PDA

View Full Version : marks



sqri
25-09-2005, 08:10
Hi

Do I have to tell my opponent what kind of marks my units (LM army) have before starting battle? Or maybe they are treated like magic items?

Second question. An unit with hero wins combat and the enemy flees. Can the lonely hero pursue and the unit restrain?

Festus
25-09-2005, 10:51
Hi

1st
IMNSHO Marks are visible, as the unit is marked by its patron god, often associated with a special color / colors.
So you should have to point out any marks as long as they are not modelled and thus obvious anyway (as they should be BTW: We are playing a game of miniatures mainly, so they should be representative of the forces used).

2nd:
If the Hero was part of the unit (ie. joined and charged with the unit), then he can not separate in the pursit move, as he is still part of the unit until he chooses to leave them (which he can d no sooner than the next Movementphase).
If he charged on his own, he cannot join during cc, so you have two seperate units fighting (the troops and the character), which both may test to restrain from pursuit separately.

Greetings
Festus

Atrahasis
25-09-2005, 12:36
IMNSHO Marks are visible, as the unit is marked by its patron god, often associated with a special color / colors.
So you should have to point out any marks as long as they are not modelled and thus obvious anyway (as they should be BTW: We are playing a game of miniatures mainly, so they should be representative of the forces used).

But would the enemy know what the various colours represent? Do they have an "Encyclopaedia of the Old Ones" tucked in their knapsack to refer to?

Rules shouldn't stretch to the point where they command my choice of colour scheme.

sqri
25-09-2005, 12:53
Hi

1st
IMNSHO Marks are visible, as the unit is marked by its patron god, often associated with a special color / colors.
So you should have to point out any marks as long as they are not modelled and thus obvious anyway (as they should be BTW: We are playing a game of miniatures mainly, so they should be representative of the forces used).What about characters? Oldblood with 3 marks = rainbow? ;)


2nd:
If the Hero was part of the unit (ie. joined and charged with the unit), then he can not separate in the pursit move, as he is still part of the unit until he chooses to leave them (which he can d no sooner than the next Movementphase).
If he charged on his own, he cannot join during cc, so you have two seperate units fighting (the troops and the character), which both may test to restrain from pursuit separately.

Greetings
Festus
What if a character was frenzied and the unit wasn't?

Festus
25-09-2005, 13:37
Hi

But would the enemy know what the various colours represent? Do they have an "Encyclopaedia of the Old Ones" tucked in their knapsack to refer to?

Rules shouldn't stretch to the point where they command my choice of colour scheme.
Well, i don't want to have that argument again.
If you don't think that marks should be modelled, then any old dagger or picklock might as well be a great weapon :(

Never mind me when playing your game...

To the other point:


What if a character was frenzied and the unit wasn't?

Basically this doesn't make a difference in the pursuit part, although the character will be compelled to charge.
If they are in the same unit, things get complicated though:

By first reading it seems that the character has to pursue and the unit can choose to test against it.

But this is not the case:

As the BRB points out (p. 96), a character can only leave a unit in the movement phase and in any case has to wait until a cc is over, including any flee, pursuit, and overrun moves.

So a character cannot pursue on his own if he is part of a unit during a h-t-h-phase. Whatever his psychological status.

Greetings
Festus

Atrahasis
25-09-2005, 14:23
Well, i don't want to have that argument again.
If you don't think that marks should be modelled, then any old dagger or picklock might as well be a great weapon :(

That's quite different. A (mundane) dagger can never have the weight and leverage required to provide the bonus Strength granted by a GW.

However, I can Mark my Lizards/Followers of Chaos as being blessed by an obscure God of my own design, but use the standard rules for Sotek/Tzeentch/Whoever to represent the effects of that blessing.

It should be apparent that the unit IS marked, but the colour/appearance of the mark should not be proscribed. (An analogy might be to say that a huge hammer is not a GW because it is painted brown rather than silver).

randomguy
27-09-2005, 10:50
It should be apparent that the unit IS marked, but the colour/appearance of the mark should not be proscribed. (An analogy might be to say that a huge hammer is not a GW because it is painted brown rather than silver).

then i can say my bright pink chaos warriors are marked but you dont know which god they are?
i look at it as being a part of WYSIWIG. "yes they are marked by___."

Atrahasis
27-09-2005, 10:52
then i can say my bright pink chaos warriors are marked but you dont know which god they are?
i look at it as being a part of WYSIWIG. "yes they are marked by___."

I'll know as soon as that mark has an effect on the game.

Nekharoth
28-09-2005, 08:36
It should be apparent that the unit IS marked, but the colour/appearance of the mark should not be proscribed. (An analogy might be to say that a huge hammer is not a GW because it is painted brown rather than silver).

hmm... by that logic it would be permissable to have a unit of red and brass painted chaos warriors with the mark of tzeentch - which i would consider to be *really* going out of the way to confuse your opponent.
that is admittedly an extreme example, but you need to draw the line somewhere, and the rules don't specifically cover how you should/shouldn't paint your army.

to my way of thinking, khorne chaos warriors should be black, red and brass with loads of skulls and a big khorne rune on their banner. to do otherwise would be unsportsmanlike and against the spirit of the game, even if not specifically against the rules. i can only say that i think a similar way of thinking should be applied to lizardmen, though i am not totally familiar with the various marks available to them.

but back to the original point - yes, you do have to declare to your opponent what marks units and characters have.

devolutionary
28-09-2005, 11:15
Good god, are there so many unsporting folks out there? You want to hide your marks of Chaos? I mean, hiding some weapons or soldiers amongst the ranks is one thing, that's considered strategic. Simply masking your mark of chaos to throw off your opponent? Nah, not cool. Considering the opposing army would note what the other army acts like (each God's army has a rather unique set of traditions and hobbies), hiding it is pointless.

MarcoPollo
29-09-2005, 18:32
I think it is slightly different with the Lizard marks versus the Chaos marks. For instance, the Chaos Marks have been with the warhammer world since the beginning of the game almost. While the Lizard marks just recently appeared. I don't know about you but I think it is a little bit of a waste of money and time to re-paint 40+ suarus wariors to fit a certain mark. Atleast, my old chaos wariors are already painted the way I want. So for Lizzie, I can see a bit of stretching of the WYSIWYG with regards to color.

But to be fair, yes WYSIWYG, is important and I think that units should resemble what you have on your army sheet. If I see Hw/shield then I will expect Hw. sheild. However, there are no good Great weapons in the chaos line (for instance), so using a halberd to represent this on a character is not so bad. It is however, courteous to inform your opponent of such things.

Personally, sticking to the letter of the law may be what dealers at GW may wish so that you buy models for each type. This is however, a blatant money grab especially when one edition's models will not resemble the next (skinks with bows for example). So in such situations I will use my bows as blow pipes because there is no sense in me wasting the money and time to repaint all the skinks I need for my Lizzie army. If someone is going to fuss like a baby due to the fact, then so be it. I will not play such a person.

Gyulkus Chaos Saurus
30-09-2005, 00:50
umm, what was the point of this post? just a rant? for saurus warrior marks, GWs colors are just a "suggestion", you dont have to use it. and not too many people actually knwo what teh colors are, so just paint them whatever you want. thats what i do.

NakedFisherman
30-09-2005, 02:40
umm, what was the point of this post? just a rant? for saurus warrior marks, GWs colors are just a "suggestion", you dont have to use it. and not too many people actually knwo what teh colors are, so just paint them whatever you want. thats what i do.

How are they 'just a suggestion'? Stop being lazy and paint them properly. :P

Nekharoth
30-09-2005, 03:56
I think it is slightly different with the Lizard marks versus the Chaos marks. For instance, the Chaos Marks have been with the warhammer world since the beginning of the game almost. While the Lizard marks just recently appeared. I don't know about you but I think it is a little bit of a waste of money and time to re-paint 40+ suarus wariors to fit a certain mark. Atleast, my old chaos wariors are already painted the way I want. So for Lizzie, I can see a bit of stretching of the WYSIWYG with regards to color.

i don't see that the newness of the LM marks excuses players from accurately representing them on the battlefield. the only exception i can see here is for players who routinely field the same unit with different marks in different games. as you mentioned, it would be a waste of money to have one unit painted up for each mark that you use. probably the best suggestion i can thing of is to paint the unit whatever colour you like, and have a standard bearer with an interchangable banner (most box sets come with at least 2, so this is easy). each banner would be painted in the appropriate colour with the relevant glyph for the mark that the unit is using.

things like magic items, banners, fanatics and assassins are supposed to give your opponent a nasty surprise in the game, marks are not. they should be considered in the same way as weapon upgrades, and as such they should be visable and obvious to your opponent. the same goes for other similar upgrades like dwarf longbeards (as they are now a 3 pt/model upgrades for clansmen). fielding basic clansmen and just calling them longbeards is lame and deceptive. they should be exactly what they are supposed to be. dwarves. with long beards. i would even go so far as to say the same applies for chaos chosen. they should be modelled/painted in such a way that they stand out from ordinary chaos warrior units. they should *actually* look like they are the chosen of the gods.


However, there are no good Great weapons in the chaos line (for instance), so using a halberd to represent this on a character is not so bad.

true, but even so, that is very easy conversion to make for a unit of troops. anyone with the most basic modelling skills (ie. most wargamers) could do that.

Ganymede
30-09-2005, 04:50
Whenever you field a pegasus mounted bretonian duke, a regiment of chaos warriors, or a unit of marked saurus, you should always point out the Vow, Mark, and Spawning they have as soon as they are deployed. you should be saying this as soon as you set the unit down, "Chaos warriors, heavy armor and a halbered, mark of khorne." or "Duke, grail vow".

Nekharoth
30-09-2005, 05:14
^ true, but the point was more that your regiment should visually indicate the presence of marks, spawnings, etc.

it's all well and good to explain to your opponent at the beginning of a game that your pink-painted, hand-weapon-and-shield-armed chaos warriors are *actually* chosen chaos warriors of khorne with great weapons. but to my way of thinking, that is both against the spirit of the game and somewhat deceptive. forcing your opponent to memorise an uneccesary plethora of "counts as" rules and model substitutions is not part of a game of warhammer.

devolutionary
30-09-2005, 05:44
I agree with Nekharoth. They should reflect the Mark, UNLESS it's using the whole "counts as" issue, which is legit provided they dont slap down the exmaple pink khorne unit. That's taking to too far.

Really this debate could fly back and forth for months with no resolution. Ultimately it comes down to this - Either make it clear or have nice justification... or be known as a sneaky git and get scorn for a microscopic difference in a game of toy soldiers. I know what I'd rather have to my name :p

Nekharoth
30-09-2005, 15:51
for the record:

i don't have an issue with the "counts as" rule, as long as it is used for it's intended purpose - ie. models which haven't been released yet, or older models which have had their options, etc. changed in a newer version of their armies book. i think it's also permissable in themed armies for 'fluff' reasons, but shoild be kept within reason. furthermore, i think it should be mandatory to use proxy models when GW releases such abyssmally cr*p models as the chaos furies. :p

secondly, i have never *actually* seen anyone use the aforementioned pretty pink Khorne chaos warriors. they were just a suitably OTT example for me to use to make my point. ;)

Ganymede
30-09-2005, 17:17
^ true, but the point was more that your regiment should visually indicate the presence of marks, spawnings, etc.


Marks and spawnings should be readily apparent to your opponent. They can be so apparent with appropriatte painting and modelling, or they can be apparent by carefully explaining their mark or spawning to your opponent.

In other words, Sotek marked lizards do not need to be covered with red scales, but your opponent should know they are marked with sotek.

Strictly Commercial
02-10-2005, 02:07
Agreed. Anything else is very unsportsmanlike.

Gabacho Mk.II
02-10-2005, 03:28
Whenever you field a pegasus mounted bretonian duke, a regiment of chaos warriors, or a unit of marked saurus, you should always point out the Vow, Mark, and Spawning they have as soon as they are deployed. you should be saying this as soon as you set the unit down, "Chaos warriors, heavy armor and a halbered, mark of khorne." or "Duke, grail vow".



While I agree with what you are describing, I have yet to see a single line anywhere, endorsed by GW, explaining that an army/unit with marks/spawning need to be represented and proclaimed by the owning player.


I, on the other hand, have always announced exactly which spawning my Lizzies have. It is being kind, clear, and very sportsmanlike to do so.



This issue can be argued from either camp. It is, in my eyes, a rather moot point since there isnt a single article to impress upon us the need to declare or not to declare


Good discussion overal. :)

MarcoPollo
07-10-2005, 01:43
I too am that way. You are sharing a space with someone else who has also put time, effort and money to play and enjoy themselves and I think it is very underhanded not to delcare the more obvious items. At the same time, some parts of the game are due to surprise and should be kept secret.

I make my own army lists without a generator using Excel. I have a template set up. I'll have one list that outlines everything my unit has, while I also have another for my opponent that lists all the things that should be seen and know by my opponent.

I will not divulge the point cost of anything to my opponent except for the obvious things like nurglings or demonettes where there is nothing to hide. But if my opponent knows that my 5 chosen of khorne knights cost upwards of 350+ then there is probably a hidden banner there too. Only at the end when we calculate the VP will I let them see my complete list.