Unit Fillers - How many is too many?

[Munin]

@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]

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]

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 of these models either? Rather unfair no?

[JustinDonnelly]

So you wouldn't let your opponent use any of these models either? 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]

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

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]

So you wouldn't let your opponent use any of these models either? 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]

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

Back on topic, you'll find a poll there, and a whole topic covering pretty much all there is to cover about people thoughts on fillers there.
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]

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 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.