- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Multiple unit standards in a unit?; for visual purposes | ||
|---|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: 25th October 2012 - 09:33 AM (1,206 Views) | ||
| Deleted User | 28th October 2012 - 02:38 AM Post #16 | |
|
Deleted User
|
ogres used to be in the empire list. This is not that random. if done well they could look great I want to respond to this but it's very tough to understand. was this from an iPad? |
|
|
||
| Lotan | 28th October 2012 - 10:06 AM Post #17 | |
![]()
|
Wow, want to be any more hostile or passive aggressive to a simple modelling post, it wasn't that I "couldn't be arsed" it was the fact I wanted some variance in my units, and to keep the costs down because I wasn't rolling in money. Now if I had just stuck some sprue ruins on a base and one guy, I could see how you could see that as being laziness, But seeing this is was only my second post on these forums and I don't really know anyone, I'll take your snide hostility as being a personality quirk or a bad day, next time, I'd appreciate it if you would either comment with something useful instead of just giving YOUR opinion or just not type, it's not hard. And it wasn't just my opinion but the opinion of most of the people in my gaming group, you do it right and put some conversion work in and you can get some really nice looking fillers in any army. This is my polite response. Edited by Lotan, 28th October 2012 - 10:23 AM.
|
|
![]() |
|
|
| Ratty Gnawtail | 28th October 2012 - 10:34 AM Post #18 | |
|
Totally not a magpie
![]()
|
I disagree with SkavenDan on the point of the use of Ogres, they were very much part of the Empire army list in several of the older editions and moreover the factor of their previous Dogs of War option further backs this up. The Ogres although used for fillers would have to look like they belong in that Empire unit, but I do not see this as a proxy since it can work and can be explained. Now if I were to put a Rat Ogre as a filler in a unit of Tomb Kings, then that would be a proxy unless I could come up with a good enough reason for it being there. Ogres and Halflings are part of the Empire, whether inhabitants or longterm mercenary. Oh and back on topic, I also use an extra standard through not wanting to hack away at the model but also the nice rag tag appearance it gives my units. |
|
|
The (mostly) Complete Works of Ratty Ratty's Short Story Entries Collection | ||
![]() |
|
|
| Lotan | 28th October 2012 - 10:49 AM Post #19 | |
![]()
|
I agree don't get me wrong, I only used ogres because it was Empire, I wouldn't mix other army models together. |
|
![]() |
|
|
| Deleted User | 28th October 2012 - 02:57 PM Post #20 | |
|
Deleted User
|
yeah You did nothing wrong. He posts like that times. he's actually the only person here that keep on ignore for the reasons you summarized. In the past there has been a very vocal minority who have strong hobby opinions that it seems they think should apply to all of us. Issues like unit fillers, dipping, NMM cause lots of debate. I have no problem with debate and opinions but don't try to push your hobby ideas on me. The nice thing about this hobby is that we all get to decide what works for our own army. Good for you if you have a painted empire army that includes good unit fillers. I still haven't seen a fully painted army from the the guy who had a problem with your unit fillers. |
|
|
||
| SkavenDan | 29th October 2012 - 09:30 PM Post #21 | |
|
Doomwheel Fanatic
|
@Lotan I apologies if you took offense at my point but I am sick of seeing unit fillers now. Once upon a time fillers where reasonable and well used to enhance units, it seems now everyone just does it avoid buying models. It's not my intent to intimidate or scare you of I don't check peoples post counts before commenting. I don't think it's acceptable to put MI in infantry units and attempts to justify it with they had ogres in the past how does that help exactly? Chaos used to be all one book shall we put a Blood thirster in a unit of beastmen I could go on having played for 4 editions now. Also the Dogs Of War was a some what rubbish book from the get go. Skinks on cold ones working for cash as mercs (I don't see why they got rid of the skinks on cold ones options either annoys me since I have 10 on a shelf for the last god knows how many years now)........ NO NEVER it has never been resolved and it never will be because the lizardmen do not care for money of any kind. So I don't have an issue with you directly Lotan but you would have to do a pretty amazing job to change my mind about using MI in infantry units. |
|
| ||
![]() |
|
|
| Mutator | 30th October 2012 - 06:02 AM Post #22 | |
![]()
Retired fat dude
![]()
|
I'm a big fan of unit fillers in units. I particularly like ogre-class fillers in standard infantry units. I think it adds to the visual aspect through the display process called "multi-levelling", partcilarly with skaven armies. This wasnt a problem with the likes of, say, elven armies, where you ran the gamut of heights from swarms through infantry, spear-wielding infantry, cavalry then monsters. However, with skaven in previous editions, the only large models we had were the likes of doomwheels, screaming bells etc., so the only real way to achieve some height in your army (so it didnt look like a carpet of low-slung models) was through unit fillers. I used fillers a lot in my old skaven army . Especially when rat ogres were rubbish, and there was no other viable use for the models The same rationale applies with multiple banners in units.Victoria Lamb golden demon night goblins IMHO, some units look *better* with unit fillers. Of course, there are good unit fillers and bad unit fillers. But then, there are good paint jobs and bad paint jobs. So long as the owner/operator is happy ![]() And yes, AFAIK, keeping $$$ down is a perfectly acceptible reason for using fillers. |
|
| Mostly harmless | ||
![]() |
|
|
| Nurglitch IX | 30th October 2012 - 04:04 PM Post #23 | |
|
Avatar by count zero
![]()
|
I'm with you until here. I understand we're playing in a money sink of a hobby, and GW wouldn't know reasonable pricing if it came up and bit them. But Filler to drop $$$ is just another way of saying PROXY, and while that's great in friendly games where you're experimenting with new ideas, once you get to 'competative' levels it really doesn't belong. I'd also wager that if we talked to someone like Skrits or Cap (both of whom have impressed me with the quality of their unit fills), we'd find that on a dollar per base equivalence, their top shelf Unit fillers are actually more expensive than the rats that they're displacing. |
|
|
-img-http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a329/underempire/PRS%20Banners/2hfhshwet.jpg[/img] This Space for Rent | ||
![]() |
|
|
| CapAmr05 | 30th October 2012 - 06:37 PM Post #24 | |
![]() ![]()
|
To the OP; I, personally, would like seeing multiple banners in a unit (it gives the unit more character), provided ofcourse the game-play mechanics are adhered to. If you have multiple banners make sure the "real" unit banner is obvious (in the middle of the unit, the only banner on the front rank, or something like that). I've wanted to have 2 banners accompanying my warlord (they would be painted differently from the unit and would sit in the back so as not to cause confusion) and displacing 2 rank and file models; it would hopefully keep my opponents more on-top of where my general is (because that's one of the most common questions I get while playing, even though he's on a stone pedestal above the unit, and painted way better than everything else). If the warlord ever moved units, his 2 banners would of course move with him (and the models they displaced would return), unless the unit he was moving to had no unit standard; then I'd take them off the board. To the current topic, that (d)evolved to fillers. I like fillers, especially in this edition, because the push to have bigger units (which we can all agree that 8th generally did), usually means less units in an army, which in turn usually means less variety in an army; that's bland to me. Seeing 50 of any model painted with the same color scheme is bland to me, and looks no different than 40 of the same model painted identically (other than the size of the unit, obviously). Once you get to so many of the same model in a unit it starts looking boring, why not break the monotony up with a little flavor? Even an "ugly" filler is at least something else to look at in the unit. I don't think you can really fault someone for trying to save themselves a little bit money (precisely because GW is always trying to find new ways to gouge our pockets books); that strikes me as a little elitist. Just because I can afford something, doesn't mean I should expect someone else to spend as much as I did. I think the major hidden concern is the judged effort put into the filler. You can take a rock and glue it to a 40mm base putting zero hobby hours into it and call it a filler; alternately you can spend loads of money on getting various bits or other models, putting them on a 40mm and spending 20+ hobby hours on getting it to match the unit and call it a filler. Ultimately both are "filler"s but one is going to be more readily acceptable to the gaming community (based on judgement) than the other (I think we can all agree we'd rather see the non-rock filler). That's why I don't think it's a price thing, as much as I think it's an effort thing, which is ultimately debateable and up to personal judgement about what is and is not acceptable. --Cap Edited by CapAmr05, 30th October 2012 - 06:39 PM.
|
|
|
Lonewolf Grand Tournament April 28-30 The Beer Phase Podcast Clan Skrittar | ||
![]() |
|
|
| Mutator | 31st October 2012 - 07:10 AM Post #25 | |
![]()
Retired fat dude
![]()
|
I dont necessarily buy that. I've competed at national level with fillers, and won army appearance prizes with same armies.
I hear ya (and Cap) with regards to fillers often costing more than the models they replace (mine usually, but not always, did) - but it isnt the case of the actual monetary value of the filler, it is usually the case that "I already possess the required filling material, and dont need to spend more to fill that space with RnF" I've also seen some pretty damn nice rocks as fillers at competitive level
|
|
| Mostly harmless | ||
![]() |
|
|
| Jona | 31st October 2012 - 07:19 AM Post #26 | |
|
Warlord
|
I completely agree with Cap on this one. I think in an army it should be clear what is what, but apart from that you really can do anything you want to make it look cool. I personally prefer to not overdo it, and mainly put variation in with little conversions of the rank-and-file models, but as long as it's clear which unit is represented by the models on the table all is fine. And cutting down costs is for me a very good reason to make them. It would be a shame if one can't play this game just because he/she isn't able to pay for it, while with a little creativity you can often make something which looks almost as good and costs way less. I personally find an army with beatiful army fillers and painted well to be much more of a tribute to this hobby than an army which uses all correct models but painted in a hurry. |
|
|
Attempts at interclannal cooperation - a Skaven army log Puppet Wars Unstitched | ||
![]() |
|
|
| Deleted User | 31st October 2012 - 01:44 PM Post #27 | |
|
Deleted User
|
Again, this goes back to how they look. Money saving unit fillers are totally acceptable at any level of play for me as long as they are creative and look good. I could see someone having an issue if you used a giant rock to represent a bunch of slaves or something, but a well done money saving unit filler is okay in my book. This almost leads down the road of saying that armies that are not painted well should not be allowed in competitive play. ugh I should have read this before posting. My posts is a bit redundant now. It's a fact that you have to have some level of extra income to be in this hobby, but I think most of us can agree that GW has increased the prices to a pretty brutal level. I don't like the idea of discouraging unit fillers for high levels of play. That would make this game feel more like a collectable card game. In those types of games whoever had the most money could buy the best (rare) cards and would most likely have a better chance of winning. That shouldn't be warhammer. I also support the idea of mixing up the looks of units, now that 8th edition encourages giant sized hordes. Honestly, a Skaven army using the new plastic models can be extremely boring to look at if it doesn't use any creative unit fillers. The slaves and clanrats look the same and there is no height difference. It's very bland looking most of the time. But Cap is totally correct in my opinion. It's all based on effort. |
|
|
||
| « Previous Topic · Skaven Painting and Hobby · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2




specially in an Empire army.







The same rationale applies with multiple banners in units.
