wouldn't limit myself to painted models only. My "wrong" bases are no advantage at all compared to using the latest netlist proxied via cardboard circles. It's not like we have money bet on these games anyways...

I currently own and at least try to play loads of different games, skirmish and mass combat, from 15mm to whatever Legion is. Let's see if I can remember them all. This does not include RPG's. Or wargames that I just played once a long time ago, or read and then sold without getting around to playing, or something. Though some of these will straddle the line between wargame, boardgame, and RPG.

• SW: Imperial Assault
• SW: Legion (obviously)
• W40k (plus recent skirmish spinoffs like Kill Team)
• WFB
• Kings of War
• Mordheim
• Space Hulk
• DBA
• Flintlock & Tomahawk
• Dragon Rampant
• Star Wars Miniatures Battles (D6)
• Star Wars Miniatures (WOTC D20)
• D&D Miniatures (WOTC D20)
• Heroscape
• Ravenloft/Wrath of Ashardalon
• Frostgrave
• Lord of the Rings (GW version)
• Warhammer Ancient Battles
• Battletech: Honourable mention. I don't own it any more but I played it a fair bit back in the day.

The thing is, my other skirmish games don't even have official base sizes, largely because it doesn't really matter. If my square base protrudes in such a way to give me better LOS, it also makes me more visible to enemy fire. Smaller bases that let you crowd in for close combat also make you more susceptible to blast weapons. But I'm the kind of guy who'll play Warhammer using non-Citadel figures if they look right, so, I guess I'm just crazy. Now, I am told by some, that the letter of the rules for Warmachine is very strict because it was designed from the ground up to cater to tournaments at a time when there was a scifi/fantasy tournament vacuum. Which is all well and good but we were not playing tournaments, or even playing pickup games in a store. I guess some of my skirmish games might have official bases but you'd have to dig into errata and stuff to even find out what they are.

I'd always seen Warmachine around, but I thought the bases were ugly as sin which partially kept me from bothering with it. One day there was a 50% off sale on all Warmachine so I bought a bunch of stuff, rebased it and painted it for fun thinking I might play it someday with someone. At worst I thought I'd just use the models in other games. It wasn't like I sought this group out and then did something they asked me not to. I met them through a mutual friend. They turned out to be.... not fun people. For example I never once heard them call a hero or squad by its actual name, just sarcastic internet slang for that unit. But when my friend referred to her squads generically as "grunts" or "scrubs" or something they'd get mad. It was bizarrely uptight.

I tried to play an RPG with them too! During character creation the GM kept telling me how my character should or would or couldn't do things. He apparently never went to one of those "Yes, and?" improv classes. It was some kind of World of Darkness game, I forget which one, I think it was Werewolf but we were all humans or something. Anyways he decided to center it around the Catholic church in Anchorage, AK. "Because NO ONE will have been to Alaska so we can do ANYTHING we want in the game!" But if I wanted to take certain advantages/disadvantages for my character the "anything goes" attitude was out the window 😕 In fact, I'd spent quite a couple weeks in Alaska, with a relative who was very active in the Catholic church of Anchorage, no less. But I couldn't say what it was "really like" because this was supposed to be about imagination. Double standards, everywhere I turned!

In the end, it felt like people were attaching undue meaning to the games to make up for something in real life.

1 hour ago, The Hamburglar said:

Maybe I’m reading the wrong organized play document, or perhaps I overlooked a section, but the Legion rules seem clearly restrictive in this regard. Products/components are tied to rules. The only modification/alteration specifically allowed is how a player chooses to paint their models. I’m not saying I agree with adhering to this in practice (this is where giving TO’s the power to decide comes into play), but I’m also not seeing where so many of you are getting that Adepticon’s rules are somehow more restrictive (aside from the painting requirement).

The section on "Component Modification" says what isn't allowed in vague terms ("significant confusion", "significantly alter size, height, or shape") without defining what is "significant." This, in addition with the sentence that starts "Players who have made more than minor alterations" strongly implies that some amount of conversion is allowed.

Additionally, the rules only say you have to use component included in official products, it does NOT state that you can only use components included in the box for that specific unit, technically allowing Proxying/conversions that involve swapping components between two model kits.

As to the Adepticon rules being more restrictive, from their Model Policy which applies to all games: "That means all
units MUST be easily identifiable as the particular choice they represent and that any and all weapons/options taken for a unit MUST be clearly represented on the model(s)." The FFG tournament policy does not mention accurately representing weapons anywhere, while the Adepticon policy indicates that AT-RTs, AT-STs, and T-47s (so far) minis must be accurately representing any hard point upgrades.

It has always been my understanding that WYSIWYG is not just restricted to equipment, it entails accurately represent the game rules pertinent to that model, by having the "correct" uniform, equipment, and weapons. It's the overarching category that often is used to determine whether a conversion is allowed. Using 40k as an example, by your definitions, using a chaos space marine with boltgun to represent a loyalist space marine with boltgun would be Proxying but WYWIYG (since both models have the same equipment and weapons), but since those models have very different aesthetics, someone who sees the model (and is familiar with 40k) goes "that's a chaos marine," so it is not WYSIWYG, since it is not representing a chaos space marine.

Conversion is sometimes undertaken to improve WYSIWYG, other times to "improve aesthetics," but either way the resulting model still either falls under WYSIWYG or not, so I'm not sure why you view it as separate since WYSIWYG often determines whether a resulting conversion is a "Proxy" even if you started with the appropriate mini before cutting and gluing.

7 hours ago, The Hamburglar said:

Maybe I’m reading the wrong organized play document, or perhaps I overlooked a section, but the Legion rules seem clearly restrictive in this regard. Products/components are tied to rules. The only modification/alteration specifically allowed is how a player chooses to paint their models. I’m not saying I agree with adhering to this in practice (this is where giving TO’s the power to decide comes into play), but I’m also not seeing where so many of you are getting that Adepticon’s rules are somehow more restrictive (aside from the painting requirement).

They allow more than that. It's just left unclear how much, exactly. I think it's deliberately unclear to give TO's leeway.

Adepticon's rules are more restrictive in that they require vehicle weapons to be "as modeled". Personally I would not have made that rule, I don't see it as a systemic problem. I may come off as supporting any number of rules which I wouldn't write or enforce myself. It's more that I support the various shows, cons, etc. doing things their way, since they do all the work.

So..... Sorry if you have to buy an extra vehicle to minmax your list at the big gaming con. Since I hate minmaxing anyways, my sympathy only extends so far. I'd never insist on exact weapons on Legion vehicles at home or at the store. But if the Adpeticon rules say so, then, so be it. Their house, their rules. The cost of a new vehicle for Legion is easily give-or-take what your plane ticket to Adepticon could cost if you book it on Tuesday instead of Wednesday, or through this travel website versus that.

I don't really care if my opponent converts the poses or whatever of their figures. There's a term called "modelling to advantage" and it's one of those things where you know it when you see it. Assuming that every modification is "modeling to advantage" is something that is common with a certain type of mindset. The computer and card game crowd hates this kind of "shades of grey" thing, they want everything to conform to nice neat equations. But that's simply not how miniature wargames played on a model field shake out. Different clumps of lichen bushes have different "rules" if you want to get that worried about it. Sometimes you can't fit the movement tool between things without knocking something over or whatever. In sports games with millions of dollars involved, we get bad calls from refs, rain outs, ill-timed injuries, and all kinds of other stuff that can't be calculated for in any one game. That's life.

I think the rules are vague enough to allow people to have actual fun with their models, while allowing TO's to crack down on "modeling to advantage" if and when they see it. I knew a guy at the store who would replace all his 40k tank barrels with very long pieces of plastic tubing. It was calculated, based on the scenarios and deployment zones and stuff, to let him shoot a turn early, basically. After a couple weekends of realizing his whole strategy revolved around bonus-stacking those tanks, and killing off stuff on turn 1 with them, the club leader told him he had to either convert them back, or measure from the front of the hull not the tip of the barrels. They weren't painted or otherwise modified with cool details, so he couldn't exactly claim it was a fun homage to a specific WWI tank or something. And even if they were, it was really affecting game outcomes in a way the lax 40k modeling rules didn't intend. Maybe if he'd have one tank that was heavily modified as a cool toy that would be one thing. But he was running an army that consisted almost entirely of such tanks, it was pretty clear what he was doing and why.

I recall another example from Fantasy gaming. Someone wrote in to White Dwarf about it. A lizardmen player had modeled his Slann Mage Priest (ie, a very powerful spell caster) as sitting on top of a giant hoard of gold, several inches higher than the litter he was supposed to ride on. This allowed him to trace LOS over scenery. GW wrote back, suggesting that he should have to put a gemstone or something in the gold hoard, at the height the model's eyes would have occupied if he was sitting on the litter, and trace LOS to and from that level (or below) for all shooting attacks, spells, etc. Now, people often put scenic bases (akin to the special edition Vader) on heroes back then but no one cared. This particular Slann priest was a clear breach of the spirit of the "reasonable modifications" or whatever FFG calls it.

6 hours ago, TauntaunScout said:

Dunno, probably not gonna find out. The other Warmachine group thought it was fine to use assorted bases. If I'm gona manipulate the game by intentionally positioning a base corner just so, how pathetic am I? I'll put it to you this way: if I cared that much about an advantage, I wouldn't limit myself to painted models only. My "wrong" bases are no advantage at all compared to using the latest netlist proxied via cardboard circles. It's not like we have money bet on these games anyways...

I currently own and at least try to play loads of different games, skirmish and mass combat, from 15mm to whatever Legion is. Let's see if I can remember them all. This does not include RPG's. Or wargames that I just played once a long time ago, or read and then sold without getting around to playing, or something. Though some of these will straddle the line between wargame, boardgame, and RPG.

• SW: Imperial Assault
• SW: Legion (obviously)
• W40k (plus recent skirmish spinoffs like Kill Team)
• WFB
• Kings of War
• Mordheim
• Space Hulk
• DBA
• Flintlock & Tomahawk
• Dragon Rampant
• Star Wars Miniatures Battles (D6)
• Star Wars Miniatures (WOTC D20)
• D&D Miniatures (WOTC D20)
• Heroscape
• Ravenloft/Wrath of Ashardalon
• Frostgrave
• Lord of the Rings (GW version)
• Warhammer Ancient Battles
• Battletech: Honourable mention. I don't own it any more but I played it a fair bit back in the day.

The thing is, my other skirmish games don't even have official base sizes, largely because it doesn't really matter. If my square base protrudes in such a way to give me better LOS, it also makes me more visible to enemy fire. Smaller bases that let you crowd in for close combat also make you more susceptible to blast weapons. But I'm the kind of guy who'll play Warhammer using non-Citadel figures if they look right, so, I guess I'm just crazy. Now, I am told by some, that the letter of the rules for Warmachine is very strict because it was designed from the ground up to cater to tournaments at a time when there was a scifi/fantasy tournament vacuum. Which is all well and good but we were not playing tournaments, or even playing pickup games in a store. I guess some of my skirmish games might have official bases but you'd have to dig into errata and stuff to even find out what they are.

I'd always seen Warmachine around, but I thought the bases were ugly as sin which partially kept me from bothering with it. One day there was a 50% off sale on all Warmachine so I bought a bunch of stuff, rebased it and painted it for fun thinking I might play it someday with someone. At worst I thought I'd just use the models in other games. It wasn't like I sought this group out and then did something they asked me not to. I met them through a mutual friend. They turned out to be.... not fun people. For example I never once heard them call a hero or squad by its actual name, just sarcastic internet slang for that unit. But when my friend referred to her squads generically as "grunts" or "scrubs" or something they'd get mad. It was bizarrely uptight.

I tried to play an RPG with them too! During character creation the GM kept telling me how my character should or would or couldn't do things. He apparently never went to one of those "Yes, and?" improv classes. It was some kind of World of Darkness game, I forget which one, I think it was Werewolf but we were all humans or something. Anyways he decided to center it around the Catholic church in Anchorage, AK. "Because NO ONE will have been to Alaska so we can do ANYTHING we want in the game!" But if I wanted to take certain advantages/disadvantages for my character the "anything goes" attitude was out the window 😕 In fact, I'd spent quite a couple weeks in Alaska, with a relative who was very active in the Catholic church of Anchorage, no less. But I couldn't say what it was "really like" because this was supposed to be about imagination. Double standards, everywhere I turned!

In the end, it felt like people were attaching undue meaning to the games to make up for something in real life.

Heroscape the true GOAT

1 minute ago, Tirion said:

Heroscape the true GOAT

I don't know what that means but my wife was willing to play it. So I played a lot of it.

1 hour ago, TauntaunScout said:

I don't know what that means but my wife was willing to play it. So I played a lot of it.

Greatest Of All Time.

4 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

Greatest Of All Time.

Here I thought it meant that Heroscape ****s its own **** like goats on the farm do!

On Tuesday, February 26, 2019 at 4:49 PM, TauntaunScout said:

Oh it can get way crazier than that. You get THREE blank bases per leader two of which are decoys.

That's without even getting into using maps and a gamemaster to simulate very low visibility. You grid off the table and reference the coordinates when you cross into a new square. The table is "wrong" and the gamemaster has a map of where the terrain features/squares "really" touch borders. You can think you're charging the enemy and wind up across the table from them instead.

Ah, yes. Imperial Entanglements. I still love that book and have recently been perusing it for Legion scenario ideas.