8th Ed. Skink priest model?

[VampTeddy]

=> No, it's a miniature wargaming thing. It's a gentlemanly gamer thing. It's the right thing.

You are not entitled to lay this out as a fact or lay claim to "the right thing".

Nothing can grind my gears as much as people who are "certain" that they figured out the "one right way" to do things. For a guy with "True scholars have more than just one book to study." as your signature YOU MUST be able to appreciate what I am saying here.

=> I understand your points, but largely disagree with them. If I am given a choice to take one of two actions, and one is self-serving at the expense of fairness to my opponent, you can bet I think the _other_ choice is indeed "the right thing."

It's the old Golden Rule thing again.

The Western version is far too self-centered compared to the Eastern.
Western: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Eastern: Do nothing to other that you would not have done to you.

In other words:
Western: Hey, if it's something I like, then I'll do it since I wouldn't mind someone else doing it.
Eastern: Hey, I really wound't want someone to do that to me, so I won't do it to someone else.

Hobby:
Western: I don't mind when someone plays with misleading models, so that's how I will play too.
Eastern: I don't like it when others use the wrong models, so I won't do that to someone else.

Magic items are kept secret, and are not WYSIWYG for the most part. Magic gear that is defined as mundane items (such as glittering scales "light armor", armor of Destiny "Heavy Armor", Charmed shield "Shield". Some much items are defined as mundane weapons, such as a spear or lance.

WYSIWYG, you'd want to have armor/shield/lance/spear as appropriate, but outside of that, it's not required to be modeled.

=> Fer sher. That's the standard minimum, and nobody should fuss as long as that's met. I know I take it upon myself to go even further down the path of being considerate to my opponents, but not everyone does and that's ok.

Forums are great because we can discuss many things, including ideals. Let's take the Cloak:

Ideal - The model has a feathered cloak and so you pay for the Cloak of Feathers or use another model.
Middle - You use that model but don't take the Cloak.
Crappy/Bad Sport/Questionable Intent - You have two skink priests. One model has the feathered cloak and the other does not. The one without the feathered cloak gets the Cloak of Feathers.

You have to question a player that would do the last. Why? Why attempt to deceive? Sure, the rules don't prevent you from doing this, I know, but it says a lot about the character of the player if he does it anyway. I mean, how hard would it be to simply swap the models? You still don't have to confirm who has what, but at least you are not deliberately trying to deceive your opponent.

I would always go to the length, at the start of battle, to tell my opponent what is what if i can't WYSIWYG (the GW example is a golden one here).

This means that i'll tell my opponent when i deploy my hero "this guy "obviously" (ironically offc) has a GW", since i am not currently able to provide a model with a great weapon, i tell my opponent that what he's seeing is actually something else - a courtesy i haven't been met with by my opponents, but i do it nonetheless "what you can see on this model is : etc. etc. etc." with the model range supplied and my current painting progress i have to, to be able to field what i want to field - as an example a skink chief in LA is currently impossible to field - none of them bear light armor, one of the bears a helmet. But my opponent SHOULD be able to see the LA, and so i tell him i have it.

I know it isn't as hard as your route, nor actually as hard as your middle route, but i don't see why it shouldn't be accepted as long as i clarify with my opponent once i deploy my characters!

 

[Sleboda]

I don't want this to sound like an advertisement for my online rant (I make nothing off it it, honest!) but that exact reasoning is covered there.

You're right that it sure does seem like an ok approach. You've told them what something actually is even thought the model is not showing it accurately. To me, that's the absolute bare minimum. I'm with you that I will usually describe what I'm putting on the table as I deploy it. Granted, my usual statement is "30 Saurus - as you see them" (or whatever) because my command models are clearly command models and so on - there's just no mistaking what is in the unit. Still, I do try to at least confirm things.


The reason your method perhaps should "not be accepted" (to answer your implied question) once again comes back to the creation of a playing field that is needlessly no longer level. Maybe it's ok to have one inaccurate model. Maybe your opponent will be able to track that and never lose sight during the course of the game, in critical moments. What about two characters? Three? Three and two units with different weapons? Thee characters, two unit weapon changes, and a proxie of empire knights with lances standing in for your cold ones with hand weapons? Where does it stop? Where is the reasonable breaking point for where a given opponents should be able to keep track of the what the models actually are?

Why should he have to recall even one thing when his army is spot on? How is it fair that one player has taken the burden upon himself to present the right models so that at a glance, at any and all times in the game, the other can see what's what while the other player has placed the burden upon his opponent instead?

I hear folks say all the time "I don't have the model for a great weapon guy..." (or whatever).
They say this and then they say "...so I am going to ask you to remember that this hand weapon and shield guy is actually a great weapon" when instead they should have said "...so I am going to play with this hand weapons and shield guy instead and not use a great weapon for now."

I am honestly perplexed as to why people almost always put themselves ahead of their opponents like this. Maybe that's the summary/lesson here. If it's all just for fun, and it's just a great way to spend time with friends, etc, why is it so important that that model has a great weapon? Why not play the model as it is? Why expect others to give you something when you could just as easily (more easily, actually) take it upon yourself to play with what you have?

I have always suspected that it's because despite what some people say on the surface, they know inside that it's a competition and the great weapon (or whatever) gives them a better chance at the win. We're all playing for fun, but some people are fooling themselves if they think they are not also competing. If the win REALLY didn't matter, and folks REALLY just wanted to play with their awesome-looking models, then it wouldn't matter that they couldn't use a great weapon and had to take hw+sh instead. But that's not what's going on, is it? People want that great weapon because it gives them a better chance to win, and they are willing to expect their opponents to take on a burden they should not have to so that they stand a better chance to win.

 

[VampTeddy]

Why should he have to recall even one thing when his army is spot on? How is it fair that one player has taken the burden upon himself to present the right models so that at a glance, at any and all times in the game, the other can see what's what while the other player has placed the burden upon his opponent instead?

Ah, this is where it breaks.

My gaming group is still painting up, and as such we're for now very precise in telling each other what we have because we don't have a way of having it yet ^^.

I do agree that one should strive to have the actual model at hand, and i am looking at making that happen with every single thing i make! But for now i have to "settle" to be efficient.

That said i do hope once everyone gets their painting finished that we can hold up to decent standards there, and i would, no matter what never bring the wrong model to a fight with an opponent i had not yet faced. Because i want my army to look nice, nifty, and do what it looks like it does. But for me it's more of an aesthetic thing, rather than a rules-core thing.

As long as i let my opponent know, for now, i'm happy, but i plan on making the model so i can be happy about the way it looks too! .

 

[Spiney Norman]

I hear folks say all the time "I don't have the model for a great weapon guy..." (or whatever).
They say this and then they say "...so I am going to ask you to remember that this hand weapon and shield guy is actually a great weapon" when instead they should have said "...so I am going to play with this hand weapons and shield guy instead and not use a great weapon for now."

Equally I can say "why must I go without the most effective weapon combination on my character just because GW have not got around to making a model for it yet?" Someone honestly needs a slap for putting a halberd, hand weapon and spear on the carnosaur sprue but NO GREAT WEAPON, I mean come on, do these people know nothing about how the game works, almost every list I read in the army list forum features Saurus heroes wielding a great weapon, because it exchanges a negligible sacrifice in striking order for a huge increase in damage output.

I do try to fulfil WYSIWYG as far as possible, but sometimes GW just don't make it easy for you. In the case of scar veteran great weapons there hasn't been a model for one since the range was redone for 6th edition. The only thing we have even close to it is the double-headed mace wielded by Chakax, so I took a halberd from the temple guard sprue, cut the end off and glued a second halberd head to the bottom of it, giving me a nasty, massively overstated, double-headed spiky club of doom, that is my great weapon.

In actual fact, even on the Handweapon on the carnosaur sprue the hand grip has space for it to be gripped with two hands, so I certainly wouldn't object to someone telling me that this was their great weapon, and anyone who still uses a 5th edition Kroxigor in their army is counting a halberd as a great weapon anyway. On that subject I would argue that compared to the old 6th ed temple guard, any of the weapons on the current TG sprue could readily be counted as great weapons in the sense that they are a big choppy weapon that requires two hands to use...

I guess what I'm saying is since Lizardmen weapons have hardly been consistent over the last few editions and none of them really look anything like the standard image of a great weapon/halberd where exactly do you draw the line with what a weapon looks like? Can I build my carno lord out of the box with the halberd and call it a great weapon because it is a big two-handed chopper?

 

[Sleboda]

Equally I can say "why must I go without the most effective weapon combination on my character just because GW have not got around to making a model for it yet?" Someone honestly needs a slap for putting a halberd, hand weapon and spear on the carnosaur sprue but NO GREAT WEAPON...

=> Ha! Yeah, I hear ya there, for sure. Still, it's not your opponent's fault is it?

Amusing side story that this made me think of:
At the local GW bunker you are only supposed to play with GW models. I actually understand that. They provide the space for free and want you to buy their stuff. I get it. Still, I wanted my Tomb Kings to have Khatep and a Heirotitan (at the time I thought the Titan was useful). GW does not make models for these, so I bought a Reaper liche and made him into Khatep (the model even has a scroll and staff!) and converted the Crocodile Games Stone Colossus into my Titan. I took both to the store.

The manager said I can't play with them. I told him (in a respectful tone) that I'd be happy as heck to shell out the dollars for the GW kits for those two. If he would take me to the sales floor and sell me them right that moment, I'd buy them.

Oh yeah, that's right, GW doesn't make models for two of the best units in the entire TK book. Idiots.

The manager allowed me to continue using my models.

I do try to fulfil WYSIWYG as far as possible...so I took a halberd from the temple guard sprue, cut the end off and glued a second halberd head to the bottom of it, giving me a nasty, massively overstated, double-headed spiky club of doom, that is my great weapon.

=> Good on ya!

In actual fact, even on the Handweapon on the carnosaur sprue the hand grip has space for it to be gripped with two hands, so I certainly wouldn't object to someone telling me that this was their great weapon

=> That's what I do. I thought it WAS a great weapon.

 

[Didymus]

Dear God Sleboda, you sound like an *ss to play against.. Basicy, what I hear you saying is that if somone isn't willing to spend hours a day making sure every aspect of his army is correctly presented he should stay away from the hobby. It almost sounds like an elitist approach.
I have two painted Skink Priest models, one with the cloak (because he looks awesome (also, he's actually a skink chief, oh noes!) ) and an old one with a steg helm (because he looks awesome). So you're basicly saying that if i have a priest in my list without a steg helm or cloak I should get another model? Yeah, not going to happen. I'll field the model that I like. When I field multiple priests, THEN I'll worry about which model will represent which priest. Like, the cloak guy is the Heavens user and the skull guy the Beast user. If one has a cloak, I'll use that model. But I'm NOT going to leave that model at home if I didn't bring a Cloak.
I converted my Slann so that he's sitting on a rock instead of on a palanquin. Guess I better break it off... Oh, I don't have every model in my army yet so I'll have to use a dozen bases, better stay at home..

To the OP: just take the model that you like best.

 

[PlasmaDavid]

I like the part where Sleboda insists it's only fair and right to model your models as EXACTLY WYSIWYG, and at the same time play with secret lists. So anyone playing you can lean in and inspect your models and know what you're using anyway? So why would you want to play secret lists if you also insist on having completely transparent physical models? It'd be more infuriating to have you standing there tight lipped but assuring me everything is represented on your models than it would be for you to be asking me every turn "What is he armed with?" or "What is his ward save?"

Sounds like a standard issue internet amount of discussion bulldust to me. It's simple sportsmanship and 101 Social Interactions that you help your opponent to have a fun and competitive game by making sure he knows which of your models are which (if you've agreed to an open list game).

It's unreasonable to expect people to only ever play with the same few characters that are represented one-to-one by physical models, in a game where a great deal of fun is to be had by trying hundreds of combinations of items to see what works or makes for interesting situations.

Basically everything you're saying about "forcing the other player to accept your standards" is applicable to your views. You're saying it's unacceptable for someone to force their view onto you, which by default is you trying to force your view onto that someone. : /

I'd laugh and walk off if I went to have a game with someone and they spat the dummy over my Skink Priest with a dispel scroll being a generic GW sculpt that has no scroll modeled on it.

In the same vein I spat the dummy and refused to play the bloke at 40k who hand Chimera models on hand but wanted to use Centaur-tractors as Chimera standins on the table top. Didn't exactly make sense...

 

[Spiney Norman]

I like the part where Sleboda insists it's only fair and right to model your models as EXACTLY WYSIWYG, and at the same time play with secret lists. So anyone playing you can lean in and inspect your models and know what you're using anyway? So why would you want to play secret lists if you also insist on having completely transparent physical models? It'd be more infuriating to have you standing there tight lipped but assuring me everything is represented on your models than it would be for you to be asking me every turn "What is he armed with?" or "What is his ward save?"

I think we all need to take a step back here and stop exaggerating each other's positions, WYSIWYG cannot possibly extend to magic items, there is no definitive picture of what a sword of might/enchanted shield/staff of channeling looks like anyway, but if someone wants to field a character on a magic carpet and has actually gone to the trouble of modeling their character on the carpet, that is AWESOME. I wouldn't mandate wysiwyg for magic items, for example I'd be totally fine if your Saurus was armed with the gold sigil 'halberd' or the 'spear' of might.

What wysiwyg is there to do is stop people trying to deceive others with the way their characters are modelled, so if your cowboy obviously has a hand weapon and shield, dropping the fact that you actually paid for a great weapon when he is about to strike is kind of lame. I also agree with Sleb that its not really on to simply give your opponent a long list of 'counts as' examples at the start of the game, its hard enough for me to remember what I am doing when a game is in progress, without having to hold half a dozen rproxied wargear loadout for your characters as well.

I'd laugh and walk off if I went to have a game with someone and they spat the dummy over my Skink Priest with a dispel scroll being a generic GW sculpt that has no scroll modeled on it.

Again, you're exaggerating what Sleb is saying, if you're going to be that anal about the whole thing then you'd better make sure you have a second skink priest model without a scroll (or at least model the scroll so it is removable) for when your priest has used it.

 

[Sleboda]

Before this spirals even further out of control and the misplaced acrimony becomes even more personal, I would entreat those elevating the heat of the tone to take a moment to consider my actual words, the context in which they sit, and the place I have chosen to express them.

First off, my opinions, strong as they are, were given based on a question by the OP and the initial responses to it that clarified that the topic at hand was WYSIWYG. That is the context - a discussion of the importance of WYSIWYG, which quite naturally flowed into a larger exploration of the idea, including the offering of support for views on both sides.

Next, look at where we are. We are in a Forum on the internet. Forums are meant for discussions, but carry with them some inherent flaws.

First, they allow for anonymity which can embolden those who feel no need to respect those with whom they are engaged in conversation (such as it is). A lack of accountability can easily lead to bad behavior and it is for this reason, among others, that I always choose to use my real name on all forums. Would that others felt the same way I do on this matter. We might enjoy a greater level of civility.

Second, we lose the ability to gauge tone due to the loss of voice inflection and visual cues. This is one reason I make such liberal use of underlines, italics, bold text, quotation marks, parenthesis, and other conventions of writing.. It's not perfect, but it helps mitigate the need to to interpret intent to some degree. Even with that help, it can be easy to view the words of another through the filter of one's own personal experiences and to ascribe meaning or intent that is not present. In worst case situations, this can lead to some participants in a discussion actually adding words and meaning to what someone else posted when the poster never "said" those things. When this happens, the conversation is highly likely to diminish its relevance and can even lead to hostility (which I see happening here). This is unfortunate.

Third, forum discussion lack the immediacy of feedback, the give-and-take, of live conversation. This prevents us from adjusting our tone on the fly and runs the risk of allowing us to 'stew' over words needlessly.

Finally, some people post from phones. I do sometimes. This leads to net-speak, typos, and all sorts of lazy behavior and sloppy execution. I'm not saying that is happening here, but for completeness I've included it as a flaw of Forum communication.

So, considering all of that, we can see that despite the positives of Forums, there are certainly pitfalls, and we should be aware of them so that we can be more productive in the use of this medium.

Lastly, I ask that you consider my actual words. I've talked about how I am discussing ideals. I've also laid out a middle-ground and acknowledged that the rules themselves support a certain level of WYSIWYG and that I, personally strive to go further for my own armies. I've explained my reasons. What have I said is a the heart of my feelings on this matter? Is it a way for me to limit others so I don't have to face certain things? Is it a deliberate attempt to create an elitist mindset that is off-putting to other games? Is it even something I've said I would impose on opponents? No.

What I've said in more than one way is that I am trying to champion the idea that we should be sporting toward our opponents. We should endeavor to do all that we can, even going beyond what is the minimum requirement, if it means we can remove confusion from our opponents while not simply outright giving them an advantage that the rules of the game (and its balances) suggest we should give.

In other words, I've been advocating a mindset that promotes fun, cooperation, and enhanced enjoyment of our hobby.

For this I am told I am an ass, someone unfun to play against. I've had words put into my mouth (fingers?) that I never expressed and then used as a method to attack me and a position I do not hold. I'm not sure that I really deserve this, to be honest.

 

[PlasmaDavid]

In case you didn't realise, you come across as purposely condescending when you feel the need to explain Web Discussion Etiquette For Dummies like that.

I apologies if you think I was intending to be "heated" at you, it's obvious I've just failed to grasp your view on the hobby overall as opposed to just one aspect of it.

(people are bound to end up not getting your message when you post such long and verbose texts, even though the whole idea of using drawn out and specific language is to communicate something BETTER)

 

[Sleboda]

In case you didn't realise, you come across as purposely condescending when you feel the need to explain Web Discussion Etiquette For Dummies like that.

=> I'd like to think that such explanation is unnecessary, but sometimes it feels like it's worth taking a step back to set the stage, so to speak.

I apologies if you think I was intending to be "heated" at you, it's obvious I've just failed to grasp your view on the hobby overall as opposed to just one aspect of it.

=> No problem. I'm not a dwarf. I don't bear grudges.

(people are bound to end up not getting your message when you post such long and verbose texts, even though the whole idea of using drawn out and specific language is to communicate something BETTER)

=> People can always skip long posts, but you are correct that it's ironic that the more you try to explain something, the less people want to hear it.

 

[NexS1]

In my opinion, it should really only be tournaments that restrict models.

Within my group of friends/players, we only play 'friendlies' and we allow substitutes and counts-as etc. as long as they're distinguishable from the other models.
As far as i'm concerned, who cares if the skink priest has a feathered cape, but not the item (or a saurus without a great weapon, or anything else)? The only time it really matters is when you're being marked for unit painting and army building as well as your tactics on-table - as long as the rules of the game are being adhered to, it doesn't bother me or any of my friends.

I think the rule book states somewhere what all models must be 'appropriately armed' which also leaves a little bit of wiggle room if you're playing against particularly pedantic players

 

[Sleboda]

As far as i'm concerned, who cares if ... a saurus without a great weapon...)? ... as long as the rules of the game are being adhered to, it doesn't bother me or any of my friends.

=> A few things:
1) "As far as I'm concerned..." Like I've pointed out when two players game together it's about more than just one of them. You clearly follow the Western Golden Rule.

2) "who cares if...saurus without great weapon" I think it's clear that many people care. Models are, after all, what distinguish these games from games like Chess or ASL where the piece (or chit) truly has no need to look like anything in particular since its rules are not, at all, tied to a variable component.

3) "as long as the rules are being adhered to..." But they are not if you are not equipping the majority of a unit with the correct equipment (not including magic items). Remember, a single model is a unit and thus he must be accurate to be at least half his unit done right.

I'm sure you wouldn't use a skink to represent a carnosaur, right? The appearance of the model and its equipment actually do matter to the game.

 

[NexS1]

=> A few things:
1) "As far as I'm concerned..." Like I've pointed out when two players game together it's about more than just one of them. You clearly follow the Western Golden Rule.

2) "who cares if...saurus without great weapon" I think it's clear that many people care. Models are, after all, what distinguish these games from games like Chess or ASL where the piece (or chit) truly has no need to look like anything in particular since its rules are not, at all, tied to a variable component.

3) "as long as the rules are being adhered to..." But they are not if you are not equipping the majority of a unit with the correct equipment (not including magic items). Remember, a single model is a unit and thus he must be accurate to be at least half his unit done right.

I'm sure you wouldn't use a skink to represent a carnosaur, right? The appearance of the model and its equipment actually do matter to the game.

Perhaps it's the Australian nature to be easygoing, but these things simply don't bother me.
Two things; 1) "Friendly" games are just that - friendly and for fun, 2) the game is played to have fun so we maximise on the 'having fun' portion of it. If that means you have to use 5 spearmen in place of temple guard, or different army knights to make up a few extra cold one cavalry then by all means, go for broke!
Though I would say this is OK for friendly games, tournament games have restrictions and I agree with them. I believe this to be fair.

In regards to your last point... If it has the right sized base then I'm personally not fussed. If someone said to me "I've got a troglodon, but I'd like to sub him in for a scar-vet carno rider" I'd have no problems whatsoever. At the end of the day, it's up to who ever you're playing against and if you were playing against me , I wouldn't care

 

[Didymus]

You seriously can't expect people to have models for every possible combination, that's just insane. Not everyone has the time or money for that. If they DID make the effort, very nice, but it's far from a priority.

I do have to say I find your tone quite insulting, even though you're trying to appear civilised. You make it sounds like everyone who doesn't meet your personal standard is an unmannered peasant who's disgracing the hobby. You talk about being sporting to your opponent, yet find it practically insulting if a character model isn't completely wysiwyg...

A message to the people: if you haven't spent time and money on perfecting your army's presentation, don't be so rude as to show up at Sleboda's door for a game. Go back home and actually finish your army you lazy sod.

 

[Sleboda]

You seriously can't expect people to have models for every possible combination...

=> Nope. Never said that, did I? Don't let that stop you from making it sound like I did, though. It's much more fun to attack what people didn't say than to discuss what they did.

That said, as I've indicated, we do have a choice. If we don't have the model for the thing we want to play, but we do have a different model we could still use, it's certainly much more sporting to build out lists to match the models we have instead of requiring our opponent to fantasize that we own models we don't and build armies around those dreams instead. Again, WE can take it upon ourselves to field what we have rather than asking our opponents to allow us to field what we don't. After all, as our Australian friend has rightly pointed out, it's all about the fun! It should not matter which models we use as long as we are playing our game, so why not simply play with what you have?

I do have to say I find your tone quite insulting, even though you're trying to appear civilised.

=> Soooo, you admit that I have addressed things in a civil manner and yet you STILL prefer to jettison what you have read and what your head tells you it means in favor of having a go at a position which I've never expresses. Nice.

You make it sounds like everyone who doesn't meet your personal standard is an unmannered peasant who's disgracing the hobby.

=> Another thing I never said.

You talk about being sporting to your opponent, yet find it practically insulting if a character model isn't completely wysiwyg...

=> And another.

A message to the people: if you haven't spent time and money on perfecting your army's presentation, don't be so rude as to show up at Sleboda's door for a game. Go back home and actually finish your army you lazy sod.

=> This is laughable and not worthy of any sort of reasoned rebuttal.

So yeah... look! Yet ANOTHER person who has not actually read what I wrote, let alone the later explanation that specifically decries the mis-characterization of my words, and still wants to base an argument on things I never said.

Seriously, if you can't be bothered to read it when people post careful explanations of intent and then go on to make the same hateful blunders that explanation addressed, it's going to be hard to take any position you hold with any seriousness.

In case you missed it, unlike every single other post I've made here, including in this thread, the tone of THIS post was deliberately meant to sound condescending to you. I have no time for lesser people who exist anonymously for no purpose other than to attack.


Please note to all other readers of this post, in no way do I hold the same level of contempt and scorn for you (in fact, I hold none) that I do for this individual.

 

[Didymus]

Your tone implied a lot of things. If it wasn't meant as such, watch your tone.

lesser people .

Screw forum etiquette, you can seriously eat a d*ck now.

 

[Mr Phat]

Sleboda your tone is condescending.
A lot of your statements are in fact your opinion while you act like they are facts.
Your "Online rant" doesn't make the points you think it does. I read the whole thing and it did nothing but state a lot of obviousness and present it through your subjective view ==> it proves nothing.

All of your posts are longer than anyone care to read, so allow me turn your "I choose me over you" logic against you:

If you cared for your reader, and not just your own lust for expression you would shorten it down so other people could actually find the energy to conversate with you.

Your talk of doing "the right thing" and the newly added "lesser people" statement is starting to sound rather fanatic rather than wise (which was my very first impression of you, but that is no longer so)

This whole thing reeks of bigotry and arrogance and it is not suited for forums, no matter how disguised or sophisticated you think it appears.

I will kindly ask you to never respond to my posts or address me further, as I simply don't have the energy for what appears to be a massive cloud of eccentric hot steam.

I will repay that favor as I take it that this message will leave its cold air.

Screw forum etiquette, you can seriously eat a d*ck now.

Admins may count me in on this one. I wont tolerate people raising themselves above others in a public debatting forum either.

 

[Spiney Norman]

Wow, I realise that I'm not a mod here, but seriously, Didymus. Sleb and Phat, you're all way out of line here. This is a discussion forum, if you can't read Sleb's posts about how he prefers to play the game without having a rage episode then why the hell are you even reading an online forum?

This is what we do, we read and make a respectful reply, if you think someone is out of order you report their post to a mod or just walk from the topic, you don't start a personal slanging match (or respond to one that someone else has started).

Personally the standard I set for myself is similar to Sleb's, I try to have all the mundane weapons and wargear visible on the model with the exception of magic items out of respect and convenience for my oppontents. I would say however that I don't hold others to that standard in the sense that I would refuse to play someone who was proxying models within reason. Neither do I consider it disrespectful if you ask me to field proxies against me (though I do like to be asked), its just something that I like to do for my opponents.

Sometimes that comes back to bite me though, I played a game of 40k over Christmas against one of the younger gamers in the club, he's just started 40k and I wanted to give him a fun game, so I brought along my sisters and played a fluffy list with the Canoness, command squad and the works.

He put down his army of space marines, and carefully explained that the squad of backpack-less marines he was deploying were actually Vangard veterans (which normally have jump packs) but he hadn't had a chance to fully assemble their jump packs yet. Fine I said, until later in the game when it comes to positioning my sisters to keep them out of assault and give me enough turns of shooting to put the game to bed. I look across the table and see a squad of marine models with no jump packs, do a little mental maths and position my sister squad 18" away.

Then in his turn the 'vangard veterans' move 12" and I remember our pregame conversation, they assault the sisters, and sweep them for the game...

 

[Sleboda]

Is there a way to report posts? I checked the FAQ for the forum and it said there would be a button, but I don't see a button. I wanted to report the one that instructed me to consume some male anatomy. In the absence of that, I went on the offensive. It's a shame that some others were unable to see that my defense against one particular person was not meant as my normal mode of posting (despite pointing out otherwise).