PDA

View Full Version : Unit Fillers - How many is too many?



kharn138
10-03-2012, 08:49
Does anyone know what the overall accepted percentage of a unit can be made of unit fillers? I'm working on a 40 man hoard (20mm bases) and have an idea for a unit filler that will be on 2x 40mm square bases, or 20% of the entire unit. Is this going to get me dirty looks for too much unit filler, or is this acceptable? The idea isn't to cut corners and save me from buying a box of models. The idea in my head is just going to require that much space. I'm curious as to what everyone thinks. Thanks!

Urgat
10-03-2012, 08:55
20% is fine (for me).

Kayosiv
10-03-2012, 09:25
More than 1/3 is too much.

mrtn
10-03-2012, 09:28
Some people won't accept it however small it is, some will accept it however (almost) big it is. I have no problem with it, unless the filler is just one skeletal arm and a head replacing 8 models. In other words, make it a filler, not just a place holder. :)

What's even better is to ask your friends.

zoggin-eck
10-03-2012, 09:47
Does anyone know what the overall accepted percentage of a unit can be made of unit fillers?

What on Earth? Was there an official vote, and nobody told me about it?

Ask your mates.

Hakar
10-03-2012, 09:50
Personally I don't mind all that much, as long as your 40-man (or rat) unit still looks like a group of 40-ish individuals.
And not, say, 30 and a big rock.

boli
10-03-2012, 11:18
rule of thumb I tend to follow is if the unit filler ADDS to a unit rather than takes away its fine. a unit of goblins should still look like a unit of goblins and not a hill with goblins on.

even if 50% of the unit comprises of "filler" of if still looks like the unit in question and thee are enough single models to allow you to take casualties easily I say it counts.

T10
10-03-2012, 11:35
And what sort of filler are we talking about here, anyway?

Is it a way to get a higher model count than there are actual models?

Akkaryn
10-03-2012, 12:02
And what sort of filler are we talking about here, anyway?

Is it a way to get a higher model count than there are actual models?

People use them to save money. For example a common one is to use rat ogres in the middle of a horde of clan rats. This saves have to buy a box of x when you just want a fraction of the models.

I personally disagree with the concept for actual playing. But for display I have seen some very effective fillers.

I won't refuse to play against them but for example my mate was playing against dark elves and a horde of corsairs although the fillers looked good it was very difficult to distinguish at a glance how many models were left in the unit.

tmarichards
10-03-2012, 12:09
As long as you've put the time and effort into making the filler, I have absolutely no problem with them as long as I can still tell what the unit is supposed to be.

vcassano
10-03-2012, 12:17
I generally won't complain, as long as some reasonable effort has gone in and it doesn't just look like you have cheaped out then that is fine by me. The very nature of unit fillers is that you cannot declare absolutes except in the extremes.

RanaldLoec
11-03-2012, 08:32
My empire fillets are four men on a 40mm base, its just to help ranking up.

It's quicker to throw down four 40mm bases in the centre of a unit.

If some one uses a unit filler to bump up their model count I have no problems with that at all. I mean allotof people spend ages bitching about GW prices, then people moan when some one tries to save money by creating unit fillers.

DareX2
11-03-2012, 19:11
What on Earth? Was there an official vote, and nobody told me about it?

Ask your mates.

My sentiments exactly. Unit filler, off-brand models, house rules, etc. all fall under the same category of "ask your opponent beforehand."

Dreadlordpaul
11-03-2012, 19:19
I use them in my DE army in my corsairs unit as there is a piece of fluff in the DE book which mentions the slaves coming back to life so after the front rank and first rank the rest of the unit is skeletons to represent the dead slaves

Rosstifer
11-03-2012, 19:35
off-brand models

Interesting. If my army contains non GW models you would expect me to ask if I could use them?

DareX2
11-03-2012, 19:52
Interesting. If my army contains non GW models you would expect me to ask if I could use them?

Personally, I don't care what's used, especially if it looks awesome. I tend to prefer staying within the range, as I think it's in keeping with the overall look and feel of the game. I'm sure there are people out there who think otherwise.

xxRavenxx
11-03-2012, 19:57
Interesting. If my army contains non GW models you would expect me to ask if I could use them?

Yep. Same as if I showed up with 25 cubes of mdf as my chaos army, or wanted to use goblin spearmen as handweapons. You deviate from the normal parameters, you should ask your opponent if its ok.


As for unit fillers:

As many of these (http://warpsignal.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/zombies.jpg) as you like.

Zero of these (http://www.glaven.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/TK_Archer_Unit_Filler_2.jpg). (Though its one of the nicest unit filler rocks I've seen in a while. I'm almost swayed :p)

Lord Inquisitor
11-03-2012, 19:59
It depends on the unit. However, here are some guidelines:



Make sure the filler isn't too big to allow you to form any reasonable formation. For example, even if you plan on being in horde formation, you may want to form up 5-wide under certain circumstances. A filler more than 5 models wide is therefore not recommended. Equally, too many unit fillers might prevent you from making certain formations.
Make sure the filler does not take up any space in the front rank, side files or rear rank. These are the places you can expect characters to move to or where you might need to know the exact edges of the bases of the models when working out who can strike whom in combat.
Make sure you have enough rank and file on single bases at the rear of the unit so that if enough casualties are caused to remove the unit filler, you can replace the empty space with individual models. For example, if you have a unit filler that comprises 16 models, make sure there are 15 models on single bases (in addition to single based models in the front/sides of the unti). That way if one casualty is removed from the unit filler you can remove the filler and replace it with single models from your dead pile.
If the filler is really big, more than 4 or 6 models say, try to put some kind of terrain feature at the corners of each base - something to allow you to tell exactly where a model begins or ends (e.g. for templates).


Basically, unit fillers are fine, but I don't want to be playing against units with fillers sticking out the sides because you decided to change formation or where I have to remember that 14/36 'models' in the filler are dead. It gets really confusing especially with regards to trying to work out how many are hit with templates, etc. I think no more than 30% of the unit being fillers is a reasonable rule of thumb because it ensures you have enough rank and file for the above criteria.

jack da greenskin
11-03-2012, 20:13
Yep. Same as if I showed up with 25 cubes of mdf as my chaos army, or wanted to use goblin spearmen as handweapons. You deviate from the normal parameters, you should ask your opponent if its ok.


As for unit fillers:

As many of these (http://warpsignal.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/zombies.jpg) as you like.

Zero of these (http://www.glaven.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/TK_Archer_Unit_Filler_2.jpg). (Though its one of the nicest unit filler rocks I've seen in a while. I'm almost swayed :p)

I hate this attitude. It implies anything using proxies or non GW models is a decision to be made by the opponent before the game starts (which it is) but anything using GW models will obviously be accepted straight away, no questions asked.

It's a 2 player game, I wont play my opponents army if it doesnt look like it'll be a fun game, but I wont make that decision based on the models their using, moreso, the paintjob, their personality, and how well I know them.

Lord Inquisitor
11-03-2012, 20:25
I hate this attitude. It implies anything using proxies or non GW models is a decision to be made by the opponent before the game starts (which it is) but anything using GW models will obviously be accepted straight away, no questions asked.

It's a 2 player game, I wont play my opponents army if it doesnt look like it'll be a fun game, but I wont make that decision based on the models their using, moreso, the paintjob, their personality, and how well I know them.
I don't think that's the point at all. I think it's much more that unit fillers designed to look cool are cool and unit fillers that are designed to just to save on buying/painting the appropriate models look cheap. Buying non-GW models is not the issue - we're not talking about buying mantic ghouls rather than gw ghouls, but sticking a single tree or rock on a base and using that to count as half a unit.

Snake1311
11-03-2012, 20:30
I think the rock looks pretty cool, why won't you allow it you dirty elitist?

The ONLY criteria for uit fillers is that the unit looks liek what it should be at a glance.

Chrisb3
11-03-2012, 20:39
If you have a unit of (for example) skaven clanrats, it should all be skaven clanrats. If you have 20 in the unit, there should be 20 actual models.
Having a x4 bigger base with 4 units on it for ease of movement is great. Taking advantage of that for a fitting horde pose or special base is nice if done right.

Sticking rocks in because it's cheaper or easier is insulting to your opponent who has actually bought or made models for everything, I may as well bring a cardboard dragon.
Sticking a rat ogre in because it looks cool is silly and at worst misleading. I don't play skaven, how am I supposed to know what your champion is (obviously it's that huge thing right?), how am I supposed to know that it isn't just a rat ogre and skaven are allowed to mix them in, what if I think it is a monsterous special character?

I've seen pictures of units today where the fillers change a unit of something into a bunch of random 'cool' models, then the game stops making sense.

Lord Inquisitor
11-03-2012, 20:39
I think the rock looks pretty cool, why won't you allow it you dirty elitist?

The ONLY criteria for uit fillers is that the unit looks liek what it should be at a glance.

Really? You've never played against units where 60-80% of the unit is filler? Tried to work out rank bonus or template hits on a unit where you need to try and calculate what proportion of a large filler is still present? Played against wonky units because of awkward fillers? Too much unit filler causes real problems in playing the game. As for aesthetics I'm okay with trees or rocks rather than beautifully modeled vignettes - but if you do it just to be cheap, it'll probably look cheap. If you do it to make it look cool or tell a story, it'll probably look cool.

Tokamak
11-03-2012, 20:57
Every unit filer is one too many. The word says it already, with every unit proxied you're replacing your army with 'filler'. Calling people who don't like unit fillers 'elitists' also already demonstrates the superiority of filler-free 'pure' armies. You're playing a hobby that glorifies lovingly crafted miniatures, why try to circumvent that by artificially lowering the amount you need to play?

Darnok
11-03-2012, 21:04
Every unit filer is one too many.

Every extreme is one too many. ;)

Lars Porsenna
11-03-2012, 21:04
Let me first qualify my opinion by saying I wouldn't necessarily decline a game with someone that uses fillers.

However, IMHO, the real dividing line is (and I agree with some others) intent. If your filler is more a mini-diorama, cool, thematic, and took some real effort to put together, I think that's fine. If it is the aformentioned rocks, trees, or a single goblin on a 40mm base, not so cool. In the end it is your minis and your collection: do what you want with them. Due to some unforeseen costs that have come up, I've reduced my warhammer budget to only $60/month, and I'm not contemplating "filling out" units with fillers, and will not contemplate using them for my armies. IMHO.

Damon.

The Odor
11-03-2012, 21:06
I am fairly okay with unit fillers as long as the unit still makes sense, works in game and looks okay. If it fills those criteria I allow it. Always.

TsukeFox
11-03-2012, 21:16
I own 153 clanrats.
I own 90ish slaves.
I own 8 rat ogres-who will never see game play until I own ten more.

Every twenty slaves has a rat ogre in the center, just so the slaves fight with some fear of failure-to be eaten by a rat ogre.

My reg opponent has squig hoppers & a cave squig in his squig herd.

Adds flavor I say.
Having the goblin hut, from skull pass, in a unit of night goblins looks odd for how is the unit picking up a tent as they march?
As for the Rock filler-let us see a pic of the unit. For that sounds kinda wonky unless it looks ok or mystical or sometin.

Tupinamba
11-03-2012, 21:33
As long as you've put the time and effort into making the filler, I have absolutely no problem with them as long as I can still tell what the unit is supposed to be.

My position exactly.

Plus, considering the increase to 2500 pts average games, point decreases for individual minis and GW price increases, unit fillers are IMO more than acceptable. Id rather play against a fully painted army with unit fillers, even terrain ones, than against 100% GW minis that are bare plastic or primed (if game play criteria such as Lord Inquisitor put it are met).

Tokamak
11-03-2012, 21:47
Id rather play against a fully painted army.

This is pretty much my stance.

Col. Tartleton
11-03-2012, 22:12
I think you should need to have two rows deep of models on all sides of the filler. So if it's a 5x5 you can have 1 filler. 6x6 is 4 filler. 7x7 is 9 filler. Etc.

Ideally none. But not because of money or pride. I think warhammer should be more WYSIWYG. It's 25 skaven, not 17 skaven and a couple rat ogres. Leave the cool displays for the cool units. I'm fine with elaborate conversions if it can be justified. A hell pit abomination could be converted into a palaquin borne by Council Guards with warpstone imbued halberds with Warlord-General Paskrit the Vast sitting pretty issuing orders. It's all one base. Likewise I think you should only use wide row bases if you have the first and last row as single models.

Tokamak
11-03-2012, 22:14
Yeah it's a form of sportmanship to represent your army as accurately as possible. Even if it's obvious if those trees in the middle of the unit aren't actually trees, it still looks different from a 'pure' unit which means it's something you both need to keep into consideration while playing, that's a shame.

Askari
11-03-2012, 22:23
Depends on the case in point, a Rat Ogre in a Clanrat unit is fine by me, it breaks up the monotony and if that also means the opponent saves some cash, all power to them. Trees, rocks and Tombs I find totally out of place, as they don't move and does seem to be just cheapening it especially if there are no actual warriors on the terrain piece. Although some Wood Elf archers perched up in a tree filler piece could probably work, but that's more a diorama piece than a what I call 'filler'.

Essentially, I say yeah fine, so long as a) it's still vast majority 'real' unit, b) you tell me beforehand it's filler, not a mixed unit, and c) it's not a rock.

Quinzy
12-03-2012, 05:20
I find unit fillers to be fine. I often want to play a game and don't have the models I need to try out new units, so I pad them out as I need to. My opponents are fine with it.

I also find monstrous infantry mixed in to units really cool. An ogre in with some Empire spearmen, or a treekin in with some Eternal Guard. The front row should be indicative of the unit at the least, and a well themed unit filler, even a monstrous one, can make the unit that bit more special.

Dreadlordpaul
12-03-2012, 10:21
I find unit fillers to be fine. I often want to play a game and don't have the models I need to try out new units, so I pad them out as I need to. My opponents are fine with it.

I also find monstrous infantry mixed in to units really cool. An ogre in with some Empire spearmen, or a treekin in with some Eternal Guard. The front row should be indicative of the unit at the least, and a well themed unit filler, even a monstrous one, can make the unit that bit more special.

this is what i do with my corsairs the front rank and first rank are corsairs and the rest of the unit is skeletons to represent those dead slaves animated by the warpstone in the mines having been dragged to battle as meat shields

N1AK
12-03-2012, 10:39
Yeah it's a form of sportmanship to represent your army as accurately as possible. Even if it's obvious if those trees in the middle of the unit aren't actually trees, it still looks different from a 'pure' unit which means it's something you both need to keep into consideration while playing, that's a shame.

I still don't understand this view. A friend of mine has a forest goblin army. His Mangler Squigs, Warmachines etc are all heavily converted or scratch built to fit that theme. 99.9% of people who see the army love it and think it adds to the hobby and should be encouraged. Either the people who moan about non-vanilla models online are that 0.01% or the views they express online are nothing like what they say in practice.

As to fillers. I honestly don't care as long as they don't make it extremely difficult to work out what the unit is or look aweful. I've seen a player using Skaven, whos army wasn't even finished drybrushed brown over brown with a wash complaining because someone had a fantastically converted tree (no models on it) making up the centre of his incredibly well painted eternal guard unit. I guess my point is, if the fillers look good then I can't see a reasonable reason for complaining.

N1AK
12-03-2012, 11:09
Really? You've never played against units where 60-80% of the unit is filler?

I use plenty of 4x4 fillers and a larger collection of fillers that adds up to 25 spaces in a ghoul unit (the ghouls climbing across a statue). It hasn't led to an issue yet. Templates will never be positioned exactly. If the shot is a direct hit on the centre of a base (or near as) then you don't even need to look to see how many are hit. If it isn't I'll tend to give my opponent benefit of the doubt. I may take an extra hit per template on average to make sure but I can live with that. I will admit that I expected it to be more of an issue and even considered marking them originally.

Satan
12-03-2012, 11:13
I plan to play using one unit of 12 glade guards, and 2 units of 10 in an upcoming tournament for which I'll be using the 12 models for the large unit, and a unit filler of 6 for one of the smaller ones and another of 4 for the other.

Tokamak
12-03-2012, 11:37
I still don't understand this view. A friend of mine has a forest goblin army. His Mangler Squigs, Warmachines etc are all heavily converted or scratch built to fit that theme. 99.9% of people who see the army love it and think it adds to the hobby and should be encouraged. Either the people who moan about non-vanilla models online are that 0.01% or the views they express online are nothing like what they say in practice.

I have no issue with that at all, cosmetically changing the looks of the units is not the same as changing the appearance of their quantity. That's different from a beautifuly painted glade guard that are actually more than the seem dragging an entire tree across the field.

Give me the barely drybrushed skaven over that any time.

Snake1311
12-03-2012, 12:04
Really? You've never played against units where 60-80% of the unit is filler? Tried to work out rank bonus or template hits on a unit where you need to try and calculate what proportion of a large filler is still present? Played against wonky units because of awkward fillers? Too much unit filler causes real problems in playing the game. As for aesthetics I'm okay with trees or rocks rather than beautifully modeled vignettes - but if you do it just to be cheap, it'll probably look cheap. If you do it to make it look cool or tell a story, it'll probably look cool.

Gonna answer this first, because its actually sensible points :)

First of all my experience - played against plently of differnet fillers, and use some myself - to be exact, two 2x3 bases in my hammerer unit, with a barrel in each.

So:

Rank bonus / template hits - well thats pretty easy isn't it? Although I'm getting the vibe that your problem becomes apparent not because there is filler, but because half (or some proportion of) the filler is supposed to be 'dead'. This is more of a case with badly designed fillers - if you've done them properly and they are the right amount, there should be no unit size where you have 'dead models' still present in the unit. For example with my barrels - they are toward the front of the unit, so by the time I start removing them I have at least 10ish dead hammerers - so if im up to a barrel, and one hammmerer dies, i can take the barrel off and put 5 back. There is no point in the game where a 6-base wide filler counts as anything other than 6 models.

Wonky units / awkward fillers - same point applies, presuming by 'wonky' you mean weird incomplete ranks and protruding formations. This hasnt got something to do with having fillers as a concept, its got to do with players desinging their fillers badly. Doing your filler properly from a practical perspective takes some thought, the same way that assembling a unit so it ranks up takes some though - if you build a unit of halberdiers with everyone holding their halberd in random ways, that won't rank up and will be wonky too.

Cheapness - yep, it might look cheap, or it might look awesome. Most fillers are a lot cheaper than the equivalent models, but then its not hard to make a cheap filler look decent. The rock that was shown in the example will look perfectly fine in a TK army. This again has nothing to do with fillers in particular - the guy who plays with an unpainted army for years will probbaly have crappy-looking filler, and the guy who takes care of his but is short on cash will have nice-looking filler even if it costs him 10% of what the models would cost. My barrels look pretty meh, but so does the rest of my army since I'm not a great painter and don't particualry enjoy that aspect of warhammer - so in terms of visual quality, they are actaully fairly consistant.


If you have a unit of (for example) skaven clanrats, it should all be skaven clanrats. If you have 20 in the unit, there should be 20 actual models.
Having a x4 bigger base with 4 units on it for ease of movement is great. Taking advantage of that for a fitting horde pose or special base is nice if done right.

Sticking rocks in because it's cheaper or easier is insulting to your opponent who has actually bought or made models for everything, I may as well bring a cardboard dragon.
Sticking a rat ogre in because it looks cool is silly and at worst misleading. I don't play skaven, how am I supposed to know what your champion is (obviously it's that huge thing right?), how am I supposed to know that it isn't just a rat ogre and skaven are allowed to mix them in, what if I think it is a monsterous special character?

I've seen pictures of units today where the fillers change a unit of something into a bunch of random 'cool' models, then the game stops making sense.

In contrast to Lord Inquisitor's points, yours just sounds selfish. WHY is it insulting to your opponent if you put some unit filler in there? Do you just feel screwed that you paid full price and your opponent has found a way that makes his army look good (or even better) and it costs him less (that might not be the case, but its the vibe im getting from you). Why should the poor kids be essentially at an even further disadvantage from entering the hobby? And its not always about money - time is also a factor, maybe someone wants to get their list on the table quickly and doing some filter will likely save them some time.

Your point about being confused about what the filters represent is pretty moot. Yes filters should be designed to avoid confusion, but sticking a rat ogre in a skaven unit anywhere but in the front rank is a pretty obvious filler. If you can't even be bothered to skim the armybooks so you can tell the most obvious of fillers, why should your opponent put in extra money and effort to ensure your comfort?

Snake1311
12-03-2012, 12:08
I have no issue with that at all, cosmetically changing the looks of the units is not the same as changing the appearance of their quantity. That's different from a beautifuly painted glade guard that are actually more than the seem dragging an entire tree across the field.

Give me the barely drybrushed skaven over that any time.

All warhammer models drag a square patch of terrain under their feet. Sometimes they stand atop of rocks which glide across the battleboard. Often the terrain they drag along is incosistent with the board.

This must drive you insane....

Lyynark
12-03-2012, 12:21
All warhammer models drag a square patch of terrain under their feet. Sometimes they stand atop of rocks which glide across the battleboard. Often the terrain they drag along is incosistent with the board.

This must drive you insane....

This post need a like button, now! :D

On the topic. I have no problem whatsoever with unit fillers. The only case I can think of where I've thought that a filler was "cheap" was when I faced a VC player who had made an entire regiment from the extra bits form the skeleton box. I.e. the unit consisted only of tombstones, and heads/arms coming up from the ground.

Urgat
12-03-2012, 12:27
All warhammer models drag a square patch of terrain under their feet. Sometimes they stand atop of rocks which glide across the battleboard. Often the terrain they drag along is incosistent with the board.

This must drive you insane....

Seems you've missed the previous episodes indeed :p

Duke_of_Krondor
12-03-2012, 13:07
I picked up a box of ogres to include in the second rank of my free company (one per unit) when they are fielded. I have the requisite models as back up, should an opponent not like it, but I don't really see the issue. Ogres work as mercenaries so I have some in some in some stripey trousers as they fight for my Empire.

I then realised I had too many ogres so made the other three up as zombies to go in my VC army.

Never had anyone complain and people really like the effect it has on both units.

Banville
12-03-2012, 15:08
I really don't see how anyone could have a problem with nicely painted or designed unit fillers. I especially don't see how anyone could have a bee in their bonnet on aesthetic grounds. Have you ever seen a horde of 50 Bret Men at Arms or 40 or so Dark Elf Spearmen? Or, God forbid my friend's 80 Night Goblin Spearmen? On the table these blocks of infantry look like one vast, homogenous and, dare I say it, boring oblong of anonymous helmets and uniform spear points. Anything that breaks up the monotony of a massive block of troops is to be applauded. I'll put my hand up and say I have used "scenery" unit fillers to swell a 40 man unit to a 50 man unit but I've actually taken my time to paint and flock them properly and add details like camp fires and such.

At the moment my collection stands at 4000pts of Bretonnians and 4500pts of Dark Elves as well as - all fully painted and based. It'll be a sad day when players who don't even have two colours on their armies start looking down their noses at people who use nice and characterful fillers.

MyNameDidntFit
12-03-2012, 15:35
As long as:

1) I can tell what the unit is.
2) The filler is used sensibly (see Snake1311's barrel example).
3) It looks nice.

Then I can't see any reason whatsoever to care.

boli
12-03-2012, 16:32
I'm going to use this (http://i1044.photobucket.com/albums/b449/boli32/IMG_20120308_222349.jpg) as a unit filler in the unit with the BSB in. (Obviously I'm going to paint it, that was taken whist the glue was drying).

* According to the rule lawyers it's illigeal, cheap and "not in the spirit of collecting".
* According to me it helps both me and my opponant instantly see where my BSB is adds character to my otherwise identical blocks of rats and actually allows me to get some use out of my RO from the Plague Furnace kit :)

Who is correct?... well technically the rule lawyer is..... BUT... the day GW stop selling unit fillers on their site is the day I'll stop using them!

I'm apposed to the majority of the unit being "filler"... but at the same time people need to individulise their units; not only that but needing to set up 50 individual models up exactly every game is infuriating. Especially if they are anything like mine and many units you need a certain pattern to make them all fit in base to base contact!

If you can see at a glance what is in each unit and there are no issues with taking casualties... they're all good in my book!

Lyynark
12-03-2012, 16:48
That is an excellent filler :)
Just add a smaller rat (i.e. the actual BSB) skulking around the rat ogre :D

Discord
12-03-2012, 17:03
I think the tomb king rock looks great. As terrain. Miniature tables generally have too few and poor-looking terrain anyway, how about bringing a few army-themed terrain pieces to a game? I'm sure no-one would complain.


Your point about being confused about what the filters represent is pretty moot. Yes filters should be designed to avoid confusion, but sticking a rat ogre in a skaven unit anywhere but in the front rank is a pretty obvious filler. If you can't even be bothered to skim the armybooks so you can tell the most obvious of fillers, why should your opponent put in extra money and effort to ensure your comfort?

So in your opinion, anyone who hasn't familiarized themselves with all armybooks around deserves what they get? Even if they live a busy life, are beginners, or don't have a local store with books to skim or enough disposable income to get them all? Now who sounds selfish? Especially when you consider these three cases for someone who has never faced lizardmen or skaven:

a) Skaven unit with rat ogre filler. As weak as the regular troopers, completely misleading.
b) Skink unit with attached kroxigor. Moderately dangerous, prevents thunderstomps, hits from second row. Kills monsters.
c) Skaven unit with rat ogre bonebreaker. Extremely dangerous, very resilient, prevents some of your unit from attacking the regular troopers. Kills infantry.

Two of these examples are from the same army. They should never be mixed in a single force, to prevent confusion. If you're using the first, you should check that your opponent knows what it represents, as with any other non-WYSIWYG choice such as a proxy or counts-as miniature. If you're using the others, it's up to your opponent to check what they do, if they aren't aware of them.

Askari
12-03-2012, 17:12
Well clearly you should tell your opponent that it's filler. Otherwise yes it is cheating.

But on that same note, I have to tell my opponent that a certain figure is a Warrior Priest, or a Captain, or whatever other similar looking models are anyway, heck a Beastman Bray Shaman and Beastlord look very similar at a distance. So that's a given.

Not making that clear is a completely seperate issue to having unit filler.
(Not to mention in cases such as an Ogre/Rat Ogre in an Empire/Skaven unit, the Ogre is roughly as tough/strong as the 4 models it's replacing...)

JustinDonnelly
12-03-2012, 17:19
I think unit fillers are ok as long as they fit with the theme of the army. I have gravestones and skellies coming out of the ground in my VC army but have less than 20% fillers.

A lizardman player at my local club has aquarium plants as fillers for his Saurus which look great and fit in with the theme of lizards in the jungle and such.

As long as there arent to many (less than 1/3) and the opponent knows then (IMO) there is not a problem.

dral
12-03-2012, 17:54
As a player that started with card figures from 2nd edition but took a break after the 4th edition until very recently i find this change in attitude quite bizarre, and a clear sign that GWs strategies to sell figures have proved far more effective than i'd have credited 20 years ago.

Surely Warhammer is a tactical game and whether it's the most recent model or a piece of card with a name on it the game is the same, the tactical challenge isn't affected. I agree clarity is important but a piece of paper with a grid on it and crosses marking out the dead does everything a 300 unit does. That said i love to use a well painted and modelled army, i've spent hours modelling and painting as i enjoy that too. There's no doubt given the choice everything would look as the list stated, but i want to take on a tactical challenge, not win because i've been collecting figures for years and my opponent is new to game or just doesn't have the disposable income.

I remember years ago some GW stores starting to request everything was painted and thought that a bit heavy handed, this has moved on to a mate of mine being told that he couldn't use non GW glue to stick together his figures in Warhammer world, and players getting antsy as their opponent’s army isn't an example of his disposable income and/or artistic brilliance.

I’ve played many great games where units were just anything that had the correct base size, I’ve never had problem remembering what was what, and if I ever I do I’m sure just asking the guy I was playing would soon fix the problem…


Edit to add...

Just read this.

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?335625-Best-way-to-Proxy-an-Army

Phew, the GW programming hasn't reached everyone quite yet :)

Zark the Damned
12-03-2012, 18:14
Personally, it depends on the filler.

Multibased figures are fine (e.g. 4 goblins on a 40mm square base).

The occasional big guy inside a unit is fine (except where it gets confused with actual mixed units).

A skaven on a giant rock being treated as 9 clanrats is taking the ****.

YMMV. Really it's your opponents who matter with these sorts of issues.

willowdark
12-03-2012, 18:17
The thing that strikes me about this topic is that Warhammer armies are very organic things. They start small and simple and plain and grow to be grand, complex, and generally beautiful things. If you're in a regular group you tend to watch an army grow like a time-lapse video, from empty bases as proxies, or bases that are modeled first while the models themselves are pinned to corks at home being painted, to the fully realized army.

What exactly is it about a unit filler that is different than a new army that's being proxied to test out units or that has brand new models in it that aren't finished? Obviously, if it's a finished army, filler or no, it's better than an unfinished one.

Obviously also, if I'm at a convention or tourney with a finished army and there are painting requirements, I expect to play other finished armies. But at that point a unit filler just falls into the category of what determines whether I think it's a nice looking army. But that could be anything. Maybe you have all the right models, but you colour scheme is bad. Whatever.

One time I played in a tourney against a lizardmen army made up of plastic K-mart toy dinosaurs. I didn't like the look of the army, but it was just one army among many and I had plenty to look at that day to be put off by just that.

I think that the composition of your army has infinitely more to do with whether I enjoy our game than how you model it. Although, of course if your army is stellar I'll enjoy the game that much more.

BigbyWolf
12-03-2012, 18:30
this is what i do with my corsairs the front rank and first rank are corsairs and the rest of the unit is skeletons to represent those dead slaves animated by the warpstone in the mines having been dragged to battle as meat shields

Surely that's proxying, rather than a unit filler?

OT- Fillers are fine for me, if they're done well, and then only if they take up around 25% of the unit as a maximum. Any more than that and you are no longer "filling" the unit, you are proxying a rock as some models, and frankly taking the piste. I'd get on with the game, but if no improvement was made for the next time, I wouldn't play again. This includes arms emerging from ground, headstones, pile of skulls, rocks, dioramas, alternate models, etc.

Dreadlordpaul
12-03-2012, 18:37
Surely that's proxying, rather than a unit filler?

not really there is a bit of fluff in the dark elf book about one of the cities where the slaves are worked to death in the mines and because of the warpstone there they come back to life

willowdark
12-03-2012, 18:45
not really there is a bit of fluff in the dark elf book about one of the cities where the slaves are worked to death in the mines and because of the warpstone there they come back to life

That's pretty sweet. I used Flagellants to represent slaves in my dark elf army. They were being driven by Executioners and I had a Sorceress with the Dagger who would spend the whole game killing them for PD.

BigbyWolf
12-03-2012, 19:05
not really there is a bit of fluff in the dark elf book about one of the cities where the slaves are worked to death in the mines and because of the warpstone there they come back to life

I see, and do the rules for corsairs accurately reflect shambling dead slaves?

Like I said, I don't have a problem with a few of them in a unit, but when you've got two ranks of corsairs, then loads of skeletons making up the rest of the unit, that just screams "proxy" and not filler.

Lord Inquisitor
12-03-2012, 19:13
I feel a bit of a behemoth post coming on...

Firstly, regarding use of Rat Ogres or Ushabti as unit fillers. Generally, this is fine. Certainly I feel for those who want to be competitive but also want to use their (unfortunately sub-par) miniatures. However, you must understand that it has potential for confusion.

Remember you're on shakier ground as rat ogres or similar models are proxies as well as unit fillers. Not so bad with ogres in an Empire army as Empire can't take ogres (unless they follow Lietpold), but particularly in an army where they are a possible unit choice.
Don't use them as fillers and as a legitimate unit in the same army. Certainly don't use them as fillers for units where they might actually be mixed units - don't use Kroxigor as fillers for skinks! Even rat ogres you should be careful to explain to your opponent, after all mixed ratogre/skaven units are legal.
Don't use too many. Put 12 rat ogres with a front rank of 6 skaven and that'll look like a rat ogre unit.


Now, much of this is alleviated if they are obviously designed as unit fillers. A rat ogre converted up as a sort of plague monk in a unit of plague monks, perhaps actually pushing the plague furnace is obviously intended to be there.


I still don't understand this view. A friend of mine has a forest goblin army. His Mangler Squigs, Warmachines etc are all heavily converted or scratch built to fit that theme. 99.9% of people who see the army love it and think it adds to the hobby and should be encouraged. Either the people who moan about non-vanilla models online are that 0.01% or the views they express online are nothing like what they say in practice.
99.9% of the time a really excellent conversion or scratch built army can get away with anything. As noted before, a really cool unit filler is really cool. An empty base or one with a few rocks on it is less exciting. Shoving random models from your collection in as proxies can get confusing.

Few people complain about cool unit fillers, awesome conversions or scratch-built models, or a counts-as theme. None of that really pertains to disliking shoddy unit fillers.


I use plenty of 4x4 fillers and a larger collection of fillers that adds up to 25 spaces in a ghoul unit (the ghouls climbing across a statue). It hasn't led to an issue yet. Templates will never be positioned exactly. If the shot is a direct hit on the centre of a base (or near as) then you don't even need to look to see how many are hit. If it isn't I'll tend to give my opponent benefit of the doubt. I may take an extra hit per template on average to make sure but I can live with that. I will admit that I expected it to be more of an issue and even considered marking them originally.
I've seen fillers considerably bigger than that. The question is, do you have the models on the filler? (I.e. 25 ghouls on your statue?) Because that helps a lot.


First of all my experience - played against plently of differnet fillers, and use some myself - to be exact, two 2x3 bases in my hammerer unit, with a barrel in each.
Pfff, 2x3? I've seen 6x4 and even bigger (8x8 in one occasion!). The bigger the filler, the more exacerbated the problem.


Rank bonus / template hits - well thats pretty easy isn't it? Although I'm getting the vibe that your problem becomes apparent not because there is filler, but because half (or some proportion of) the filler is supposed to be 'dead'. This is more of a case with badly designed fillers - if you've done them properly and they are the right amount, there should be no unit size where you have 'dead models' still present in the unit. For example with my barrels - they are toward the front of the unit, so by the time I start removing them I have at least 10ish dead hammerers - so if im up to a barrel, and one hammmerer dies, i can take the barrel off and put 5 back. There is no point in the game where a 6-base wide filler counts as anything other than 6 models.
Absolutely agreed. See my first post (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?335744-Unit-Fillers-How-many-is-too-many&p=6128717&viewfull=1#post6128717) in this thread, that's one of my original guidelines (number 3). However, I have played against units that have more filler than models, at which point you DO have to try and work out where in this monster filler that's half dead the unit ends, especially when trying to place templates it gets frustrating.


Wonky units / awkward fillers - same point applies, presuming by 'wonky' you mean weird incomplete ranks and protruding formations. This hasnt got something to do with having fillers as a concept, its got to do with players desinging their fillers badly. Doing your filler properly from a practical perspective takes some thought, the same way that assembling a unit so it ranks up takes some though - if you build a unit of halberdiers with everyone holding their halberd in random ways, that won't rank up and will be wonky too.
Agreed. Again, guideline number 1.


Cheapness - yep, it might look cheap, or it might look awesome. Most fillers are a lot cheaper than the equivalent models, but then its not hard to make a cheap filler look decent. The rock that was shown in the example will look perfectly fine in a TK army. This again has nothing to do with fillers in particular - the guy who plays with an unpainted army for years will probbaly have crappy-looking filler, and the guy who takes care of his but is short on cash will have nice-looking filler even if it costs him 10% of what the models would cost. My barrels look pretty meh, but so does the rest of my army since I'm not a great painter and don't particualry enjoy that aspect of warhammer - so in terms of visual quality, they are actaully fairly consistant.
Well, it really depends on the motivation of the person making the filler. If they do it to look cool, it'll look cool. If they do it to save money, it'll at best likely look alright but typically just look cheap. I've seen some amazing fillers, really funny or awesome - telling the story of battlefield incidents (like a cannon hitting the unit or an orc unit squabbling) or a story (goblins invading a dwarf mine, for example). I've seen plenty of trees and stones. It isn't really a matter of modelling skill, it's motivation and effort put in.


I see, and do the rules for corsairs accurately reflect shambling dead slaves?

Like I said, I don't have a problem with a few of them in a unit, but when you've got two ranks of corsairs, then loads of skeletons making up the rest of the unit, that just screams "proxy" and not filler.
Again, all a matter of intent and effort. Are they modeled to be shambling forwards in chains and slave rags? Do they have bits of warpstone embedded? That'll be awesome. Just shoving some of your VC skellies in? Looks like a proxy.

Altbob
12-03-2012, 19:44
I used to use empty 20mm bases as skaven slave fillers until I accumulated enough of the little buggers to allow me to use actual miniatures (this was many years before IoB). If not for fillers, I never would have continued on with WHFB, certainly not skaven or another horde race.

Lord Inquisitor
12-03-2012, 20:19
Most people differentiate between a new player (or new to an army anyway) using proxies or fillers as a stopgap as they build up the forces and a player that uses fillers intended as permanent fixtures in the army. Note that "permanent" fillers can be awesome or lame but they're a different kettle of fish to a stopgap.

IcedCrow
12-03-2012, 21:20
It's a visual thing. I don't play Warhammer to prove I'm the tactical daddy-master. If I wanted to prove I was a tactical daddy-master, I probably wouldn't use Warhammer as the tool to do that, as a lot of the game is very random. I play warhammer for the aesthetics. That means for me, a unit filler that is an empty base or proxy models takes away from the aesthetics. As such, it is a downer for me to play someone's soda pop can army as much as it is playing on a table where books count as hills and pencils count as a river.

I have seen some awesome fillers. They blended in well, there was no confusion as to what they were, and I appreciated the visual boost that they gave the army. I have no issue playing against a player who has fillers where the fillers are not empty bases, some rocks, or skeletons representing skaven, because it does not take away from the visual for me.

One of our skaven players got lazy and just glued a bunch of skaven legs to bases and that was it. Those are his slaves. A bunch of legs. That kind of thing takes away from the game for me.

That's my own opinion though. We all play for different reasons.

Snake1311
12-03-2012, 21:53
So in your opinion, anyone who hasn't familiarized themselves with all armybooks around deserves what they get? Even if they live a busy life, are beginners, or don't have a local store with books to skim or enough disposable income to get them all?


I think that familiarizing yourself with the game, or even just asking your opponent basic questions about things that confuse you, is time well spent. As opposed to, lets say, assembling and painting 20 extra RnF slave models which could have been replaced by some rat ogres from teh starter set which are already table-ready. Same for the disposable income. While you were grinding through RnF, other people were actually learning how to play the game. Each to their own, but since those people are willing to explain to you what their units are and do, you should be more willing to allow them to use their fillers.

Miredorf
12-03-2012, 21:59
I tend to dislike scenery unit fillers as they really are nemesis to unit formations. i found a good way to include include fillers by adding characters in bigger bases inside the unit, which can serve several purposes, like being a hero, just the unit champion or even only normal troopers.

For my HE i like i found this to be a good excuse to include the captains of their elite units, for example the PG captain or a SM captain.

135184
135185

For the WL i chose the now classical lord mounted on a white lion, unfortunately i have no pics of this one inside the unit. A friend of mine made an awesome steam drill crewed by 2 dwarves for his miners unit which takes 6 slots, but sadly i dont have the pics to show :/

stroller
12-03-2012, 22:08
Unit Fillers - How many is too many?

One.

Disposable Hero
12-03-2012, 22:35
You know what really gets my Lucky Rocketship Undies in a twist?

People who take away the beauty of the game with dead-cold logics where even Cicero would refrain from it, or people who try to destroy creativity in a creative game.

For all I care you can use rocks in gobbo units (especially if two squishy green feet are sticking from underneath them), or trees in units or even the Famous Cardboard Dragon of -1 Coolness.

As long as you are creative and it looks cool.
And you know? If I have to template your unit, let's get a drink and sort it out.

jack da greenskin
12-03-2012, 22:52
You know what really gets my Lucky Rocketship Undies in a twist?

People who take away the beauty of the game with dead-cold logics where even Cicero would refrain from it, or people who try to destroy creativity in a creative game.

For all I care you can use rocks in gobbo units (especially if two squishy green feet are sticking from underneath them), or trees in units or even the Famous Cardboard Dragon of -1 Coolness.

As long as you are creative and it looks cool.
And you know? If I have to template your unit, let's get a drink and sort it out.

+1. I even thinks rocks in units can looks quite good, hell, I think I'd prefer a rock covered in squiggles and warpaint taking in the back rank of 50 savage orcs than another 6 orcs, you know, those frenzied feral warriors... Who fight in a perfect rectangle formation.

I really dont understand the hate on unit fillers, especially ones that look good.

boli
12-03-2012, 23:34
there is a difference between rocks in a unit and unit with a good unit filler ....

Leogun_91
12-03-2012, 23:52
As long as it looks good it's OK but I generally think one or two looks best, more than that tends to become wrinf.

snyggejygge
13-03-2012, 00:08
Why the hate against Rocks as unit fillers, I mean for some armies it actually looks good, I use a small herdstone in a gor unit, it's a rock, but nobody I play complains about it. I also have a Chaos Monolith in my marauder unit, also a rock, ofc both are filled with grizzly trophies & have had extensive work on them. None of these are for saving money, I have enough spare Gors & marauders to fill those 4 places in the unit, nor is it because I can't be arsed to paint the models but because I actually think it looks good inside the units to make them look a bit more interesting.

Snake1311
13-03-2012, 00:39
People hate rocks, because the thought of you not paying as much as them to enjoy the hobby makes their tummy feel wrinf with jealousy ;)

But no, when people say 'rocks' they mean when someone takes a handful of gravel from in front of their house and then glues it to random-sized bases, not when you convert herdstones and monoliths.

dimetri1
13-03-2012, 00:57
I dislike unit fillers. One is two many.

shakedown47
13-03-2012, 02:08
I have an opinion on unit fillers just like everyone else, and just like everyone else that's all my viewpoint is: my opinion. This post is directed solely at the OP as my attempt to answer his question.

Here are my unit filler criteria (enforceable by no one):

1. No terrain unit fillers, unless it's infantry models on terrain; yes that means gobbo tents and beastmen stones. They don't carry that **** around in the thick of battle.

2. No single filler should be larger than four of the (small-based infantry) unit's bases; i.e. 50x50 in a unit of 25mm bases.

3. It shouldn't be possible, ever, that any amount of casualties taken can't be accurately represented with a majority of "correct" models while maintaining true rank coherency.

4. Counting template hits, reforming, and removing casualties shouldn't take any longer than it would if there were no fillers present. This game can take long enough as-is, I don't like waiting longer than I have to just to resolve the most basic things.

5. The VAST majority of the models in the unit need to be the models the unit is supposed to be comprised of. I won't put a hard number or percentage on "vast;" much like porn, I know it when I see it.

6. If I can just glance at your unit of zombies and think "tombstones," or your forest goblins and think "spiders," or your night goblins and think "Battle For Skull Pass," you did it wrong.

7. Don't use unit fillers because you're broke or just cheap; they're a chance for creativity and showing off your modeling skills, not a chance to save a buck. Everyone gets low on cash once in a while (some perpetually) and that's totally understandable. I would much, much rather play against the Incredible Base Army for a few or several months, knowing that you'll eventually present me with an awesome army, than your Amazing Horde of Quartz Stones From My Driveway for god knows how long.

Just my $.02, of course.

Gop
13-03-2012, 04:05
It's going to vary according to who you ask. Personally I think 1/4 is fine, and maybe even 1/3 if it's cool.

Kayosiv
13-03-2012, 07:43
I dislike unit fillers. One is two many.

English makes me laugh sometimes.

Disposable Hero
13-03-2012, 08:04
Wrinf! And more.

Munin
13-03-2012, 08:19
To OP: 25-30% is enough with UF, after all one need to see what unit it is.

With that said, I wanna thank all the UF haters in this thread for NOT playing in my area and ruining the atmosphere of creativity and different looking armies. A cool UF brings more to the table than someone who needs to count every single head in a unit to figure out how many there is in it.

Hakar
13-03-2012, 08:27
A rock is not an example of an atmosphere of creativity, and pointing this out does not make me a 'hater'.

datalink7
13-03-2012, 08:31
I think as long as the filler is thematic and looks good, great. That's what I try to do with all my fillers.

For instance, I have a 40mmx40mm base filler with only two ghouls on it. However, there is also an empire Soldier that is being torn apart by those two ghouls. Basically, it goes in the middle and shows a few ghouls stopping to eat along the way :P. Something like that I don't have a problem with.

Or here are some of my unit fillers for my Gnoblars. I have several sets of walls and I tried to make it look like they were coming over the walls. Some might be five bases across and I could only fit four Gnoblars, but I've never had complaints:

http://s3.photobucket.com/albums/y100/datalink7/Warhammer/?action=view&current=Gnoblars_9.jpg
http://s3.photobucket.com/albums/y100/datalink7/Warhammer/?action=view&current=Gnoblars_4.jpg

innerwolf
13-03-2012, 08:33
A rock is not an example of an atmosphere of creativity, and pointing this out does not make me a 'hater'.

QFT. Units don't carry huge rocks with them, nor encounter them each time they walk forward. If you add a filler, add one which is likely to be among the soldiers all along the battle.

Munin
13-03-2012, 08:40
@Hakar: I wouldnt say my post was directed at you, since you (of what I can read in your post on 1st page) somewhat seem to share my oppinion.

Jerry
13-03-2012, 08:58
If its there it's there, if it isn't it isn't. Everyone's entitled to depict there army the way they want to. As long as the unit filler doesn't impede on the game why would it matter? If it impedes on your enjoyment of the game then don't play that person. Going on to insult that person for having a lack of creativity and 'not being in the spirit of the game' is ridiculous.
Also, the argument that X unit would never have Y object in its unit because its not plausible is ridiculous. Warhammer is NOT PLAUSIBLE.

Askari
13-03-2012, 09:25
QFT. Units don't carry huge rocks with them, nor encounter them each time they walk forward. If you add a filler, add one which is likely to be among the soldiers all along the battle.

So you wouldn't let your opponent use any (http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440090a&prodId=prod20032) of these (http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440060a&prodId=prod790854) models (http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440060a&prodId=prod790844) either (http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat720003a&prodId=prod1290005a)? Rather unfair no?

JustinDonnelly
13-03-2012, 09:37
So you wouldn't let your opponent use any (http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440090a&prodId=prod20032) of these (http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440060a&prodId=prod790854) models (http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440060a&prodId=prod790844) either (http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat720003a&prodId=prod1290005a)? Rather unfair no?

+1

I cant think of an example where any filler would be encountered in every spot the unit would be to stop in. But i dont think thats the point of a filler. Done right, they add the a unit and playing against them, give me something to examine in the enemies part of the turn where im not too involved.

Any chance we could get a poll on this thread? Dont see the point in starting a new topic on this but i would be interested to see everyones views as its a little hard to gauge in the posts. :)

Snake1311
13-03-2012, 11:40
Am the only person for whom GW links just open up the frontpage where you are meant to pick your country? And its the same from many different PCs/IP addresses. So wrinf....

I don't think polls will really show anything worthwhile other than for the sake of curiosity I suppose. On a personal basis, its all down to what your opponent will allow/be happy with, but then if they are being douches about it you don't have to play with them :D

On the tournament scene (at least in the UK) fillers are definitely allowed; and when I say allowed I mean no one bats an eyelid or mentions them - they are as accepted as everything else. A lot of (the majority?) of armies I've seen nominated for painting awards have had creative fillers of some sort as well, so I suppose they are actually subtly encouraged in armies that run big-ish units (and since there is almost always a model cap comp-wise, big unit means 30-40).

To be honest, considering that GW releases unit fillers themselves (I can't open them links, but I remember an empire guy with a bear who takes up the space of 2 bases) your opponent can't really disallow you to use your fillers any more than he can disallow you to play with certain unit choices - his only option is to refuse to play you, but then he's the one who will be packing up and leaving.

N1AK
13-03-2012, 12:23
So you wouldn't let your opponent use any (http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440090a&prodId=prod20032) of these (http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440060a&prodId=prod790854) models (http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440060a&prodId=prod790844) either (http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat720003a&prodId=prod1290005a)? Rather unfair no?

Of course he doesn't mean that ;) It's just that like so many other people on the 'rocks equal the end of the earth' camp they have no idea what it is that actually disagree with. As others have pointed out it would be stupid to refuse to play models on grass bases because the table is sand. We don't ban units with earth bases from ending their move in a swamp. If some players want to create a completely arbitrary line in the sand about looks 'rediculous' in the middle of a unit of savage orc plastic toy soldiers that's their choice, but it'll still come across as pretty retarded to a lot of people.

Urgat
13-03-2012, 12:34
Am the only person for whom GW links just open up the frontpage where you are meant to pick your country? And its the same from many different PCs/IP addresses. So wrinf....
Does that with everybody I guess. Just pick your language, and you'll end up on the right page :p

Back on topic, you'll find a poll there (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?104864-What-do-you-think-about-unit-fillers&highlight=unit+fillers), and a whole topic covering pretty much all there is to cover about people thoughts on fillers there (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?169314-Thoughts-on-unit-fillers).
edit: probably not the right topic actually, as I remember showing my gobs to check if they were "ok" (they have the dreaded tree, but, at the same time, the correct number of goblins), and it's not in there.

Tokamak
13-03-2012, 14:16
All warhammer models drag a square patch of terrain under their feet. Sometimes they stand atop of rocks which glide across the battleboard. Often the terrain they drag along is incosistent with the board.

This must drive you insane....

A necessary evil and not as intrusive as an entire tree


I'm going to use this (http://i1044.photobucket.com/albums/b449/boli32/IMG_20120308_222349.jpg) as a unit filler in the unit with the BSB in. (Obviously I'm going to paint it, that was taken whist the glue was drying).

* According to the rule lawyers it's illigeal, cheap and "not in the spirit of collecting".
* According to me it helps both me and my opponant instantly see where my BSB is adds character to my otherwise identical blocks of rats and actually allows me to get some use out of my RO from the Plague Furnace kit :)

Who is correct?... well technically the rule lawyer is..... BUT... the day GW stop selling unit fillers on their site is the day I'll stop using them!

I'm apposed to the majority of the unit being "filler"... but at the same time people need to individulise their units; not only that but needing to set up 50 individual models up exactly every game is infuriating. Especially if they are anything like mine and many units you need a certain pattern to make them all fit in base to base contact!

If you can see at a glance what is in each unit and there are no issues with taking casualties... they're all good in my book!

Amazing model, still needlessly confusing what the unit is supposed to represent. Especially because rat ogres themselves also appear in mixed units.

Imagine skink units with kroxigor fillers, see the problem? Rat-ogres aren't too far away from that.

Askari
13-03-2012, 14:25
Imagine skink units with kroxigor fillers, see the problem? Rat-ogres aren't too far away from that.

So long as the player tells me it's "Skinks + filler" not "Skrox unit", no, I don't see the problem at all.

Tokamak
13-03-2012, 14:34
Well then if you're fine with everything able to look like something else then why not build an 'army' of things you like the look of and go with that? Why even go through the effort of building a presentable, coherent army?

WSISYG is not just a rule to make the game playable, it's there to set a benchmark. Being able to make your army look unique yet recognisable at a glance without further explanation is a heavily undervalued feat in this hobby. For me it's what it's all about.

Without it I might as well start playing with sprues and deodorant bottles. I just don't get it, you're playing a game that's all about miniatures, why replace the miniatures? It's like going to a Japanese restaurant and replacing the soy sauce with tomato ketchup. It's tasteless and it completely misses the point of going there in the first place.

Kayosiv
13-03-2012, 14:54
Because spending $500 at one time on tiny plastic men isn't everyone's cup of tea, using what you have in a creative and artistic way is just as if not more rewarding then putting together models that are designed to be put together, and big giant blocks of troops are boring blobs on the battlefield.

JustinDonnelly
13-03-2012, 14:57
I like playing the game because I enjoy it. Its nice when playing against models, but if it were a choice between playing warhammer with card/stand ins/proxies/anything or not playing it at all, I would choose anything over not playing warhmmer at all...

willowdark
13-03-2012, 15:04
Well then if you're fine with everything able to look like something else then why not build an 'army' of things you like the look of and go with that? Why even go through the effort of building a presentable, coherent army?

WSISYG is not just a rule to make the game playable, it's there to set a benchmark. Being able to make your army look unique yet recognisable at a glance without further explanation is a heavily undervalued feat in this hobby. For me it's what it's all about.

Without it I might as well start playing with sprues and deodorant bottles. I just don't get it, you're playing a game that's all about miniatures, why replace the miniatures? It's like going to a Japanese restaurant and replacing the soy sauce with tomato ketchup. It's tasteless and it completely misses the point of going there in the first place.

That is just the absolute _worst_ kind of slippery slope argument. Everyone plays the game with 'armies' they like the look of, and absolutely no one is talking about deodorant bottles. Specifically you're responding to someone who suggested using a model from the army as a filler. You have to see how inappropriate and hyperbolic your response to that is.

In my Dark Elf army I modeled Dark Riders without RxB's as warhounds packs with a beastmaster running with them. Sure people were surprised when they saw them for the first time, but they were instantly recognizable and people fell in love with them right away. I'm doing it again with my WE Wild Riders using the new 40k wolves.

It's WYSIWYG, but it's my personal take on it, because the opportunity to customize my army in my personal way is what makes this game special. Otherwise I could just play chess.

Askari
13-03-2012, 15:24
Well then if you're fine with everything able to look like something else then why not build an 'army' of things you like the look of and go with that? Why even go through the effort of building a presentable, coherent army

That's precisely what I do. Who buys models they don't actually like just for the benefit of others like yourself who wants to oppose a fully regimented army? Sure, it happens to be that I quite like phalanxes of Halberdiers and Handgunners. But with units that should be more haphazard like Orcs and Skaven, sure, mix 'em up if you want, I won't impose my preference on your army.

AndrewRogue
13-03-2012, 15:40
So long as I can easily discern what it is (or have no problem remembering on being told) and it doesn't interfere with the ability to remove models correctly, then I don't really care.

Skink/Krox is sort of iffy territory, but I suppose I would let it slide so long as there were no actual mixed units.

Snake1311
13-03-2012, 15:45
WSISYG is not just a rule to make the game playable, it's there to set a benchmark. Being able to make your army look unique yet recognisable at a glance without further explanation is a heavily undervalued feat in this hobby. For me it's what it's all about.


Agree. For 99% of gamers Rat Ogres in skaven units, trees in WE units, monoliths in chaos units, etc etc, both provdie a unique look and are instantly recognizable. There is no mechanical game drawback to having well-designed filler.

I gotta be honest, I can see where you are coming from. I, too, strongly dislike having models sat on bases from a visual perspective; things like flying bases which are kinda 'there-but-not-there' are also very detrimental to proper immersion. Fillers come in a similar category of breaking the athmosphere. To this day, there is nothing on any of my bases other than paint and flock, and I strongly dislike flames on anything - as there is nothing that can be done to stop them looking static.

However, you need to learn to work with such things, because they make the game playable, and in the end if you've come to the table you are there mainly to play.

You need to find a way to get over those OCD urges (just like I have) because no one will (and shoudn't have to) pander to them.

Banville
13-03-2012, 18:48
Not wanting to jump on anyone's back here either but WYSIWYG isn't actually a rule or criterion for WHFB. "WYSIWYG is not just a rule to make the game playable..."

No it isn't because it isn't actually a rule at all in Fantasy.

Da_White_Orc
13-03-2012, 19:52
if someone cares that you're using a unit filler, that's their problem, not yours. do what you like, this is SUPPOSED to be fun afterall

if your unit filler looks good enough, no one will complain in my experience.

until you beat them.

but then, they were going to find SOMETHING to complain about anyway and your unit filler is just an easy target

Lord Inquisitor
13-03-2012, 20:17
WYSIWYG and potential confusion.

WYSIWYG may not be a rule per se although there is a stipulation under the section on weapons. "It is acceptable for a unit to include a minority of models that are differently armed for the sake of a varied and interesting appearance... Where models are varied in this way, it is important that the overall appearance of the unit is not misleading." p88. While this deals with weaponry and rather assumes you are using the right species of model for your units, it is nevertheless a common wargaming courtesy that the units on the board are representative. The key point is it is important the overall appearance of the unit is not misleading. This applies to proxies, counts as and fillers. As a rather extreme example, using Kroxigor as fillers for Skinks is downright confusing - and doing so in an army with actual kroxigor would be outright unacceptable.

Curbing creativity

I would hate to see unit fillers banned. I've seen some amazing and funny unit fillers, some with an almost insane amount of work put in. They are a great vehicle to allowing dioramas into functional armies.

But...

Don't tell me that empty bases, cardboard markers or pieces of gravel or twigs are expressions of creativity. I'm okay with playing against armies with twigs as fillers, providing it isn't taken to extreme or interferes with gameplay. It just looks cheap because it is cheap.

Realism of terrain pieces in fillers

Doesn't really bother me, if it is done well. Lump of gravel, looks lame. Have your orcs climbing all over a giant rock with one standing tall on top like the Uruk Hai leader ordering the charge on helm's deep, looks great. Sure, have your beastmen literally carrying a herdstone into battle! That would be (a) awesome and (b) thumb your nose as those who like to say "well do they carry that rock around the battle with them?"

The key point is that I'm cool with a filler depicting a battle, a diorama or just plain your troops navigating terrain. I'm not bothered that it's a snapshot that would only occur at one given moment, the models are single pose and often depict a single moment of the battle (e.g. Grimgor carries that head around everywhere does he?). But if you just put a tree inside where 8 of your troopers should be, then the unit is going to look anemic. If 8 out of 30 troopers are replaced with a tree, then your unit is going to look a bit pathetic. Have miniatures on the filler - swarming around the tree, fighting enemies or each other and it adds narrative. But then, you'll need to place models on the filler and not just a cheap tree. Which brings us back to - do you want it to be cheap, or do you want it to look good?

Hakar
14-03-2012, 08:10
Because spending $500 at one time on tiny plastic men isn't everyone's cup of tea, using what you have in a creative and artistic way is just as if not more rewarding then putting together models that are designed to be put together, and big giant blocks of troops are boring blobs on the battlefield.

So your solution is to spend $400 and pretend it's $500 worth?
I'm sorry, but buying two boxes of 20 goblins, and putting rocks and trees on big bases to make them cover 50 bases is not a creative and artistic way of putting together models, and giant blocks of troops are less boring than 40 goblins and a rock.

Jerry
14-03-2012, 08:28
So your solution is to spend $400 and pretend it's $500 worth?
I'm sorry, but buying two boxes of 20 goblins, and putting rocks and trees on big bases to make them cover 50 bases is not a creative and artistic way of putting together models, and giant blocks of troops are less boring than 40 goblins and a rock.
No but putting rocks and trees with the same army terrain and a nice paint job + some little detail bits from your bits box, like what most people do, is absolutely creative and artistic. Sorry but do you define what is and what isn't artist? If so please come to my local city art gallery and have a look at some of the stuff passed off as 'art'.


"So your solution is to spend $400 and pretend it's $500 worth?" why don't you just attach your full price GW direct labels to all of your models to show how ineptly expensive your army of miniature models is.

Warhammer Madman
14-03-2012, 08:35
I have a filler in one of my units (40mm base) with a dwarf barkeep and barrels of beer...

now MOST people I play with think its amusing and adds to the enjoyment of the game. having non-specific fillers is great if there done well and are in keeping with an army's character. across a whole army several of this style of filler ties the list together. but I can see the drag rock argument... however If someone did an elfin obelisk covered in script with a couple of mini's around it I wouldn't complain. Its all about how committed the player is to there filler, the more effort put into it the more acceptable it is!

Tokamak
14-03-2012, 08:36
However, you need to learn to work with such things, because they make the game playable, and in the end if you've come to the table you are there mainly to play.

It makes the game affordable, and luckily for me I get to play with people that have the same passion for representative armies. An ideal game is not played with watered-down armies. People don't need to pander to this ideal, but I don't need to facilitate their preferences either. In the end we're talking about what we prefer, and I prefer to see no unit fillers, no matter how imaginative and well-crafted they are in any army.

I rather see the painter express his unique take on the race within the miniature than on whatever is supposed to make up for the lack of one.

The bearded one
14-03-2012, 09:19
So your solution is to spend $400 and pretend it's $500 worth?
I'm sorry, but buying two boxes of 20 goblins, and putting rocks and trees on big bases to make them cover 50 bases is not a creative and artistic way of putting together models, and giant blocks of troops are less boring than 40 goblins and a rock.

Maybe not, but what about all the people playing VC who use parts of the garden of morr as unitfiller (As far as I am aware every single vampire player in my gaming environment is doing this). They could buy about as many rank&file as the mausoleums fill and many place skeletons in/around/on the mausoleums as well, in the end making it more expensive than without fillers.


It makes the game affordable, and luckily for me I get to play with people that have the same passion for representative armies.

I'm sorry, but when you talk about this in the context of affordability it makes it sounds like "luckily I get to play with people who spend more money".


I rather see the painter express his unique take on the race within the miniature than on whatever is supposed to make up for the lack of one.

Pha, yeah, tried that. I did converting and sculpting on all the models of 2 full units of hammerers and longbeards. I don't think anybody has noticed anything in 2 years unless I actively showed them. Then you put down a dwarven statue or a dwarf holding a book of grudges on to of a ruin and it's "oh, hey, that looks nice". The quoted sentence gives me the feeling like we're narrowing unitfillers down to pieces of terrain on a base, like rocks or trees the unit drags along. Often enough unitfillers still contain mini's.

How terrible is the following unit: http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c140/edgarschippers/warhammer%20lizardmen/DSC01687.jpg

135290

Skaby
14-03-2012, 09:55
How terrible is the following unit: http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c140/edgarschippers/warhammer%20lizardmen/DSC01687.jpg

135290

Sorry, but I disagree: this Saurus unit could maybe (and I'm not saying I will be able to) have a better paintjob, but I like the idea.

The bearded one
14-03-2012, 10:04
Sorry, but I disagree:

you disagree with what exactly?

Munin
14-03-2012, 10:08
@TBO: Thats a really cool concept for a Saurus unit. Love it!

vcassano
14-03-2012, 10:34
Amazing model, still needlessly confusing what the unit is supposed to represent. Especially because rat ogres themselves also appear in mixed units.

Imagine skink units with kroxigor fillers, see the problem? Rat-ogres aren't too far away from that.

I am lenient and accepting when it comes to unit fillers, though I haven't yet used one myself. However I can appreciate that this may be a legitimate concern. Yes, you can tell your opponent and for many that will be fine. But sometimes you forget these things in the heat of a game and they can mislead you at a glance. Obviously this point is not relevant for armies that do not use mixed units.

Also,


better paintjob

What?! Bearded One's Lizardmen are stunning.

Urgat
14-03-2012, 11:14
How terrible is the following unit: http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c140/edgarschippers/warhammer lizardmen/DSC01687.jpg

135290
It's worse than my goblins with tree and outdoors toilet (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?101658-The-Gut-Reapa-(orcs-and-gobs-army-probably-image-heavy-soon)&p=5453239&viewfull=1#post5453239)! Because I'm sure there's a way my goblins can move the tree and... hey... Now, if someone complains that there's a moving tree in my goblins unit, I'll just answer "yeah, it's been following my gobs every since they walked through that blood forest".
Yep, the toilet is animated too. Trying to find the bastard who clogged it. It's actually an arcane fulcrum.
Note that it's not really a filler, since there's all 20 gobs in there.

Hakar
14-03-2012, 11:14
Maybe not, but what about all the people playing VC who use parts of the garden of morr as unitfiller (As far as I am aware every single vampire player in my gaming environment is doing this). They could buy about as many rank&file as the mausoleums fill and many place skeletons in/around/on the mausoleums as well, in the end making it more expensive than without fillers.

Let me just set something straight here. I am not against unit fillers because I am some elitist snob who demands that all miniatures on the tabletop are the latest, full-price, miniatures created by none other than GW itself (though it is a convenient straw-man).
What I have against unit fillers (and not alternative miniatures, regiment bases or reasonable dioramas) is the idea that my opponent gets to tell me that some random objects 'count as' models in his army. It doesn't matter if they are pieces of paper, unpainted pairs of orc legs, over-priced GW terrain or the Hope Diamond.


No but putting rocks and trees with the same army terrain and a nice paint job + some little detail bits from your bits box, like what most people do, is absolutely creative and artistic.

Are we still talking about unit fillers? I never said anything about terrain or scenic bases.


Sorry but do you define what is and what isn't artist? If so please come to my local city art gallery and have a look at some of the stuff passed off as 'art'.

Do you? I mean, you were the first to bring it up.


why don't you just attach your full price GW direct labels to all of your models to show how ineptly expensive your army of miniature models is.

So how is your strawman army coming along?

The bearded one
14-03-2012, 11:32
Let me just set something straight here. I am not against unit fillers because I am some elitist snob who demands that all miniatures on the tabletop are the latest, full-price, miniatures created by none other than GW itself (though it is a convenient straw-man)

your earlier "So your solution is to spend $400 and pretend it's $500 worth?" -statement totally put me off track there.


It's worse than my goblins with tree and outdoors toilet (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?101658-The-Gut-Reapa-(orcs-and-gobs-army-probably-image-heavy-soon)&p=5453239&viewfull=1#post5453239)!

I know, I'm terrible :D

DaHobgoblin
14-03-2012, 11:35
I think the definition of unit fillers is subjective which is causing angst.
for me putting more than one model on a larger base to add some interesting pose is not a unit filler - same number of models same footprint and as long as you can still take any number of casulties and leave the unit the correct size then where is the problem, I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to work out the number of hits from a template, and if you can't then have a tray of just bases to one side to put the template on.

Now when you start adding large objects to the piece I can see some issues, firstly it brings a conceptual problem, how come that tree keeps moving, how come that rock keeps moving, but then again, how come that little stone your general has his foot on keeps moving.... So a bit of balance required here and those unit fillers that can move are obviously more understandable, like the dwarven pony pulling a cart of beer.
The second issue with large objects is that they often take up the space of actual models, so the model count no longer equals the standard base count for the unit footprint, and here I can see some people objecting, but explains why many people do it, rocks cheaper than figs. Personally I think if you are going to have a rock, then it needs figures on it, and if you are going to drop the figure count down then there needs to be an explanation as to where the missing wounds / attacks are coming from. So that dwarf pony gets an attack would make sense, not sure how that barrel of gunpowder is going to attack though.
I have always been a fan of the mixed unit for army flavour, throwing in a mercenary ogre into an empire unit or a troll into a goblin unit and had not considered the issue of opponents not realising that was just for the look and expecting ogre/troll attacks etc. This is a valid point and I guess necessiates some dialogue with your opponent in advance of the game.
Play in the spirit though, like the rulebook states the majority of the models should be correctly armed, could extend that to be, the majority of the uni should be the correct troop type.

The real issue comes down to purpose, why is the unit filler there, is it because the owner wants to add more flavour and depth to the unit that can't be achieved whilst keeping all the models on separate bases or is this an attempt to make a larger unit at no additional cost. I actively support the former but frown on the latter.

Askari
14-03-2012, 11:47
The more this thread progresses the more the argument against filler seems to come to "I paid full price for my army, so dammit so should you!".

Hakar
14-03-2012, 11:50
your earlier "So your solution is to spend $400 and pretend it's $500 worth?" -statement totally put me off track there.

That was in response to someone saying that 'spending $500 at one time on tiny plastic men isn't everyone's cup of tea, using what you have in a creative and artistic way is just as if not more rewarding then putting together models that are designed to be put together, and big giant blocks of troops are boring blobs on the battlefield.'.
My opinion hasn't changed since the last thread about this subject. If you're already spending 400 or 500 dollars on plastic toy soldiers, what's the point of stretching that? To get a higher number of points in your army to use? Why not just play smaller games?



The more this thread progresses the more the argument against filler seems to come to "I paid full price for my army, so dammit so should you!".

By that same logic (ie, refusing to read what others are saying), I can claim that the argument in favour of unit fillers comes to "I shouldn't have to spend any money".

The bearded one
14-03-2012, 11:52
... because you'd like to play bigger ones but can't afford to?

Hakar
14-03-2012, 12:00
... because you'd like to play bigger ones but can't afford to?

Why would you want to play bigger games with miniatures you don't have? Does the bigger number of points make the battle sound more important?
And mind you, I'm not talking about 'Let's give it a try so I know what to buy next'.

Munin
14-03-2012, 12:08
As much as the UF haters dont wanna play against people with UFs in their army we dont wanna play you either so what is there to discuss really? This discussion doesn't seem to move forward anymore.

The bearded one
14-03-2012, 12:10
Why would you want to play bigger games with miniatures you don't have? Does the bigger number of points make the battle sound more important?
And mind you, I'm not talking about 'Let's give it a try so I know what to buy next'.

I can't believe I ever bothered with 2400pts battles! I could just as well start playing 500 pts and get more games in that way! The revelation!

Snake1311
14-03-2012, 12:11
The more this thread progresses the more the argument against filler seems to come to "I paid full price for my army, so dammit so should you!".

I'd give you credit for being perceptive, but to be honest you are just stating the obvious :)

Although I'm willing to concede that some people posting here aren't just horrible elitists who don't wanna feel like suckers because they spent more than they needed to, but are actually just really anal about unit representation. Where that is the case, it is once again very much a point of 'get over it'. The polls show that people like fillers.

In the very first tournament I played in, I played against a DoC army which used ghouls as plaguebearers, and a bunch of other count-as 'conversions'. The army that won the painting competition was a Skaven army represented by mostly human miniatures (with conversions and painting effects).

It seems some people here won't be able to function outside of their local store.

FYI nearly every O&G player ever makes two manglers out of the mangler kit. So I suppose they get manglers for half price if they can get themselves a spare base (or, you know, make one).

librerian_samae
14-03-2012, 12:15
Made up a unit filler for the first time when expanding my ogre army, I use a large unit of 30 gnobs, and had some bits left over after using an old metal scrap launcher and new ironblaster to make ones that were not hair tearing-ly frustrating to assemble.

Anyway the gnobs use a ogre base in the midst of the unit with 2 gnobs standing on junk flinging handfuls of scrap over their mates heads, ended up looking cool.
Now I did have the extra 2 gnobs to fill it out to a full 30 but thought the mini filler diorama ended up looking too cramped.

Does anyone find an example like this an issue???

JustinDonnelly
14-03-2012, 12:19
FYI nearly every O&G player ever makes two manglers out of the mangler kit. So I suppose they get manglers for half price if they can get themselves a spare base (or, you know, make one).

OMG you cant possible use a non official GW base......

Just in case people didnt pick up on the subtle hint of sarcasm, im taking the ****.....

Darnok
14-03-2012, 12:36
As much as the UF haters dont wanna play against people with UFs in their army we dont wanna play you either so what is there to discuss really? This discussion doesn't seem to move forward anymore.

It never does. Every time this topic pops up - usually once every few weeks - we have the well known two sides, with some extremists in both. It rarely involves a proper discussion.

Munin
14-03-2012, 12:41
It never does. Every time this topic pops up - usually once every few weeks - we have the well known two sides, with some extremists in both. It rarely involves a proper discussion.

True enough =/.

Snake1311
14-03-2012, 12:46
It never does. Every time this topic pops up - usually once every few weeks - we have the well known two sides, with some extremists in both. It rarely involves a proper discussion.

I think identifying why people dislike fillers (as in, do they have a logical reason) is pretty productive***. If they make some valid points, I would personally reconsider mine. After all, I'm not going into the game with the mentality of handicapping my opponent by making it difficult for them.

So far, their points can be summed as:
- I don't like the look of it
- Y u no spend moar on WH?

So the barrels are here to stay :P

***I have not participated in the previous threads.

Tokamak
14-03-2012, 13:06
I'm sorry, but when you talk about this in the context of affordability it makes it sounds like "luckily I get to play with people who spend more money".

Or don't to play outside their means.

Skaby
14-03-2012, 13:17
you disagree with what exactly?
I disagree with your sentence "how terrible is this unit" - but maybe I misunderstood you?

JustinDonnelly
14-03-2012, 13:22
Or don't to play outside their means.

So your saying you shouldn't fill out your ranks with fillers so you can play bigger battles until you can afford to buy more models?

So someone who doesn't have $$$ to spend of overpriced miniatures should not be able to play bigger games? Is that what your saying?

Tokamak
14-03-2012, 13:29
It's quantity vs quality here. Most of us are binge-hobbyists who keep buying armies because they're cool. This diffusion is the biggest money sink rather than trying to get one big army. We use unit fillers because we've been once again bought into the hype and want to play the cool new stuff while the rest lays gathering dust under our beds.


Pha, yeah, tried that. I did converting and sculpting on all the models of 2 full units of hammerers and longbeards. I don't think anybody has noticed anything in 2 years unless I actively showed them. Then you put down a dwarven statue or a dwarf holding a book of grudges on to of a ruin and it's "oh, hey, that looks nice".

Haha yeah that's the thing with kitsch.

SotF
14-03-2012, 13:51
Only limitations I've put on them are the same ones the local store does for their events.

1.) The unit needs to have at least 2 entire ranks of models before fillers & multibasing.
2.) The unit must be able to handle casualties for any number of losses and recoveries.

Past those, I don't dislike fillers at all. Hell, there's a couple of my zombie and ghoul units that have 1-2 minis on a much larger base using it as scenery to enhanse the look of the unit as a whole.

Spider-pope
14-03-2012, 14:10
Only limitations I've put on them are the same ones the local store does for their events.

1.) The unit needs to have at least 2 entire ranks of models before fillers & multibasing.
2.) The unit must be able to handle casualties for any number of losses and recoveries.

Past those, I don't dislike fillers at all. Hell, there's a couple of my zombie and ghoul units that have 1-2 minis on a much larger base using it as scenery to enhanse the look of the unit as a whole.

Both those limits sound perfectly reasonable and ensure the unit fillers don't have a detrimental effect. Personally i've no problem at all with unit fillers, within reason. It all depends on the size of the unit as far as i'm concerned. If you're going to field a horde of goblins for example,a couple of unit fillers here and there are absolutely fine. If you're fielding a unit of fifteen orcs however and ten of them are represented by two models and a couple of stones, then it'd be a bit annoying.

Lord Inquisitor
14-03-2012, 14:26
I think identifying why people dislike fillers (as in, do they have a logical reason) is pretty productive***. If they make some valid points, I would personally reconsider mine. After all, I'm not going into the game with the mentality of handicapping my opponent by making it difficult for them.

So far, their points can be summed as:
- I don't like the look of it
- Y u no spend moar on WH?


What a succinct summary of this thread. Oh wait, how about:

Negatives to unit fillers - game mechanics

Unit fillers prevent the unit from forming any given legal formation. The bigger the filler, the more it limits unit formations.
Unit fillers make it harder to accurately identify how many models lie under a template.
Unit fillers can make identifying base-to-base contact difficult in some situations/formations.
Unit fillers can make tracking ranks/individual models difficult if the player has more filler than individual models in a unit.
Unit fillers (and multi-basing) can make calculating combat res unnecessarily complicated. ("You kill three, so I remove the 6-model filler and replace three rank and file, tidy up the ranks and find three other casualties to put behind the unit")
Can significantly affect true LOS considerations (can you draw LOS through a terrain feature on a unit filler?)
Potential for confusion. Especially true when using an existing miniature from a different unit in your army as a filler.

Negatives to unit fillers - aesthetics

When done to save money, typically looks cheap.
Often makes the unit seem smaller than it should be.
Static terrain features negatively impact the perception of the unit as a mobile element.

Positives to unit fillers - game mechanics
None really. The game is designed for units of individually based models. Quicker to set up, if that counts as a game mechanic.

Positives to unit fillers - aesthetics

Can save money on miniatures.
Can be an awesome opportunity to create a mini-diorama or add narrative to an army.


I think that's a fair appraisal. Unit fillers don't have any positive effect on gameplay and indeed, I can't think of any situation where in terms of pure game mechanics, you wouldn't be better off using standard rank and file. There's a lot of potential for nuisance, particularly with large fillers. Small fillers may have a negligible effect, but still no advantages over individually based models.

So the only advantages are aesthetics and thriftiness. Typically these don't go together - a good filler is often more expensive than the equivalent number of rank and file (a good filler often has rank and file on the filler). In terms of aesthetics, a good filler looks good, a bad filler looks bad and can even drag down the appearance of a unit. Saving money is all well and good but you could play with cardboard cut-outs too and how many people would want to play against you then? Obviously there's a sliding scale, but don't dress up cheapness with artistic expression. Plonking a spare premade tree down to save a box of figs is not artistic expression.

A really good filler is worth any awkwardness in gameplay but they do negatively affect gameplay.

The bearded one
14-03-2012, 15:22
Haha yeah that's the thing with kitsch.

I'd still like an opinion on my own particular brand of kitsch;
135342

astornfleshlay
14-03-2012, 15:22
I have a Warhammer room setup in my home, and just play with a few friends.
We use "counters" that I've made that are the exact dimensions of various base-sizes.
This allows us to play as big a game as we want without having to buy $4000 worth of models.
Does it look as nice? Hell no.
Is the game just as fun? Hell yes, and even more so because we can literally field anything as long as we have at least one box of a certain unit to field.
The hobby also becomes extremely affordable and, as such, I've started other armies that I probably wouldn't have due to expenses.

Getting on track with the thread, I (obviously) think unit fillers are fine, and would have no problem with it. I enjoy playing the game, not being a douche because someone doesn't want to spend X amount of money (or time) on models to push around.

astornfleshlay
14-03-2012, 15:23
I'd still like an opinion on my own particular brand of kitsch;
135342

I definitely like what you've done there. Looks great :)

Lord Inquisitor
14-03-2012, 15:52
Shelfunit, where did your post go? I was just about to reply to it!

I got the gist though.

A "reasonable" player will use reasonable-sized fillers, and will work through with their reasonable opponent any issues regarding LOS, placement of templates, TLOS so on and so forth in a reasonable way.

Yeah, see the point here is that while yes, a normal sized filler can be dealt with using a bit of common sense and reasonableness, it does have to be dealt with. It requires the person to be reasonable and it does negatively affect gameplay. Not enough to make a fuss about? Yeah, most of the time. I have, however, faced fillers as big as 8x8 and certainly I've had games where I've wished that I or my opponent didn't have fillers.

The fact remains that even a small filler does negatively affect gameplay, slowing the game down, making things more complicated. I don't think this is up for debate. Now, it may be your opinion that this is negligible for most reasonable people. I would agree for the most part but I've had cases where it was far from negligible.

Indeed, I used to multi-base a lot. In the end I decided it wasn't worth the hassle. I keep intending to make a decent filler but I'm not going to do so unless it looks stonkingly awesome. I've seen fillers that were small and unobtrusive if unremarkable. I've seen awesome massive fillers that were awesome if something of a pain to play against.

AndrewRogue
14-03-2012, 15:53
TBO: That unit is clearly terrible. What if you were playing on a desert field? Then how would you have water? HOW? >:|

DeathlessDraich
14-03-2012, 15:57
What a succinct summary of this thread. Oh wait, how about:

Negatives to unit fillers - game mechanics

Unit fillers prevent the unit from forming any given legal formation. The bigger the filler, the more it limits unit formations.
Unit fillers make it harder to accurately identify how many models lie under a template.
Unit fillers can make identifying base-to-base contact difficult in some situations/formations.
Unit fillers can make tracking ranks/individual models difficult if the player has more filler than individual models in a unit.
Unit fillers (and multi-basing) can make calculating combat res unnecessarily complicated. ("You kill three, so I remove the 6-model filler and replace three rank and file, tidy up the ranks and find three other casualties to put behind the unit")
Can significantly affect true LOS considerations (can you draw LOS through a terrain feature on a unit filler?)
Potential for confusion. Especially true when using an existing miniature from a different unit in your army as a filler.

Negatives to unit fillers - aesthetics

When done to save money, typically looks cheap.
Often makes the unit seem smaller than it should be.
Static terrain features negatively impact the perception of the unit as a mobile element.

Positives to unit fillers - game mechanics
None really. The game is designed for units of individually based models. Quicker to set up, if that counts as a game mechanic.

Positives to unit fillers - aesthetics

Can save money on miniatures.
Can be an awesome opportunity to create a mini-diorama or add narrative to an army.


I think that's a fair appraisal. Unit fillers don't have any positive effect on gameplay and indeed, I can't think of any situation where in terms of pure game mechanics, you wouldn't be better off using standard rank and file. There's a lot of potential for nuisance, particularly with large fillers. Small fillers may have a negligible effect, but still no advantages over individually based models.

So the only advantages are aesthetics and thriftiness. Typically these don't go together - a good filler is often more expensive than the equivalent number of rank and file (a good filler often has rank and file on the filler). In terms of aesthetics, a good filler looks good, a bad filler looks bad and can even drag down the appearance of a unit. Saving money is all well and good but you could play with cardboard cut-outs too and how many people would want to play against you then? Obviously there's a sliding scale, but don't dress up cheapness with artistic expression. Plonking a spare premade tree down to save a box of figs is not artistic expression.

A really good filler is worth any awkwardness in gameplay but they do negatively affect gameplay.

Didn't read the whole thread but the above looks like a good summary.

Some additional thoughts on the matter:

1) Positives on game mechanics - easier to move , easier to rank up especially for beginners

2) Negatives to game mechanics - all of those mentioned above can be obviated by making sure that
a) the fillers are on correct bases
b) there are sufficient single models to make sure that size, formation and number of ranks are easily discernible
- following the guidelines you mentioned.

Am I in favour - Absolutely.:) In fact I would go further and suggest that correctly based unit fillers Must be used for some units e.g. Skaven Slaves, Night Goblins, Skellies etc - Most players would become impatient at seeing 200 Slaves taken out of the bag and individually placed on the tray - 10-20 mins waiting for your opponent to set up his army.

The way unit fillers is done among my group is similar to Ranald Loec's suggestion - front rank must be the exact individual models (to identify the unit) and either the whole left and/or right column must also be individual models to show how many ranks there are and how big the unit is. Changing formation is no problem and cost? - much cheaper if you dump a tray/piece of cardboard etc in the middle. Aesthetics are generally horrible but some players do make an effort to theme the filler and model and paint it nicely. Most don't but most armies I've seen, that do or do not use fillers vary from bad to mediocre in painting quality anyway.

The Low King
14-03-2012, 16:15
The fact remains that even a small filler does negatively affect gameplay, slowing the game down, making things more complicated. I don't think this is up for debate. Now, it may be your opinion that this is negligible for most reasonable people. I would agree for the most part but I've had cases where it was far from negligible.

So does conveting models, painting them differently, using Non-GW models and a lot of other stuff.

The bearded one
14-03-2012, 16:24
I went on a google-trip for a moment, looking for unitfillers I really liked and ones that are bad (too cheap, big or whatever).

I found a few I was rather impressed with; Here's some chaos dwarfs with a really neat filler which makes a not so noticable unit look quite awesome. I think it really adds to the character of the unit.
135343

And another one. If this one was painted or built poorly, it would've looked pretty cheap and rubbish, but it's painted and carved quite well and the graveguard look top notch, making me like this thing a lot, even if it might not be the easiest thing for casualty removal:
135344
And here a pic of the entire unit:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/68250108@N05/6931783123/in/photostream/

And I think we all know this one; It's from an army commisionpainter with the nickname CurseofBeers from the warhammer forum, he's made quite a lot of cool stuff.
http://warpsignal.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/zombies.jpg

Discord
14-03-2012, 18:04
I think that familiarizing yourself with the game, or even just asking your opponent basic questions about things that confuse you, is time well spent.

Sure is. However, familiarizing yourself with the game and and knowing what all the armies out there do are two completely different things, as long as their rules aren't available for free.


As opposed to, lets say, assembling and painting 20 extra RnF slave models which could have been replaced by some rat ogres from teh starter set which are already table-ready.

Again with the rat ogres. They've got higher ws, s, t, they cause fear and are affected by frenzy. I can't come up with a much more unappropriate unit filler for slaves.


Each to their own, but since those people are willing to explain to you what their units are and do, you should be more willing to allow them to use their fillers.

And where did I say I wouldn't?


It seems some people here won't be able to function outside of their local store.

Nice attitude, there.


I'd still like an opinion on my own particular brand of kitsch;
135342

That isn't really a unit filler, it's creative basing. The few saurus heads in the back row there are a bit questionable, though. Now if you had replaced four lizards in the unit with a big plant, that'd be a unit filler.

Snake1311
14-03-2012, 18:17
What a succinct summary of this thread. Oh wait, how about:

Negatives to unit fillers - game mechanics

Unit fillers prevent the unit from forming any given legal formation. The bigger the filler, the more it limits unit formations.
Unit fillers make it harder to accurately identify how many models lie under a template.
Unit fillers can make identifying base-to-base contact difficult in some situations/formations.
Unit fillers can make tracking ranks/individual models difficult if the player has more filler than individual models in a unit.
Unit fillers (and multi-basing) can make calculating combat res unnecessarily complicated. ("You kill three, so I remove the 6-model filler and replace three rank and file, tidy up the ranks and find three other casualties to put behind the unit")
Can significantly affect true LOS considerations (can you draw LOS through a terrain feature on a unit filler?)
Potential for confusion. Especially true when using an existing miniature from a different unit in your army as a filler.

Negatives to unit fillers - aesthetics

When done to save money, typically looks cheap.
Often makes the unit seem smaller than it should be.
Static terrain features negatively impact the perception of the unit as a mobile element.

Positives to unit fillers - game mechanics
None really. The game is designed for units of individually based models. Quicker to set up, if that counts as a game mechanic.

Positives to unit fillers - aesthetics

Can save money on miniatures.
Can be an awesome opportunity to create a mini-diorama or add narrative to an army.


I think that's a fair appraisal. Unit fillers don't have any positive effect on gameplay and indeed, I can't think of any situation where in terms of pure game mechanics, you wouldn't be better off using standard rank and file. There's a lot of potential for nuisance, particularly with large fillers. Small fillers may have a negligible effect, but still no advantages over individually based models.

So the only advantages are aesthetics and thriftiness. Typically these don't go together - a good filler is often more expensive than the equivalent number of rank and file (a good filler often has rank and file on the filler). In terms of aesthetics, a good filler looks good, a bad filler looks bad and can even drag down the appearance of a unit. Saving money is all well and good but you could play with cardboard cut-outs too and how many people would want to play against you then? Obviously there's a sliding scale, but don't dress up cheapness with artistic expression. Plonking a spare premade tree down to save a box of figs is not artistic expression.

A really good filler is worth any awkwardness in gameplay but they do negatively affect gameplay.

My post was clearly not meant to be serious, but in all fairness is sums up everything from yours.

Both aesthetics points are "i dont like how it looks"
All mechanics points are only relevant to badly desgined filters and to people who highly lack common sense.

Lord Inquisitor
14-03-2012, 18:19
I'd still like an opinion on my own particular brand of kitsch;
135342
LOL it needed a bump, did it? ;) Looks great. Done something similar myself with grave guard pulling themselves out of the ground.


It's worse than my goblins with tree and outdoors toilet (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?101658-The-Gut-Reapa-(orcs-and-gobs-army-probably-image-heavy-soon)&p=5453239&viewfull=1#post5453239)! Because I'm sure there's a way my goblins can move the tree and... hey... Now, if someone complains that there's a moving tree in my goblins unit, I'll just answer "yeah, it's been following my gobs every since they walked through that blood forest".
Yep, the toilet is animated too. Trying to find the bastard who clogged it. It's actually an arcane fulcrum.
Note that it's not really a filler, since there's all 20 gobs in there.
Well, really multi-basing and unit fillers are very similar at least in terms of the drawbacks to gameplay. However, that's exactly the sort of unit filler that's awesome because it gives the impression of the unit moving through the terrain, over and around it. You can imagine one of those gobbos failing his dangerous terrain test getting down from there! It still gives the impression of a unit. Likewise Bearded One's filler examples that are essentially mini-dioramas - as long as they give a good impression of a unit in there somewhere, I think it looks cool.


Pha, yeah, tried that. I did converting and sculpting on all the models of 2 full units of hammerers and longbeards. I don't think anybody has noticed anything in 2 years unless I actively showed them. Then you put down a dwarven statue or a dwarf holding a book of grudges on to of a ruin and it's "oh, hey, that looks nice". The quoted sentence gives me the feeling like we're narrowing unitfillers down to pieces of terrain on a base, like rocks or trees the unit drags along. Often enough unitfillers still contain mini's.
Ha! This is a pain I know too well. You know your conversions are a bit too good when people just assume they're unconverted models they don't recognise. More than this, many tournament paint score sheets actually give a point for unit fillers, and I've seen some that give a point no matter how good the unit filler.


So does conveting models, painting them differently, using Non-GW models and a lot of other stuff.
To some extent. Certainly LOS issues and identification of units share issues with conversions or dramatic basing. However, the paint scheme you choose isn't going to affect your base size or placement of templates. Multi-basing or unit fillers have their own set of bugbears. Much like conversions it only really becomes an issue at extremes but it isn't often that a conversion will incorporate a whole terrain feature, which happens often with fillers, for example.

Bael
14-03-2012, 18:28
That isn't really a unit filler, it's creative basing. The few saurus heads in the back row there are a bit questionable, though. Now if you had replaced four lizards in the unit with a big plant, that'd be a unit filler.

There are 3 models taking 4 spots, so I'd say that would technically count as unit filler. An AWESOME unit filler I might add.

I'm a huge fan of creative 'unit fillers'. When done well they really enhance the look of an army, for horde armies especially. I hate seeing units of 50 clanrats or goblins all lined up perfectly in ranks. 'Fillers' help to break up the monotony of a horde and give them a more haphazard look that is in keeping with the background of the army. They also enhance thematic armies. Do a search for Chris Peach's skaven to see some great examples of how unit fillers should be done.

As to the negative effects on gameplay, wouldn't regiment bases cause a lot of the same issues? Is there an arguement against using them as well?

Lord Inquisitor
14-03-2012, 18:40
My post was clearly not meant to be serious, but in all fairness is sums up everything from yours.

Both aesthetics points are "i dont like how it looks"
All mechanics points are only relevant to badly desgined filters and to people who highly lack common sense.
The mechanics points are relevant because they all apply, potentially to the smallest filler. Besides, badly designed fillers abound.

Let me get it straight. Your argument is that there are no good arguments against fillers because aesthetic arguments can be dismissed as irrelevant because they're subjective and game mechanic issues can be dismissed because they can be mitigated by using small fillers? Oddly enough, game mechanic issues can be avoided altogether by not using fillers at all so that argument collapses in on itself.

As said before, I've played against 8x8 fillers at grand tournaments. I've even played against one guy who had to tell me that half his filler wasn't on the board because the tournament capped the unit size but he didn't have enough painted figures to make up the smaller sized unit. Now, it was a pretty cool filler, but it made for a bit of a pain trying to remember that the unit was smaller than it appeared, even from the start of the game, because several ranks of filler stuck out behind the unit. Naturally in the course of the game I ended up charging this unit in the rear and being unable to place my models in the correct position on the board and soforth. It wasn't an insurmountable obstacle to the game and my opponent was an excellent sports, but it was a tad more awkward than if the right figures were on the board. I don't see what it being a "badly designed" or not "common sense" unit filler has to do with anything. It's an example of the sort of negative effect a poor unit filler can have on the game mechanics. All you're saying is that good unit fillers are good. I'd agree with that but that's not saying much about anything.

Even small fillers slow the game down, mess up LOS and soforth. Sure, it may not be a lot, and maybe you can deal with it by discussing it before the game, by being generous in favour of your opponent or just with a bit of common sense - but the point remains that you need to deal with it. You said there's no argument against them, yes there is, they start out with negative points in being slightly more of a pain in the proverbial behind than individual figures. A unit filler therefore needs to make up with a few points in awesomness just to break even.


As to the negative effects on gameplay, wouldn't regiment bases cause a lot of the same issues? Is there an arguement against using them as well?
Yes.

The bearded one
14-03-2012, 18:44
LOL it needed a bump, did it? ;)
It sure did :D


That isn't really a unit filler, it's creative basing. The few saurus heads in the back row there are a bit questionable, though. Now if you had replaced four lizards in the unit with a big plant, that'd be a unit filler.

There are 3 models taking 4 spots, so I'd say that would technically count as unit filler.

Exactly, the 50x50mm bases each contain 3 saurus instead of 4. I'll be honest here, I started on this unit in 7th and it was 18 models large, but there are only 16 in a box and I didn't want to buy a second box for 2 models. The 'few saurus heads in the back row' actually have their torso's and arms, they're not just heads, unless you're referring to the stone saurus heads which are fountains (you can't see the water coming out of them from this angle though).


An AWESOME unit filler I might add.

thank you :)

Urgat
14-03-2012, 19:09
I'd still like an opinion on my own particular brand of kitsch;
135342

You didn't comment on mine!

The bearded one
14-03-2012, 19:13
you never asked! :D

It's goblinwork of the utmost quality, good sir. And actually having the correct number of models makes it all that much nicer.

Tokamak
14-03-2012, 19:14
I'd still like an opinion on my own particular brand of kitsch;
135342

Great stuff apart from the gargoyle. Also a couple of zombies/dwarves/skaven coming out of the ground is fine. It's just when you start playing with mostly skulls on bases that you might want to ask yourself whether or not this is the right hobby for you.

Damien 1427
14-03-2012, 19:35
Looking at my Empire army, I do want to break up the monotony, so I'll be throwing a few in. I'll probably have the Musician/Bear (http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440091a&prodId=prod800002a) in one Halberdier unit at the front as the unit's Musician, and in another I'll have the Imperial Maneater Ogre (http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat670013a&prodId=prod1320023a), although he'll be in the heart of the unit.

For what it's worth, I don't intend to have more than four "bases" of filler for every twenty-five models in a unit, and only in units of four or more ranks. So the Halberdier unit may be 25-strong, but four of those bases might be an Ogre. It'd still be the one filler in a unit of 40, but I would be tempted to have two (One converted) in a single 50-man unit. I'd like to have an Ogre "Imperial" Leadbelcher for my Handgunners, but the units are far too small to get away with it.

That's what I'd like to do. What other people do is their concern. As long as it's a legal list and they explain what is what before the game, anything is fine with me.

Snake1311
14-03-2012, 19:49
doublepoooost

Lord Inquisitor
14-03-2012, 19:50
Come to think of it, that regimental bear is (aside from being awesome) an actual unit filler, isn't it? An Official GW Unit Filler. Albeit the smallest possible unit filler you could have.

I never noticed before that it's on a 20x40 base, so it'll tessellate nicely in empire units. I didn't know GW did 20x40 bases. Dwarf shieldbearers should have it too I suppose but that's always been two 20mm bases next to each other. Is this a new thing? I can't imagine they'd make a new plastic base just for one model.


doublepoooost

LOL you had me scratching my head there...

Urgat
14-03-2012, 19:53
There's a handful of models using that base, like the special edition fanatic.
Why do people post "double post" when they make a double post? Why don't they just delete the post?

The bearded one
14-03-2012, 20:45
Great stuff apart from the gargoyle. Also a couple of zombies/dwarves/skaven coming out of the ground is fine. It's just when you start playing with mostly skulls on bases that you might want to ask yourself whether or not this is the right hobby for you.

mhmm? This seems to clash a lot with your previous position of "no unitfillers ever! No matter how good they are!" Are we using different definitions of unitfiller?

The gargoyle is actually a fountain, you might see it better on this picture:
135369

The Odor
14-03-2012, 21:28
TBO: I have already commented on that but its still sweet! Hot tub before the battleshould give an INt boost!

jack da greenskin
14-03-2012, 22:02
I really liked the bearded ones saurus, then I realised one of the 50mm bases only had 3 saurus on it, and that he could have re-used the legs on the ones coming out from the waist up, potentially saving him 6. (ignoring the cost of the gargoyles and fountains etc).

This is completely unsporting, not in the spirit of warhammer and I'd probs refuse to play him.

TheDungen
15-03-2012, 01:08
I'd never refuse to play an opponent because of something like this, if he was acting all smug about a bad filler maybe, but then it'd be the attitude not the filler. However i might dislike playing someone with a bad filler.

I'm gonna go for The rule of Awesome here. If the filler looks equally awesome or more awesome than the models it replaces then i'm fine with it. if it looks less awesome I wont be fine with it. I wont refuse to play ofc but i wont be too happy about it.

Hakar
15-03-2012, 07:22
mhmm? This seems to clash a lot with your previous position of "no unitfillers ever! No matter how good they are!" Are we using different definitions of unitfiller?

I get the impression that most people in this thread have different definitions of unit fillers. For example:


Come to think of it, that regimental bear is (aside from being awesome) an actual unit filler, isn't it? An Official GW Unit Filler. Albeit the smallest possible unit filler you could have.

I don't think that's a unit filler. A bear is a living thing capable of fighting along with the unit.

I also don't think that putting an ogre in a unit of smaller models is a unit filler, or that two ghouls killing an Empire soldier on a 40x40 base is a unit filler.


I'm wondering, what would you people accept as a representation of, say, six dwarf warriors?
6 dwarf warriors on seperate bases? (obviously)
6 dwarf warriors on a single 40x60 base?
5 dwarf warriors and a small piece of scenery on a 40x60 base?
2 dwarf warriors and an ogre on a 40x60 base?
2 dwarf warriors and a rock on a 40x60 base?
2 dwarf warriors on seperate bases and a rock on a 40x40 base?

Urgat
15-03-2012, 08:44
I don't think that's a unit filler. A bear is a living thing capable of fighting along with the unit.

I also don't think that putting an ogre in a unit of smaller models is a unit filler, or that two ghouls killing an Empire soldier on a 40x40 base is a unit filler.

For me, a filler is something you put in a unit instead of the actual minis. If, at the place of four saurus, you get anything else (like, there, three saurus), for me, it's a filler. I'm hesitating to call my gob unit's things fillers, because the goblins are not sitting where they should (well it was the point, them looking like a mob rather than a neatly ranked unit). two ghouls killing an empire soldier is definitely a filler.

As for what I'd accept, well, I'd accept everything but the ogres, because dwarfs wouldn't want an ogre among their ranks. I'd raise an eyebrow if options 3, 5 & 6 where just a stupid rock glued to the base and nothing else. I wouldn't throw a tantrum anyway.
If it's unpainted, though, it's the first and last time I play the guy (well until he's painted stuff at least).

Skaby
15-03-2012, 09:27
I'm wondering, what would you people accept as a representation of, say, six dwarf warriors?
1) 6 dwarf warriors on seperate bases? (obviously)
2) 6 dwarf warriors on a single 40x60 base?
3) 5 dwarf warriors and a small piece of scenery on a 40x60 base?
4) 2 dwarf warriors and an ogre on a 40x60 base?
5) 2 dwarf warriors and a rock on a 40x60 base?
6) 2 dwarf warriors on seperate bases and a rock on a 40x40 base?

1-3 always
4 is a bit strange for the ogre (for the empire it will be ok)
5 is ok if nice
6 not acceptable (as a principle, I don't think I would refuse to play against, but I would never build one for myself).

Skaby
15-03-2012, 09:30
The gargoyle is actually a fountain, you might see it better on this picture:
135369

From this point of view it's still more amazing and I can appreciate better the paintjob (even if it is obviously not finished) :-)

ihavetoomuchminis
15-03-2012, 10:50
Does multibasing count as unit fillers? I use 40 mm bases to stuck 3-4 models (when i stuck 3, in the case of zombies, i usually stuck in there something to count for the 4th zombie, as an arm or half a zombie emerging from the terrain) in there and represent a less organized unit, gluing them on the base in an irregular formation, as some units look better that way (Empire flagellants, zombies, free company, ghouls...)

BigbyWolf
15-03-2012, 11:51
Does multibasing count as unit fillers? I use 40 mm bases to stuck 3-4 models (when i stuck 3, in the case of zombies, i usually stuck in there something to count for the 4th zombie, as an arm or half a zombie emerging from the terrain) in there and represent a less organized unit, gluing them on the base in an irregular formation, as some units look better that way (Empire flagellants, zombies, free company, ghouls...)

To me, "unit filler" is something like the big terrain features shown previously, or a larger model, etc. I'd consider multi-basing a separate thing...provided you aren't going overboard...like 1 full zombie, 1 half zombie, a couple of arms, and a head to represent 4 models.

The Low King
15-03-2012, 12:54
Surely Multi-basing has the exact same problems as a simple unit filler?

Zark the Damned
15-03-2012, 13:41
Multibasing has some of the rules quirks, but none of the aesthetic problems. It's also more or less 'official' since GW still sell those regiment bases (where you can stick pretty much a rank of minis on a single long base).

I have no problem with Multibasing, I use it a fair amount for my horde units (e.g. I have 3 monster bases with 4 guys on each in my Gnoblar horde). I also make sure that around the outside of the unit are individual models, for base to base and template hit calculations.

boli
15-03-2012, 14:09
I'm going to have to multibase with my Stormvermin tbh... I can literally spend more time tweaking the setup to make them fit together than actually using them; they are very... dynamic in their poses... and that doesn't even include queek!

The bearded one
15-03-2012, 14:11
I'm going to have to multibase with my Stormvermin tbh... I can literally spend more time tweaking the setup to make them fit together than actually using them; they are very... dynamic in their poses... and that doesn't even include queek!

I've got 40. I know your pain. I'm numbering each of them on the underside of their base for a specific position in the unit :D

AndrewRogue
15-03-2012, 15:42
I'm wondering, what would you people accept as a representation of, say, six dwarf warriors?
6 dwarf warriors on seperate bases? (obviously)
6 dwarf warriors on a single 40x60 base?
5 dwarf warriors and a small piece of scenery on a 40x60 base?
2 dwarf warriors and an ogre on a 40x60 base?
2 dwarf warriors and a rock on a 40x60 base?
2 dwarf warriors on seperate bases and a rock on a 40x40 base?

1. Okay (obviously).
2-3. Has to be in a unit large enough to allow for correct removal of units.
4-6. Above caveat, plus the unit should be large enough that actual dwarves outnumber the "base count" of the non-dwarf filler.

The bearded one
15-03-2012, 15:52
Although 5 and 6 are mildly silly, as a random rock represents 4 dwarfs. if it at least were a dwarvish statue or ruin or something it'd fit in with the unit, but a random rock from the yard.. well, yes, that would be silly. It'd be a unitfiller, but a silly one.

boli
15-03-2012, 17:13
Although 5 and 6 are mildly silly, as a random rock represents 4 dwarfs. if it at least were a dwarvish statue or ruin or something it'd fit in with the unit, but a random rock from the yard.. well, yes, that would be silly. It'd be a unitfiller, but a silly one.

For dwarves it need to be a mine entrance/exit... now *that* would look cool :)

Lord Inquisitor
15-03-2012, 17:16
I get the impression that most people in this thread have different definitions of unit fillers. For example:

Come to think of it, that regimental bear is (aside from being awesome) an actual unit filler, isn't it? An Official GW Unit Filler. Albeit the smallest possible unit filler you could have.

I don't think that's a unit filler. A bear is a living thing capable of fighting along with the unit.

I also don't think that putting an ogre in a unit of smaller models is a unit filler, or that two ghouls killing an Empire soldier on a 40x40 base is a unit filler.
Well, what would you call it then? It's not multi-basing (the bear or the ogre are not empire soldiers or even the right unit type and in the case of the ogre take up the space of multiple soldiers).

I think they're unit fillers. An ogre in a unit of soldiers is a unit filler. I think anywhere you're putting a larger base inside a unit to take up the space of multiple smaller bases but still be representative of the smaller based models is a "unit filler". Multi-basing is a very specific case at one extreme of unit fillers (where there are the right number of model on the base and no scenic elements) and replacing the models entirely with a terrain feature of some kind is at another extreme.

So an ogre and a rock are both unit fillers. We can subdivide them into "organic" and "inorganic" if that would help. Similarly I would call Urgat's goblin-tree a unit filler even though there are technically the right number of models on the filler, making it more of a scenic multibase.

Tokamak
15-03-2012, 17:56
I multi-base as much as I can, it's really convenient while playing and transporting and allows me more leeway with ranking up. It has no gameplay issues if the front and rear rank consist of lose models.

Urgat
15-03-2012, 18:04
I multi-base as much as I can, it's really convenient while playing and transporting and allows me more leeway with ranking up. It has no gameplay issues if the front and rear rank consist of lose models.
Nitpicky players will argue over templates.

boli
15-03-2012, 18:20
Nitpicky players will argue over templates.

Bring card with a 20mm grid on then; its bad enough squinting through the template as is. There is always some movement and arguments concerning if that base corner came under the template or not.

agree on the card position (relative to one corner); agree on the template position; move template on grid to a flat surface and count :)

tbh there are enough arguments as is; its not as if the templates have an *exact* centre or tip.

BigbyWolf
15-03-2012, 18:59
Well, what would you call it then? It's not multi-basing (the bear or the ogre are not empire soldiers or even the right unit type and in the case of the ogre take up the space of multiple soldiers).

I think they're unit fillers.

This would be my position on it too.

Lorcryst
15-03-2012, 20:19
I 6. If I can just glance at your unit of zombies and think "tombstones," or your forest goblins and think "spiders," or your night goblins and think "Battle For Skull Pass," you did it wrong.

I have a Night Goblin army composed of 270+ models, and most of those NGs with Spears come from the Battle for Skull Pass set ... I also have a smalll 1K Dwarf force composed entirely of BfSP models ... do you really have a problem with that ?


I multi-base as much as I can, it's really convenient while playing and transporting and allows me more leeway with ranking up. It has no gameplay issues if the front and rear rank consist of lose models.

Nice double standard.

Anyway, I read this thread from start to finish, and it's still the same story as all other threads about unit fillers I've seen in the past three years : haters gonna hate, lovers gonna love, and some rare few individuals will try to discuss ...

For me personnaly, I have two 2*2 unit fillers in my Night Goblin army, specifically two of the Herders with the HUUUUUGE trident : those are a pain to rank, DON'T align with the Squigs, and I was a bit short on models for a full horde of squiggies ... so I went ahead, glued those two irksome models on 40mm bases, added a bit of scenery (mushrooms on one, a bit of bark painted like a rock and a stalagmite on the other), and considered it a job well done ...

Yes, it's only a model reprenseting four models ... I now have a couple of spares, and lots of wounds counters if I forget my spares at home ... I've also bought several old "clubbers" to use as Herders, and those cost me an arm and a leg, being long OOP models, so NO, my fillers are not cheap !

In fact, seeing as it's half a blister + bases + bitz, they cost MORE than 4 gobboes with clubs made from the current NG regiment set.

So, that's all for me, I really had to get that off my chest, thanks for reading, and remember : IT'S MY PERSONNAL POINT OF VIEW, not an attack, and definitively not the ultimate answer ...

BattleofLund
15-03-2012, 20:47
I'm looking at my latest 'unit filler' right now. It's an unarmoured Marauder with a flail, technically. In fact, the model is an old Skaven Clanrat with light-to-heavy armour, meat cleaver, and one-handed flail (morning star? is that correct?). Fess up, you know the one! Way cool it is. It stands on a shield-head-weapon heap. In time, it will get mixed in with any number of 'Evil Chaotic Mutants with Chain-Weapons' to form a Horde. Most (50+%) of the mutants will be on 25mm bases, even if 'correct' numbers will be rarely adhered to. (for example two smaller figs on one 25mm, three-four-five on a sideways cav base, etc). If I feel I can get away with it, at least one cav base will be buried in bits' crap to the extent that no actual models will be included. What was the question again?

Oh yeah. In an ideal situation, I will have an entire army of 'unit fillers' in the sense that they require deciphering when inspected closely - but appear as what they are bought as from two-three feet away. However, having two plaguebearers filling in for three on a bigger base? For me that isn't a 'unit filler', that's a 'unit thinner' and should be punished by an eternity of herding cats while wearing emery board underwear. And please leave your painted plasticene volcanoes at home, they're an embarrassment.

Hakar
16-03-2012, 07:27
Well, what would you call it then? It's not multi-basing (the bear or the ogre are not empire soldiers or even the right unit type and in the case of the ogre take up the space of multiple soldiers).

A "thematic alternative miniature."
Having a bear count as an Empire soldier with a halberd makes as much sense to me as having a guy with a trumpet count as one. ie. 'Go right ahead'.

The Low King
16-03-2012, 08:33
I like to have a unit filler in all my dwarf units if i can, it adds height and makes the unit more interesting.

Havock
16-03-2012, 08:43
My empire fillets are four men on a 40mm base, its just to help ranking up.

It's quicker to throw down four 40mm bases in the centre of a unit.

If some one uses a unit filler to bump up their model count I have no problems with that at all. I mean allotof people spend ages bitching about GW prices, then people moan when some one tries to save money by creating unit fillers.

Those are usually not the same persons. People who dislike unit fillers tend to belong to the 'if you want it, invest in it'-school of thought.

Tokamak
16-03-2012, 09:29
Nice double standard.

How? Regimental bases don't change the representation at all.

ihavetoomuchminis
16-03-2012, 09:43
I'm going to have to multibase with my Stormvermin tbh... I can literally spend more time tweaking the setup to make them fit together than actually using them; they are very... dynamic in their poses... and that doesn't even include queek!

That's the reason why i multibase (i'm thinking in "the fifth element" movie while saying multibase). Ranking up some models is a pain in the youknowwhat. Empire halberdiers and ghouls come to mind. I rarely put 3 models in a 40mm base, i usually fit in there 4 models, as it's how it's supposed to be, but once in a while i fit just 3 models because it makes ranking up the unit easier.

Urgat
16-03-2012, 11:32
Bring card with a 20mm grid on then;

I cut you there. Tokamak's philosophy is that everything should be clear at a glance. That's not it, if you can't tell the edges of the bases. Why the hell should convenience for him prevent the opponent from being able to tell at first glance what will be hit with a template? That's a severe lack of sportsmanship :angel:

vcassano
16-03-2012, 11:37
I've got to say the inconvenience of regimental bases as an opponent far outweighs the lack of clarity that unit fillers could (but rarely do) bring.

zoggin-eck
16-03-2012, 11:40
I've got to say the inconvenience of regimental bases as an opponent far outweighs the lack of clarity that unit fillers could (but rarely do) bring.

Not sure what you mean, to be perfectly honest. How are regimental bases inconvenient to an opponent?


That's the reason why i multibase (i'm thinking in "the fifth element" movie while saying multibase).

You're a champion, mate. (This makes up for the awkward English in your username!)

Urgat
16-03-2012, 11:41
I've got to say the inconvenience of regimental bases as an opponent far outweighs the lack of clarity that unit fillers could (but rarely do) bring.
I know and I agree (and use them aplenty), but it's still completely inconsistent considering his opinions on everything else. Just pulling his leg, really, it's been a while I haven't taken any filler topic seriously :p


Not sure what you mean, to be perfectly honest. How are regimental bases inconvenient to an opponent?

I said how just above.

vcassano
16-03-2012, 11:49
Just to clarify, I don't actually find regimental bases objectionable. But to me, unit fillers can make a unit look good and if done right, do not hinder the removal of casualties. Using regimental bases can make the removal of casualties problematic, which is more annoying then having a nice themed filler.

Lorcryst
16-03-2012, 13:30
How? Regimental bases don't change the representation at all.

And yet, a couple posts higher, you said that multibasing had the same problems as fillers ...

Balerion
16-03-2012, 21:25
I cut you there. Tokamak's philosophy is that everything should be clear at a glance. That's not it, if you can't tell the edges of the bases. Why the hell should convenience for him prevent the opponent from being able to tell at first glance what will be hit with a template? That's a severe lack of sportsmanship :angel:
Because that's a stupid philosophy.

No gamer -- in the history of Warhammer -- has ever assessed a perfectly accurate template hit, unless by serendipitous accident. That's because the angle and distance of the template scatter is being applied by imperfect human eyes, and the position of the template is being controlled by imperfect human hands. Striving for some sort of ideal purity instead of simple genial agreement is completely futile.

That's the same reason all of the TLoS arguments, or "units can't carry a tree around with them" arguments, or "I want everything to look exactly like the unit it's representing" arguments fall flat on their faces. TLoS is already a sh*tshow because of the presence of outdated models and scenic bases and the ubiquity of improperly-sized terrain. Mobile trees and rocks are also irrelevant concerns because of scenic bases and nonsensical terrain (Why did the Empire build their chapel 30 metres away from a tiny magical forest on one side, and a pile of cursed ruins pulsating with evil magic on the other??:shifty:). The concept of "properly represented regiments" is dumb because each model is already an abstract representation of more than one individual, and models don't correspond to their stats or spacial characteristics in any sort of realistic fashion.

The game is chock full of necessary abstractions, yet the anti-filler sticklers are somehow able to turn off their critical faculties in regards to most of them, and zero in on the filler bases that they find so distasteful. Unfortunately, it really does seem to come down to an economic imperative once you cut away all the other stuff. The guy who bought four boxes to represent 40 models feels a crippling revulsion at the idea of another guy using three boxes to represent 40 models. When the flimsy aesthetic and gameplay objections are dispelled that's the only possible explanation you're left with.

Beastlord
17-03-2012, 02:41
The game is chock full of necessary abstractions, yet the anti-filler sticklers are somehow able to turn off their critical faculties in regards to most of them, and zero in on the filler bases that they find so distasteful. Unfortunately, it really does seem to come down to an economic imperative once you cut away all the other stuff. The guy who bought four boxes to represent 40 models feels a crippling revulsion at the idea of another guy using three boxes to represent 40 models. When the flimsy aesthetic and gameplay objections are dispelled that's the only possible explanation you're left with.

You may be right.. I wonder how the same people feel about the fact that I bought my whole skaven army on e-bay and never payed more than 50% of the RRP for any of it. Is this similarly "cheap" and abhorent?

Urgat
17-03-2012, 03:45
Because that's a stupid philosophy.

Yeah I know. I can't tell if you missed the fact I was being ironic or not from the rest of your post >>

Hakar
17-03-2012, 06:52
You may be right.. I wonder how the same people feel about the fact that I bought my whole skaven army on e-bay and never payed more than 50% of the RRP for any of it. Is this similarly "cheap" and abhorent?

Here's a novel idea. Try asking us.
Or even better, read what we've already said.

Jerry
17-03-2012, 08:44
The game is chock full of necessary abstractions, yet the anti-filler sticklers are somehow able to turn off their critical faculties in regards to most of them, and zero in on the filler bases that they find so distasteful. Unfortunately, it really does seem to come down to an economic imperative once you cut away all the other stuff. The guy who bought four boxes to represent 40 models feels a crippling revulsion at the idea of another guy using three boxes to represent 40 models. When the flimsy aesthetic and gameplay objections are dispelled that's the only possible explanation you're left with.

^ Checkmate filler haters.

Tokamak
18-03-2012, 10:22
Keyword: Necessary abstractions

Askari
18-03-2012, 11:40
It's not though, is it. They're only necessary if you want to specifically play Warhammer. There's other games out there with fewer abstractions if that's what gets you.

Tokamak
18-03-2012, 17:46
I honestly don't have an idea what you're on about.

Beastlord
18-03-2012, 18:36
Here's a novel idea. Try asking us.

I just did.

???

Just find it weird that the word cheap and the implication that trying to make things cheaper is somehow insulting to your opponent comes up so often.

Tokamak
18-03-2012, 19:11
It's not an insult, but it's cheap. I'm spending hours and hours on getting my army look top-notch without cutting any corners so I prefer to play with gamers that have this same mindset.

jack da greenskin
18-03-2012, 19:59
It's not an insult, but it's cheap. I'm spending hours and hours on getting my army look top-notch without cutting any corners so I prefer to play with gamers that have this same mindset.

But at the same time, there are a load of people who arent nearly as good at painting as you. That is the same thing, you spend hours and hours, their army doesnt look as good.

Cutting corners? You can do this in many ways other than unit fillers. Someone's army is based on bases painted goblin green? Would you be as offended at that?

I could buy my army for 25% off. Thats exactly the same. I could buy them new, online, for 3/4 the cost of what yours did. Is that cutting a corner? It's certainly going out of my way to make things cheaper. Would you refuse to play me then?

Balerion
18-03-2012, 20:10
Yeah, buying used/discounted models is just as "cheap". Using any old models mean your army probably doesn't look "top-notch".

The bearded one
18-03-2012, 20:12
Yeah, buying used/discounted models is just as "cheap". Using any old models mean your army probably doesn't look "top-notch".

I am unsure if it's sarcastic or not. Shiney new models can also be discounted.

The Low King
18-03-2012, 20:13
It's not an insult, but it's cheap. I'm spending hours and hours on getting my army look top-notch without cutting any corners so I prefer to play with gamers that have this same mindset.

So you refuse to play anyone who has a model in their army off ebay or any alternative supplier? Or people who pay others to paint their models? How about those who spend half an hour on each individual model compared to someone who uses two colours to paint all their clanrats?

TheDungen
18-03-2012, 20:24
Do you mean two hours each or two hours for the regiment. Cause that got to be some kind of record.

Sent from my HTC Desire HD A9191 using Tapatalk

jack da greenskin
18-03-2012, 20:29
Yeah, buying used/discounted models is just as "cheap". Using any old models mean your army probably doesn't look "top-notch".

I was talking about buying new, at a discount, but whilst we're on the subject.

I buy used models. I strip them, and paint them to the same standard as the rest of my models. Whats the problem?

Infact, my worst painted army is my dwarves. I painted the entire army in 6 weeks (instead of the 3 years it normally takes.) I'm pleased I got them finished, but individually they dont look that great. I bought all those dwarves new.

I bought some of my orks second hand. Painted them, they look much better than my dwarves. Your point?

Sent from my laptop using my fingers.

Balerion
18-03-2012, 20:46
I am unsure if it's sarcastic or not. Shiney new models can also be discounted.

I was talking about buying new, at a discount, but whilst we're on the subject.

I buy used models. I strip them, and paint them to the same standard as the rest of my models. Whats the problem?

Infact, my worst painted army is my dwarves. I painted the entire army in 6 weeks (instead of the 3 years it normally takes.) I'm pleased I got them finished, but individually they dont look that great. I bought all those dwarves new.

I bought some of my orks second hand. Painted them, they look much better than my dwarves. Your point?

Sent from my laptop using my fingers.
I think both of you dudes are assuming I meant "cheap" was a bad thing, when I don't mean that at all. The cheaper, the better, as far as I'm concerned.

I buy tons of used models and strip + refurbish them, and when I buy something new it's always from a discounter and never direct from GW. Only yesterday I ebayed two 1980s Jes Goodwin Poisoned Wind Globadiers that were stripped and without bases. :)

My point was that somehow who turns up their nose at the "cheapness" of unit fillers probably isn't querying their opponent about where and how they acquired the rest of their models, and that an economic valuation of an army should never come into the picture at all.

Tokamak
18-03-2012, 22:29
So you refuse to play anyone who has a model in their army off ebay or any alternative supplier? Or people who pay others to paint their models? How about those who spend half an hour on each individual model compared to someone who uses two colours to paint all their clanrats?

I don't care how they obtained their army, as long as your army oozes hobby-love then you're the guy I want to play against.


I think both of you dudes are assuming I meant "cheap" was a bad thing, when I don't mean that at all. The cheaper, the better, as far as I'm concerned.

My definition of 'cheap' is more about how your army turns out to look rather than how much you paid for it.

The bearded one
18-03-2012, 23:45
Please elaborate on that definition of 'cheap' and 'oozing hobby-love', because otherwise the obvious counter is no doubt going to be "you wouldn't want to play against a person who isn't as good a painter?!"

ihavetoomuchminis
18-03-2012, 23:50
I think it looks cheap when you feel that person has made the filler just to save money, time, and effort, because he/she doens't mind at all about models, painting and none of the aesthetics in the hobby, and the only reason why he/she doesn't play with papers is because it is not allowed in tournaments.

Hakar
19-03-2012, 15:28
I just did.

Ok, simple answer: I don't care how much money your miniatures cost you.

Ponge
19-03-2012, 16:12
If some one uses a unit filler to bump up their model count I have no problems with that at all. I mean allotof people spend ages bitching about GW prices, then people moan when some one tries to save money by creating unit fillers.
This basically, I have no problem with it aslong as it still somehow represents the unit.

Tokamak
19-03-2012, 19:32
Please elaborate on that definition of 'cheap' and 'oozing hobby-love', because otherwise the obvious counter is no doubt going to be "you wouldn't want to play against a person who isn't as good a painter?!"

I'm glad I don't need any definition. We're talking about creative projects and there's no point in haggling over where exactly the line is drawn. Everyone is able to spot complacency when they see it. I'm simply happy with my peers all having incredibly high standards and having the best looking army is at least as important as winning. Poor painters are embraced and encouraged to push themselves further and be better. Poor painters looking to improve are a completely different kind than the ones that simply try to make short-cuts everywhere so they can keep on binge-buying new releases.

Urgat
19-03-2012, 20:42
I don't care how they obtained their army, as long as your army oozes hobby-love then you're the guy I want to play against.

I arrogantly think that my army, despite my rather average painting/conversion skills, oozes hobby-love, yet it seems to me you wouldn't want to play against me because I used stuff you don't like, so I think you need a more accurate definition than that I believe...

Tokamak
19-03-2012, 22:45
Well it clearly doesn't otherwise you would've seized upon the opportunity to use every model that the gaming system allowed in order to show your hobbycraft.

The Low King
19-03-2012, 23:23
I'm glad I don't need any definition. We're talking about creative projects and there's no point in haggling over where exactly the line is drawn. Everyone is able to spot complacency when they see it. I'm simply happy with my peers all having incredibly high standards and having the best looking army is at least as important as winning. Poor painters are embraced and encouraged to push themselves further and be better. Poor painters looking to improve are a completely different kind than the ones that simply try to make short-cuts everywhere so they can keep on binge-buying new releases.

So if i turned up in your store with my Dwarf army that i carefully built up as a teenager and a student, yet is almost entirely unpainted, you would refuse to play me?

Urgat
20-03-2012, 00:14
Well it clearly doesn't otherwise you would've seized upon the opportunity to use every model that the gaming system allowed in order to show your hobbycraft.

Huh? You mean I should collect every army otherwise it doesn't? I'd rather not share my opinion on that. And if you mean just regarding the army I collect (greenskins) and you just worded your sentence badly, well, obviously, you're talking out of your ass and, even though I have a pretty extensive plog, you've never even bothered to check it and still allow yourself to make such comments. Apart from one instance in an orc unit I never use, I don't have a single unit filler, all my units have the correct number of models, regardless of scenic bases, and... pah, you're just ridiculous, let's just forget about that.

Balerion
20-03-2012, 01:13
Well it clearly doesn't otherwise you would've seized upon the opportunity to use every model that the gaming system allowed in order to show your hobbycraft.
Yeah, because Clanrat #375-B should be lavished with the same care and intensity that's directed at a Vermin Lord. Anything less and you're not Warhammering to the fullest extent. :rolleyes:

Darnok
20-03-2012, 09:18
Thread closed by request from the OP.


Darnok [=I=]
The WarSeer Inquisition