The Unholy Trinity of Evil in Warhammer

In a different thread Sleboda posted this:

So, here they are:

Sleboda's Unholy Trinity of Evil in Warhammer
1) Counts As. This includes both unit filler and proxies.
2) Non-metallic metallic paint jobs.
3) Comp/get permission/house rules/"I know how they meant the rule to be"


1 & 3 I can understand (without agreeing entirely) but #2 is a puzzlement.

To start the discussion: why is Non-Metallic Metal (NMM) a bad thing? (I can't do it, at all.) But, why is it bad?

 

NMM is not a bad thing at all. That is just Sleboda's personal opinion, which he is fully entitled to. I don't think there is a good or bad when it comes to personal aesthetics. Is a red Skink bad? Or a blue Slann? It all boils down to personal preference. What styles/colours we like and dislike are very personal to each of us. I like NMM; my only regret is that a lack skill level required to pull it off. Otherwise I would definitely use it within my army.

I actually believe that unit fillers that are well thought out and executed add to the aesthetic appeal of a unit. I have made a few myself for my WoC army.

Proxies are okay as long as they are not taken overboard and are used only for short term purposes (play-testing units that you don't own). As long as your opponent can easily identify each of your units, I don't see it as an issue.

Comp/get permission/house rules are all okay as long as everyone is in agreement. If everyone is in agreement before the start of the game, any rule can be happily added, omitted or altered as they see fit.

As far as "I know how they meant the rule to be" that boils down to RAW vs. RAI. I'm not a fan of pure mindless adherence to RAW, especially when it is blatantly obvious that the individual is trying to rules-lawyer themselves into an undeserved unfair advantage. I think a little commonsense is essential in the interpretation of the rules. RAW is hardly as unbiased as some people believe it to be. There are countless examples of rules that people interpret in opposite ways using RAW. (predatory fighter)


At the end of the day however, I believe that each of these are purely subjective in nature.


Here is my personal version of the Unholy Trinity of Evil in Warhammer:

1. Lack of ERRATA/FAQ support
2. GW's prices
3. The End Times

 

Same here regarding skill level. I am neither fan ('cause I doubt I can do it) nor foe of it ('cause it looks OK). I am just genuinely curious why @Sleboda disliked it enough to make it numero 2.

 

Because...


I'm kidding of course! Not to be taken seriously.

 

Another reason for me not to play in tournaments. Who judges the paint score and why would well executed NMM be docked?

 

I commented on the "Unholy Trinity" in the original thread, but I didn't want to clutter it up with my futuristic round based filth so I'll take the opportunity to elaborate here!

Sleboda's Unholy Trinity of Evil in Warhammer
1) Counts As. This includes both unit filler and proxies.
Arguments for and against this have been done to death with heavy casualties on all sides. For me this breaks down into several different components.

a) Substitution (aka Subbing). In my circle we use the term "subbing" to refer to temporarily using one model or object as another model, either for play testing new lists, units or equipment, or because we haven't completed the actual model. Generally I'm ok with this as long as the person doing the subbing has the intention of fielding the appropriate unit, or if it's only short term (2-3 games). About 5 years back when I started getting back in to the 40k hobby I had friends who were TERRIBLE with subbing. There was an Ork player who would use his actual Ork Boyz as his elites choices and a hodgepodge of my old broken Tyranids and Chaos Space Marines as Ork Boyz, and a variety of old Chaos vehicles as basically whatever Ork vehicle he felt like fielding that day. Another friend from that same group used stock standard Space Marines (also my old models!) as Grey Knights and an egg carton as a landraider (the infamous egg-raider). This was all well and good when we started up, but after a few months it became clear that neither of them had any intent on fielding proper armies which was a massive de-motivator for me having put in the money, time and effort to actually buy, assemble and (mostly) paint my army. To this day subbing leaves a bad taste in my mouth and I refuse to do it myself.

b) Counts-as units Not to be confused with subbing - this is using non-standard models to represent a normal unit on a permanent basis. For example using imperial guardsmen with pulse rifles as Fire Warriors in a Tau army, or in my case a unit of Dark Angels Veterans as Chosen Marines in my Chaos army. This also extends to using non-GW models, such as Mantic's Forgefathers as Space Marines units. In these cases I have absolutely no problem with Counts-as if the unit they're representing is easily identifiable as what they're supposed to be. Lets use my Dark Angels/Chosen as an example - I modelled them with the appropriate equipment for their unit's rules and gave them a few Chaosy bits to differentiate them from normal Dark Angels. I used the Cypher model as their unit champion equipped with bolt pistol, plasma pistol and power sword - a fairly silly combo but one matching the model. This was all pre-dataslates in 5th edition, and nobody questioned it. I think the key is to be reasonable and to not be confusing.

c) Counts-as armies When someone uses a different codex/army book to what their army actually is. The only instances of this I've actually come across is someone who was using the Blood Angels rules for their Chaos Space Marines army, and someone using Grey Knights as Chaos Space Marines, but I have heard of other. This is a massive grey area for me and here's why - motivation. Why are you using rules X for army Y? Is it because you done up a cool Night Lords army back in 3rd edition and you want to represent your super-fast jump pack army using a current ruleset (the Blood Angels example), or is it because a new book came out that is "stronger" than yours and you want to use a better ruleset without investing in the army? The former I can agree with, as long as your primary goal is to have a thematic army. Want a World Eaters army that's a bit more than a Khorne lord and a bunch of Berzerkers? Space Wolves could suit, I'm cool with that. Are your Dark Angels being beaten by Space Wolves so you just appropriate the Space Wolves rules without taking models/background etc into consideration? No, I don't like it.

2) Non-metallic metallic paint jobs.
I don't get why this is here other than not liking the style. Perhaps the opposition to Non Metallic Metal comes from a competitive painting perspective?Maybe in some areas and events where paint scores are important then this technique might get a disproportionately high score in comparison to models that aren't painted with this technique but are comparable or superior in overall appearance? I don't know. I'm so used to playing against grey plastic, basecoats and egg cartons I'm just happy to play against painted models (which thankfully my regular opponents have in spades!).

3) Comp/get permission/house rules/"I know how they meant the rule to be"
This is another one I have to break down into several parts

a) Comp I've got no real experience with comp. The closest thing to comp was when I submitted a list for a tournament the TO said something that equates to "You're spamming a lot of X, but the rest of your list is pretty bad so I'll allow it". In theory I think it's a good idea in a hyper-competitive environment to prevent obvious choices from being... well obvious, and giving advantage over other players purely based on the rules of one or two things, but on the flip side I think you should be able to make your army using whatever models you want.

b) Minor house rules This includes things like small tweaks to the rules (bringing back area terrain, changing line of sight criteria etc), custom missions and other such things. Essentially just modifications to existing rules, or homebrew FAQ for things that pop up in game that have an otherwise over complicated answer or no answer at all. I'm all for this, and actually do it all the time. It's become so ingrained in me that I'll unknowingly use "my" version of the rules in outside games. So yeah, I approve but I also think if you're doing this you have to be VERY self aware and make sure you're not unwittingly imposing your own version of the rules on other people or just flat out teaching people wrong (which I'm pretty terrible with!).

c) Major house rules Creating new rules for characters, units, armies or the game in general. I'm also a fan of this but it's got to be in the right environment. I'm not going to expect people to be super cool with my custom rules for a Necron/Admech hybrid army led by the super powerful Void Dragon C'Tan, but my friends might be happy to play against it once or twice. Likewise, when I'm at a tournament I don't want someone to try and push their custom-made Space Marines Chapter Tactics rules for their army, or someone say "I put an assault cannon on my bike captain but I added like 20pts so it's fair right?".

d) Changing rules to match the fluff Things like "true-to-fluff" space marines where each model is S5 T5 with a 2+ armour save. Yes I know that in the background a 5 man unit of Space Marines can kill approximately all the traitors in a city, or that an Eldar aspect warrior is too agile to be harmed by pesky bullets and swords, but the rules as written do a pretty damn good job of matching the background for the most part.

Phew that's my brain splattered into the internet for now. Hope my rant isn't too boring/pretentious/preachy.

Cheers!

 

@Fhanados : Great write up, I agree with just about all your points. For the "I know how they meant the rule to be" section, I think RAW vs RAI should be discussed as well. For instance, according to RAW Tiktaq'to can not join a unit of Terradons, but according to RAI it is blatantly obvious that he can. How do you feel about this?

Hahaha . Look at all the great memories that the egg-raider has provided you!!!

 

This list does not work for me.

1. Yeah, i can think of hundreds of bad examples of "proxies" and "count as". The worst example was probably a guy buying a wyvern/dragon (or something like that) ripping open the box and tossing a single body part on the table and claiming this counts as a wyvern. I have also seen an nurgle insect army (used at the big ETC tournament) that consisted of some plastic toys slapped onto warhammer bases.

On the other hand, there is also this!!! A full bretonian army using goblins.
And (for me atleast) this single example simply proves that it is not "count as" or "proxies" that are bad, it is the excecution and the reasons behind it that counts.


Unit fillers can also be done wrong or right. But in general i dont have an issue with them. A single skink/goblin on a 10x10 base is wrong. However, the ranking up issues of many models, the ever increasing unit sizes and ever increasing prices have made this a rather logical step. And it can really add some character to armies.



2. About the NMM....that is just a matter of taste, so i dont really understand why this is in the list.
There are other things about painting that do annoy me, and i could put that on my personal unholy trinity list.
First there is ppl who dont paint at all. I dont have issues with using unpainted models (I am a slow painter so i do this as well), but I am talking about ppl who really dont paint. Cause in that case you could just as well move empty movement trays, or something like that.
Secondly, it is the total opposite of the painting spectrum. Where people set such rediculous high standards, and look down upon anyone for what ever reason not reaching that level. Actually, it is not even those highly talented painters themselves who have a nasty attitude, but you probably know what i mean. And for this reason i also hate paint scores for tournaments, because people tend to be totally unreasonable when it comes to painting.


3 about house rules......if GW stops making renaissance style canons with a higher accuracy than modern day sniper rifles i will stop using house rules.
"the i know what they ment the rule to be".....yeah, i agree, but again, when GW figures out how to write rules clearly this will automatically stop.

Comp...i dont know...both good and bad. Again, more playtesting by GW and less Matt Ward and there will be no more comp.



Anyway my unholy trinity would be somehting like this.
1. Power creep
2. Scale creep
3 Unclear rule writing.

 

That's a good list... I can't argue with any of that.

 

I never got this. Joining a unit of terradons is pretty much written between the lines of one of his special rules, even if its not generally the case.
All Terradons in Tiktaq'to's unit use his Weapon Skill instead of their own.
I never field special character, totally cool with any one not wanting me to field a skink chief on ripper in a ripper unit (Even though that rule still is bonkers), but when it sort of says he is suppose to join a unit, it just a matter of the rule being written after the army book or no one thought about this special character obvious rule mash up.

My unholy trinity
1. Lack of balancing armies
2. Lack of FAQ and general updates from GW on rules that confuse people (See above)
3. The troglodon.... (Also maybe, could we start getting dinosaurs without the "don" at the end of their name, it means tooth; troglotooth (Uglytooth)? Terratooth (Earthtooth)? Stegatooth (Roofedtooth)?)

 

And there in lies the problem with RAW. If someone considers only RAW, then there is no rule in our armybook that overrules the BRB's rule which prohibits characters joining flying units. The RAI is clear as day in this situation, we know that he is meant to be able to join a unit of terradons (though in most cases it won't be this transparent). Hence you have a RAW vs RAI contradiction. I've always felt that commonsense needs to be used when interpreting the rules.

 

What's wrong with DON!!?? (read in Italian accent).

 

I'm guessing comp = comp rules? I don't really involve myself in tournament circles...

 

There is one important angle on this one. Only one. NMM can only be viewed from one angle, otherwise it looks wrong. Perfect for glossy magazines, odd on the table top.

I went looking for an example and did NOT expect to find this thread - do not read unless you like grownups who play with toy soldiers at each other's throats and needing moderation. It's kind of OK because they collect Skaven.

I have plucked this one exquisite image to show @Sleboda 's point. Do not ask him directly about it. Do not make eye contact. Pretend you only own metallic paints.

Nurglitch IX posted this as an example of NMM's fatal flaw (on the Underempire site.)

Here is an AMAZING Non-metallic Metal mini. Look at how nice teh horizon looks in the reflection of that shiny metal barrel.


Now explain to me why the world is tilting....

Changing the position of the "light source", "horizon" or viewing angle breaks the illusion. I suspect the better the job of NMM or zenithal lighting, the less it can be practically displayed.

 

Tbf, modelling is built on 'illusion' insofar as it builds the character of your model: you're making them to have a place within your own imagined reality. If you want to start picking away at the illusion breaking for NMM when the horizon tilts then all other illusions break-away too. I don't think it's a fair example but I see your point. Plus, no item is *that* shiny - the cannon above makes it looks like a chocolate wrapper. I don't mind it so much on small objects however - it can perform a similar function as feature colours or highlight a magical aspect. Items such as blades are often small enough (plus fairly mobile) that it isn't an eyesore.

 

Check out this shiny dog.

You will not be able to tickle its tummy.


Fun Fact: If you NMM a mirror finish onto one of your minis, and you stand a Vampire Counts mini beside it, THE VC MINI WILL NOT CAST A REFLECTION.

Try it, if you don't believe me.

 

I can try

 

+1

 

I read about a page and a half of the thread. The best line I got out of it is...

"I feel like a few people care way too much what other people do with their paints and toys."



If someone does not like NMM then luckily they are under no obligation to use the technique.