PDA

View Full Version : Armour save disclosure



BattleofLund
28-01-2011, 09:48
The custom I have observed is this: plonk down model, state options that differ from entry; i e, 'Goblin Big Boss, wolf light armour shield' or 'Exalted Champion shield' (since the unit entry automatically has Chaos Armour).

In this way things like Armour of Destiny 'blip' on your opponents radar, at least for armies not normally equippable with heavy armour. Stating 'shield' for your Chaos Sorcerer means both a) you have a magical shield, and b) you do not have another magical armour.

My question is this: what about the Magic Armour Helms? Do you disclose that your armour save is one pip better, thus revealing your Special Hat? I wouldn't state, or expect my opponent to state, 'Chaos Armour' if a Chaos character had been upgraded to have Magic Chaos Armour - and most serious armour I have seen include metal headgear. The reasoning for stating shield and armour type is 'you can see that he has...', yes? - so can an enemy 'see' that the hat you're wearing is unusually tough?

T10
28-01-2011, 10:09
I usually don't try to have my opponent divulge the magic items load-out for his characters, and I don't freely offer that kind of information. Usually.

The thread Is lying cheating? (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=216998) explores a similar issue.

-T10

theunwantedbeing
28-01-2011, 10:13
I've always played you have to reveal anything you should be able to see looking at the model if he was wysiwyg.

ie. chaos sorcerer's carrying sheilds
its a magic sheild, you don't need to say its magical but we both know its a magic sheild
I'de be displeased to learn he does actually have a sheild if the model didn't have one and you hadn't made it clear.

You don't have to say he has X+ save though, just list the mundane equiptment.
Helms don't count towards that.
Although models without helmets, having them.....thats a bit dubious.

FestHest
28-01-2011, 10:28
Short answer "no". This is like asking for the color of the empire wizards robe to see what color of magic he is using.
A helm that grant an extra armor save (or a ward save) wont be something a "ordinary model" might see as something extraordinary. Its just a hat.

PeG
28-01-2011, 11:23
Things that are easily seen such as shields should be mentioned if they are different then what is on the model. Other things such as helmets we usually not disclose according to the same logic that a certain magical sword in the book can actually be modelled as an axe. In the same way we allow magical helmets to be modelled as a hat or whatever.

In contrast a magical armour that is described as heavy armour should be possible to see and is disclosed as heavy armour. Without that addition ie if the writing would only be magical armour that gives an additional 2+ AS for example we would not disclose it as this would be something that can be magically imbued in the wearers clothes.

the Goat
28-01-2011, 11:49
This is like asking for the color of the empire wizards robe to see what color of magic he is using.
The empire wizard needs to be modeled and painted WYSIWYG per whatever color of magic he is using. If you are proxying a different college of magic onto your model you should let your opponent know in advance.

Vaz
28-01-2011, 12:29
Colour? Really? Since where does it say colour? Do Asur Mages have to be painted in the "High" colour? What Asrai, I enjoy that "Lore of the Athel Loren" colour Citadel Paints have recently released.

Haravikk
28-01-2011, 12:51
I've always played you have to reveal anything you should be able to see looking at the model if he was wysiwyg.
Same, if I plonk down warriors with hand weapons and shields but want to field them with great weapons then it's a must! Otherwise I generally assume my opponent knows the basics of the units and will ask if they want to know stats or such, which I'm happy to answer.

The convention I found in 7th was always that you announce basic equipment that differs from WYSIWYG, but that you don't reveal magic items until they have some kind of an impact on the game. That's why special rules such as the ability to inspect a unit's magic equipment existed (though I don't know if any exist today? It's actually not as clear-cut now as before).

I mean I think what's important is that both you and your opponent know what equipment you're supposed to announce and then stick with it. So long as you both declare the same types of things then it shouldn't grant an unfair advantage, it's only if your opponent reveals magic equipment and you choose not to that you start getting into unsporting territory!

Haravikk
28-01-2011, 12:54
The empire wizard needs to be modeled and painted WYSIWYG per whatever color of magic he is using. If you are proxying a different college of magic onto your model you should let your opponent know in advance.
I think colour is a bit silly as wizards aren't always going to be painted in the perfect colour scheme for what they're fielding with.
I'd say that under 8th edition magical lores are now basic equipment since you have to choose on your army list, so if basic equipment like shields etc. is being announced then so should your magic lores.

Most players I know roll their spells openly anyway so your opponents are going to find out before the game begins either way.

Tregar
28-01-2011, 13:17
Mundane equipment must be modelled or disclosed. Painting Wizards a certain colour is not really necessary as Lores are always rolled openly, although it's nice keeping the theme.

One thing that has caused a bit of discussion (and whining!) in a group of mine lately is I've been using a Doombull with mega armour and a Daemonic Gift that gives him a 5+ Scaly Skin save. Now, every other Beastmen player I've EVER faced has used this gift and never revealed it, but all of a sudden now I'm using it, opponents are expecting me to reveal it. And it's fething annoying. Similarly when I was using my WoC I agreed with opponents that I wouldn't claim extra frenzied attacks from MoK on horses, but since I switched armies, every other WoC player has been claiming the extra attacks. I know these situations are muddy, but bluddy hell, is it too much to ask for a bit of consistency rather than people always trying to claw out every little advantage they can get from this kind of thing??

T10
28-01-2011, 14:33
After I bought my new car I see the same model everywhere. Obviously I've just become more aware of them. I suspect the some of the same in your games.

Either that, or they're actually out to get you. Are you a likable fellow, or are you considered an troublesome player?

-T10

Tregar
28-01-2011, 14:55
Nah, it's not that they're out to get me, it's just that I'm probably a bit too eager to be fair to my opponents. Plus there's also different groups involved, so while it is annoying that group A never revealed their scaly skin when I played against them and that group B wants me to reveal it while I'm using it, it's not out of malice. I hope ;)

Though I'm sure we all can think of examples where a player has said a rule is X when it benefits him, but put it the other way round and all of a sudden the other interpretation is definitely right ;)

Vaz
28-01-2011, 14:55
There's nothing muddy about horses not benefitting from Frenzy =/.

TwoBitWriter
28-01-2011, 15:43
The more misdirections you can throw toward your opponent, the better. I wouldn't bring up anything other than saying something like "My Thane is wearing gromril armor" or "he's carrying a hand weapon"

T10
28-01-2011, 17:00
Nah, it's not that they're out to get me, it's just that I'm probably a bit too eager to be fair to my opponents. Plus there's also different groups involved, so while it is annoying that group A never revealed their scaly skin when I played against them and that group B wants me to reveal it while I'm using it, it's not out of malice. I hope ;)

Though I'm sure we all can think of examples where a player has said a rule is X when it benefits him, but put it the other way round and all of a sudden the other interpretation is definitely right ;)

Well, groups are different and frequently complex rules are resolved in a particular way simply because it's the norm for the group and nobody's thought it might be wrong. And players? Hopefully they do change their minds as they learn more about the game, preferably tending towards more correct gameplay.

If you think the others have got the rule wrong, I recommend discussing it after the game so cooler heads may prevail.


-T10

Tregar
28-01-2011, 21:03
Of course. I always point out peoples' mistakes, and they do tend to be after they have happened rather than at any other point in time ;)


There's nothing muddy about horses not benefitting from Frenzy =/.

You just don't understand the argument, I can't be bothered to rehash it, and no-one wants to read it, so let's not go there again eh? Simple fact is people DO interpret the rule in different ways, and, shock horror, usually according to what benefits them the most.

Lord of Divine Slaughter
28-01-2011, 23:19
The empire wizard needs to be modeled and painted WYSIWYG per whatever color of magic he is using. If you are proxying a different college of magic onto your model you should let your opponent know in advance.

Have you ever heard of a thing called fashion? :D

Jeez.. This WYSIWTF 40K concept is really getting out of hand :p

You plonk down a character, then you say "This is my darkie dreadlord" then your opponent says "Cool model!". Thats it. Your opponent shouldn't be any dumber than to know that dreadlords are a fighty DE lord choice, and that he is probably equipped to fight - the exact lowdown really shouldn't concern him.

When you plonk down a unit of darkie spearmen, you mention that you've bought them shields and command - even despite the fact that the three darkies roasting an ork in your cool unit filler have stripped to work on their tan, and their spears are currently embedded in the roasting ork.

If your chaos sorceror is sporting an enchanted shield, but there is no shield carrying sorceror model available and you meet a WYSIWTF hardcase, you take a second to explain that he has an enchanted armour instead, or that the shield is a magical invisible force field actually modelled on - and then kindly ask the bloke to find another person to bother, since you prefer intelligent company.

-

Kudos to anyone taking the time to convert and build models for every possible character build, they'd want to try out, but its not as if those little details will or should have any effect on the outcome of the battle.

tarkin1980
29-01-2011, 13:15
Short answer "no". This is like asking for the color of the empire wizards robe to see what color of magic he is using.
A helm that grant an extra armor save (or a ward save) wont be something a "ordinary model" might see as something extraordinary. Its just a hat.

Your opponent is going to have to be pretty daft if he can't figure out what school your wizard is using when you are done dicing for spells, no matter what color the robe is.

Tavendale
29-01-2011, 14:06
The empire wizard needs to be modeled and painted WYSIWYG per whatever color of magic he is using. If you are proxying a different college of magic onto your model you should let your opponent know in advance.

Nah. You're rolling for your magic in front of your opponant. Regardless of what robe your mage has decided to wear that day, he will see exactly what lore/spells you have.

oldschoolmonk
29-01-2011, 14:18
I do model the different pieces of equipment for my characters, specifically Dark Elves and Empire. For Darkies I go as far as having dragon familiars for black dragon eggs, dragon helms if appropriate, daggers for their sacrificial dagger, a pendant for the infamous POK, and a red two handed cleaver for the Crimson Death. Its not disclosure so much as fitting in with the game's fluff and as a hobby. My Highborn Keldrin Baenri goes to war with his Armor of Darkness, Crimson Death, and pet dragon. If I'm fielding a different character and proxying with my Keldrin model then I will say it's not that character. You can't say its unreasonable to do this style of painting and modeling, it just takes a background story and maybe one or two more characters to paint up for variety.

I would not hold it against someone for plunking a model on the table that didn't have their dispel scroll modeled, their helmets included, or any other gear that has no mundane representation. Even a wizards hat I'm not going to assume is the giant conical item all the time, and maybe it's under their helmet (or invisible).

Leth Shyish'phak
30-01-2011, 15:12
I think my WoC army would be a nightmare for some people on this thread. :)

My Chosen currently only contains 10 Chosen models out of 21 models (the rest are warriors).
My Warrior/Chosen units with halberds and shields have half with halberds, some with shields and a few with extra hand weapons.
My Warrior unit with shields only has the front rank and half of the second with actual shields.
My Marauders with great weapons are mostly Gors and Ungors.
Two thirds of my Knights wield magical halberds which they're strong enough to wield in one hand. :p
My Warshrine looks suspiciously like a Chariot.
Half of my Horsemen unit with throwing spears and flails have flails, the other half have throwing spears.
My Chaos Lord is modelled with two axes, but often turns up with anything from a halberd to the Giant Blade. :evilgrin:

With my characters in particular, I make no effort to have them be wysiwyg. You can find out what they have when they start beating you over the head (although I will of course make it obvious which type of character they are).

tarrasque
30-01-2011, 23:05
well .. you do your armys name credit at least the chaos part ;)

FestHest
30-01-2011, 23:18
Today I watched a game where to of my friends played. One of them, a new player, played tomb kings, and didn't place a single model on the gaming table.
All of his army, 1000 points, consisted of movement trays and cardboard. Though not very pretty, it was still fun to watch.

In my group we incurage real models, but we are pretty large when someone wants to try something new and proxy it, even a hole army.

As a side note, the other player usually play empire and Im used to a War Alter looking suspicially like a goblin chariot. :)

Torpedo Vegas
30-01-2011, 23:56
It depends. If you aren't playing open lists, then there is no reason to tell him, if he asks, you can just say "I'm not going to tell you", but if you both play open lists, and the opponent asks you flat out "what does item x do", I would tell them. Not doing so isn't cheating, but I think its in bad taste to flat out lie to an opponent.

Lord Solar Plexus
31-01-2011, 06:49
We never disclose any additional equipment. It's required to have a standard bearer or musician looking the part of course but that's about it. What would be the point of my crystal ball?

AMWOOD co
31-01-2011, 08:49
I've always played what I guess you could call a semi-closed list.

-Anything that is explicitly hidden (fanatics, assassins) is hidden in position only. Numbers are revealed. ("Why yes, I do have 9 fanatics in my 5 units")

-Anything that is paid for with magic items is not revealed. This includes Bretonian virtues, Ogre Big Names, and some other abilities.

-Things like Chaos Marks and gifts, Slaan Powers (and the old spawnings), etc. are revealed as these are usually obvious.

-Equiptment is revealed as if it were all mundane except for Special Characters (everyone knows what the special character has). A Chaos Lord with the Chaos Runesword and Enchanted Shield would be revealed as a Chaos Lord of (inser mark here) with hand weapon, chaos armour and shield. A High Elf Lord with the Seafarer's Bow has 'a longbow'. Items that have no equivalent gear, like helmets and most enchanted items, are not revealed until it's too late (for the other guy).

-Options for units are all revealed except for magic banners (magic items stay secret) and any items that a champion is allowed to carry.

That about covers our secrecy rules. There are fairly common combos (Tyrant with Tenderiser is seen often and constantly feared), but it does allow things to remain a little more random.

KHolbourn
31-01-2011, 15:47
We are obviously pretty loose here. With characters we just plonk down a suitable looking model and say "great bray shaman" "Warrior Priest" "Chaos Exalted" etc... Even mundane equipment isn't mentioned.

Units are described as what they have if its not spot on. So "the empire spearmen have shields" or these Chaos warriors are "Mark Tzeentch w/hand weapon & shield" but that's it. In general characters are totally closed and units tend to be WYSIWYG with the courtesy of informing your opponent or clarifying if its not immediately obvious such as "These flail marauders are actually GW marauders".

Tregar
31-01-2011, 16:37
I've always played what I guess you could call a semi-closed list.

-Anything that is explicitly hidden (fanatics, assassins) is hidden in position only. Numbers are revealed. ("Why yes, I do have 9 fanatics in my 5 units")

-Anything that is paid for with magic items is not revealed. This includes Bretonian virtues, Ogre Big Names, and some other abilities.

-Things like Chaos Marks and gifts, Slaan Powers (and the old spawnings), etc. are revealed as these are usually obvious.

-Equiptment is revealed as if it were all mundane except for Special Characters (everyone knows what the special character has). A Chaos Lord with the Chaos Runesword and Enchanted Shield would be revealed as a Chaos Lord of (inser mark here) with hand weapon, chaos armour and shield. A High Elf Lord with the Seafarer's Bow has 'a longbow'. Items that have no equivalent gear, like helmets and most enchanted items, are not revealed until it's too late (for the other guy).

-Options for units are all revealed except for magic banners (magic items stay secret) and any items that a champion is allowed to carry.

That about covers our secrecy rules. There are fairly common combos (Tyrant with Tenderiser is seen often and constantly feared), but it does allow things to remain a little more random.

Interesting, it's pretty close to how I've usually seen it played, but would you really reveal things like a Slann's Unfathomable Presence (quasi-ethereal) or the fact that a Chaos Lord has the Word of Agony, both of which lose a lot of their power from being revealed at start-up?

AMWOOD co
01-02-2011, 03:42
Interesting, it's pretty close to how I've usually seen it played, but would you really reveal things like a Slann's Unfathomable Presence (quasi-ethereal) or the fact that a Chaos Lord has the Word of Agony, both of which lose a lot of their power from being revealed at start-up?

Actually, yes, yes we do. It's something we agreed upon way back in 5th. Anything that wasn't a magic item was revealed. This prevented armies like Chaos from being over-powered by having all these extra little abilities that could have massive add ons (eg Chaos Gifts from 4th edition modelled on instead of drawn from the deck). We have maintained this in the idea that categories that have physical but non-magical alterations to the characters appearance should be revealed. An ethereal toad is likely going to waver or be translucent to the naked eye, and a vampire with wings should be identifiable as having wings.

The amount of freedom still provided by having magic items secret still allowed a great deal of secrecy and surprise. It's not what everyone does (at my first tournament last year, some players wanted total disclosure and one wanted total secrecy), but my group likes it. Fortunately, we don't have any Daemon players to argue whether Daemonic Gifts should be secret or not.

H33D
01-02-2011, 04:32
It is a goal of mine to have all of my Dwarf army WYSIWYG and fully painted. But if someone I know wants to play me a game full of unpainted units that are 100% proxied and all of their characters the same model but each a completely different type of character, I will still play him.

It is a game, and that being said we all have our standards. If someone didn't want to play my Dwarves because they aren't fully painted I would respect that because perhaps that person has multiple armies that he has spent a lot of time on and only likes to play people with fully painted WYSIWYG armies. I could always play him later on when my army is finished, and I wouldn't hold it against him that he didn't want to play me at one point.

At least it wasn't that he didn't want to play me because he had a bad opinion of me or thought I was a bad sportsman or something similar.

Spiney Norman
01-02-2011, 11:52
The custom I have observed is this: plonk down model, state options that differ from entry; i e, 'Goblin Big Boss, wolf light armour shield' or 'Exalted Champion shield' (since the unit entry automatically has Chaos Armour).

In this way things like Armour of Destiny 'blip' on your opponents radar, at least for armies not normally equippable with heavy armour. Stating 'shield' for your Chaos Sorcerer means both a) you have a magical shield, and b) you do not have another magical armour.

My question is this: what about the Magic Armour Helms? Do you disclose that your armour save is one pip better, thus revealing your Special Hat? I wouldn't state, or expect my opponent to state, 'Chaos Armour' if a Chaos character had been upgraded to have Magic Chaos Armour - and most serious armour I have seen include metal headgear. The reasoning for stating shield and armour type is 'you can see that he has...', yes? - so can an enemy 'see' that the hat you're wearing is unusually tough?

I don't volunteer any information unless asked for (at least not until the end of the game when the ettiquette around here is to swap rosters). If my opponent wishes to know the unmodified armour save of any given character because he is figuring out his target priority or whatever I will oblige by totting it up and telling him, I certainly wont list the items he gets it from...

Col. Frost
01-02-2011, 12:17
Wizards painted as per school of magic is a little extreme, and i never reveal a slann's abilities (why yes, please don't waste time trying to squash my slann with all your artillery, you can't hurt him).

I never reveal what kit my models have if they are WYSIWYG, the fact my model has a two handed sword should be a good indication that its a great weapon. If im trying out a new build i point out that the GW is in fact a sword and shield for example, whether they are magical is revealed when i use them.

There are items you can buy to force someone to reveal magic items, so why bother sticking them in the book if everyone reveals what they have anyway?

Spiney Norman
01-02-2011, 12:39
Wizards painted as per school of magic is a little extreme, and i never reveal a slann's abilities (why yes, please don't waste time trying to squash my slann with all your artillery, you can't hurt him).

I never reveal what kit my models have if they are WYSIWYG, the fact my model has a two handed sword should be a good indication that its a great weapon. If im trying out a new build i point out that the GW is in fact a sword and shield for example, whether they are magical is revealed when i use them.

There are items you can buy to force someone to reveal magic items, so why bother sticking them in the book if everyone reveals what they have anyway?

The point about the colour of wizards is somewhat arbitrary since you have to declare which lore you are using when you roll for spells before deployment, I just happen to have a painted wizard of each college for my empire army in my case... With regards to a Slann I wouldn't reveal his disciplines (although the loadout is pretty standard; rumination, mystery, becalming and occasionally one other), but I would tell my opponent what lore the slann was using, theres no reason to suppose just because a wizard is a loremaster his lore should be kept secret.

amysrevenge
01-02-2011, 20:21
Tell 'em what they would know if they were familiar with your army book.

"This is a unit of 38 Night Goblins. They have hand weapons and shields, nets and a full command, with no option for a magic banner, and no option for magic on the unit champion. They could have anywhere from 0-3 fanatics. Leading the unit is a Night Goblin Big Boss (that's the Hero, not the Lord). He has light armour and a great weapon, and could be equipped with up to 50 points of magic. Also in the unit is a second Night Goblin Big Boss BSB. He has light armour and a hand weapon, and could either have 50 points of magic, or be carrying a magic banner or any value."

"This is a unit of 20 Temple Guard with a Slann. They have halberds and a full command, with the option of a magic banner up to 50 points and/or magic on the unit champion up to 50 points. The Slann, like all Slann, is a level 4 wizard. He is the BSB, and can have a magic banner of any point value in addition to his normal allotment of 100 points of magic. He could have from 1 to 4 disciplines."

Long and windy, but from me, that is all freely available information. Saves the time of someone flipping through an armybook.