PlasmaDavid said:
It just comes down to common sense, trust and transparency TBH.
=> I took out the bit on common sense since there truly is no such thing (being as it is colored by world view, economics, upbringing, culture, etc etc etc), but the rest is right.
I understand that some may not want to take it to the extremes that I prefer (and yes, I do sometimes go so far as to paint stuff like "follow me" on a helmet for a model with the crown of command or paint the Latin for "dispel scroll" on parchment on models that take one - at least back when I used to use dispel scrolls, and if my character has a mundane weapon you can damn well bet I won't use a model that has its sword painted all glowing green or flaming red). I get it. Still, there's no reason a player should field a model that generates mental associations that are not actually there. That's why I used the Cloak example. If you have the feathered cloak priest model on the table, and the book has a well-known item called the Cloak of Feathers, then that model should have that item.
It's not a ring, or a scroll, or an amulet. it's a prominent, usually brightly-colored, feature on the model - a feature that _easily_ can trigger associations.
As to showing your list upon demand...no. I won't show mine as there is no rule, at all, that instructs me to do so and the ability to maintain secrets is part of this game. Why else would there be spells/items that reveal the presence of items or hidden models? It's also, while we're at it, an advantage that normal characters have over Special Characters. Have you (not you, PlasmaDavid - this latter bit has been a more general response) never played a game where there opponent is faced with a choice between attacking your troops or your character and opts to attack your troops because he assumes the character is well defensed? I have. Please don't tell me that you tell your opponents what wards and the like your (non-special) character has before he decides where to attack. That removes a great deal of the fun of the game if you do.
Anyway, I really don't want to repeat my entire online rant here, but I can tell from some of the responses here that it's not getting read before posting. That's ok. It's long and nobody can force you to read it, but it really does address many of the counters people seem to want to use.
phat... said:
Could all those who are in favor of "complete WYSIWYG" please redirect me to the page where I can buy and oldblood/scarvet on an Arabyan Carpet?
=> This is more than a game. It's a hobby. If one is not prepared to explore that hobby and just treat the game as the full extent of the experience, I might suggest that other games are far superior and require no hobby commitment at all.
As to the carpet, I have yet to play against anyone - it literally has never happened to me - that took the carpet and did not model it in some way. For my own part, I have used the Cloak of the Dunes in my Tomb Kings army and built a model of a djinn with his lower half being made up of swirling sand so that it was clear what he has. I am not perfect on this, but I really do try hard to practice what I preach in this.
Oh, also, @Tlaloc, I get you. If you and your opponents are all on the same page about using paper, chits, or other stand-ins, then great. You are all on equally confusing footing. One key element of my disdain for counts-as stuff is that when only one player does it, he gets an advantage. That advantage is rendered largely meaningless when both players do it. The truth is, even with my current Lizards I am struggling to get all the right models out there. I had to use a terradon rider instead of a ripper rider for a few games while I was getting and building the ripper. The thing is, my Dark Elf opponent is in my same boat - we are both starting new armies and agreed to be loose as we build. We are on the same footing. We are both making progress each week as we learn our armies and will soon have fully accurate models for all units (mine is there now, actually).
EDIT:
phat... said:
no you shouldn't use a Steam tank for a Wyvern with a boss on it, but yes you should be able to run a Scar-vet on a cold one with a GW even though the model has handweapon and shield.
=> A lot of your examples I get, but not that last one. Surely basic weapons and things like shields should be accurate, right? There's a BIG difference between +2S ASL and +1 armor save. That
will impact what I send at that enemy and the rules even support having the right basic equipment on a unit.
Dont spoil the game by nitpicking this kind of thing
=> How about don't spoil the game by using incorrect models and expecting your opponent to be ok with it?
Surely most of you have the brain-capacity to remember the details anyway
=> Irrelevant. One player should not impose an additional level of stuff to track on the other player. It's incumbent upon BOTH players to make the game accessible within the bounds of the rules and fair competition as possible. Which brings me to...
This is a strategy game, sure, but before that it is a hobby where people like to have fun painting, getting a personal expression on their models and then playing THEIR army.
=> ...aaaaand there it is. The 99% predictable outcome of conversations like this. Here, let me re-phrase it for you:
"It's my army, my hobby, and my game. If you don't like the way I do it, then go away."
You see, the problem here is this. It IS your army. It IS your hobby.
But it's OUR game.
You can do whatever you want at home, on your hobby table, and in your display cabinets. When you show up for the part of this hobby that involves the game, however, it ceases to be about you. It's about us. At the point where we play a game, we enter into a cooperative venture. If you are placing your desire for the use of inaccurate models over my desire for following the rules and seeking a clear, unconfusing, non-deceptive mutual gaming experience, then you have indeed gone astray.
It's form over function. MY fun over OUR game.
Folks who find themselves using "my army, my game, my fun" often (as in, pretty much always) conveniently ignore their opponent's reasonable expectation that THEIR fun is important as well. When to versions of fun come into conflict during a game, the sensible course of action is to defer to whichever version does not impose on the other or leave out rules.
After all, it may be fun for me to re-position a badly placed unit three turns into the game by simply picking it up and moving it three feet to the right. Surely others could understand that I don't want my beautifully painted unit to get killed so soon and would not mind me tossing out the rules and/or intrinsically competitive nature of the game so that my models could be pleasing to me for longer, right?