At the time the "bucket of bugs" was mentioned. The same player used a Daemon army at UK events and the 2014 ETC. It caused some disquiet in both communities, the normal rejoiner being that it showed "a lack of respect for the opponent".
Here's a picture of the army:
In the left foreground we have Horrors, on Cav bases are Flesh Hounds. The skirmish units are Furies; you can see a Skullcannon and the Beasts. I'm assuming the big gribbly at the back is a Greater Daemon. So all in all the units are easily distinguishable from one another.
My question, as a TO, is whether as an event attendee you'd be happy to play against such an army? It's relatively clear what things are but would it impact your enjoyment?
I would concede and walk away.
ReplyDeleteSo you would give up the chance to play WHFB just because you dont like the other guys army?
DeleteI wouldn't mind playing against it provided i was told what each unit represented
Yes I would give up on the chance to play. This sort of lazy approach to the hobby should not be encouraged and I would be disappointed if I found myself facing this sort of force in a tournament.
DeleteIt is my opinion that a tournament should take into account all aspects of the hobby. Someone who wins overall first place should be an excellent gamer, with a well painted force, and who is not a total bag of dicks.
Charlie, time to return all those trophies!
DeleteHere is the thing, we are told WHFB is dying, that its player base is dwindling and that high cost, model count and amount of work that is required to start a new army is scaring off new players. Yet here is an army that probably isn't high cost and didn't require a lot of work and yet you refuse to play it, and call this approach (that fixes two of the three main issues with starting a WHFB army) lazy.
DeleteI know that the above army isnt a new player's attempt to cutting costs but If WHFB is indeed dying then we need to be as inclusive as possible and try and get as many new players in as we can. They can start off with the above army and slowly start to build up a proper one because that way we gain a new player who will eventually have a proper army.
No better than Bottle army or Buddha ogres...
ReplyDeleteNot to say noone could pull off an army like this but it'd need alot more effort than glueing bugs to bases.
See I'd say better than the bottle army but not as good as the buddha army...
DeleteBuddha Army was at least painted
DeleteLets play Warhammer without using any Warhammer...
ReplyDeleteThis guy is taking the piss.
Bug army could be done in a way I was happy with. But just glueing bugs onto wooden bases would not be allowed at an event I ran.
ReplyDeleteDave(OwaR)
I agree with nit allow this army at tournaments, thats fine as there should be standards there even if a tournament is more a test of generalship than painting skill. But would people actually flat out refuse to play against this army in a casual setting, At a club or store?
ReplyDeleteIt shouldn't be allowed and the player and the army should have been DQ'd by the TO before he played his first game and sent home.
ReplyDeleteI'd play it because I'd want the game but I'd feel cheated regardless of the outcome and it would lessen my enjoyment of the event considerably.
They're not my thing. In a tournament I'd play them, but after telling them I thought their army was abysmal. I'd also comment to the TO that this army isn't acceptable. It's lazy, it doesn't fit the fantasy wargaming aesthetic and I imagine it's impossible to immerse yourself when playing them.
ReplyDeleteHowever, if there was some major modification to it, so it looked like a horde of daemonic bugs, that might make it OK. Painted symbols, conversions with daemon bits, scenic bases. This could work, but it would require visible and obvious effort on the part of the owner.
As it stands, it looks like someone stole a few trays from the Te Papa insect display. It is better than the bottle army though, in the same way that a migraine is better than a tumour.
If it was someone playing a social game who wanted to learn the game before playing in tournaments, or investing in models - fine. At a tournament, not so much.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I think any army can be played against as long as the units are clearly labelled - not just identified, but labelled, so there is no danger of forgetting what it what in the middle of a game.
The problem as a TO when someone brings something like this is that if you tell them to pack up and go home, you have a bye round. You are taking it for granted that all of your players would prefer to miss a game, or be happy for others to get free points by having a bye, rather than play a game against the army.
Having had this exact discussion on to occasions in Tauranga, anecdotally, this isn't true. The majority of players who come to our tournaments, would rather just knuckle down and play the game.
Its funny, but the complaints always seem to be worse when the army is a "hard" army. People tend to be able to "handle" these situations when they are fluffy.
Let the flaming commence.
Blair
I hope we never get to the stage where a photo of your army has to be submitted along with your list.
DeleteI would refuse to play them and ask for them to be removed from event. When paying to attend a tournament there is a reasonable expectation that if im playing warhammer fantasy that I will face armies consisting of warhammer models or conversions of. The same for when attending other events I would expect to face forces comprised of the correct models for that system or conversions of those models. I think it is a disingenuous way to push the limits to see what you can get away with while at the same time being disrespectful to those other players who have made the effort.
ReplyDeleteIf posting as Anonymous please include your name as a courtesy so people can reply.
DeleteThanks
I'd play against it. I like to have a nice looking army for my own enjoyment. If your opponents army looks like shit well that's their problem.
DeleteDamon
I'd play against it for the enormously smug feeling of having out-painted, out-spent and generally out-hobbied my opponent.
ReplyDeleteIf the list is an obnoxious one that relies heavily on cheese or OP models, I'd probably feel pretty aggrieved. That exact thing happened at a tournament I attended a few years back where someone fielded a huge horde unit made of cheap proxies, and it generally got up everyone's nose because of the rules leverage.
The guy fielding it made the very good point of 'oh come on, why not? Why spoil my fun? I want to try this unit combo out, I can't afford the models and some of them don't even exist in the current range. At least I've got the right numbers and it's clear what I have.'
Bottles, though? That's just rude.
What if all the models were Mantic or Confrontation?
ReplyDeleteHi – Michael Vercoe here.
ReplyDeleteWhile I think the army looks pretty lack lustre (skull cannon anyone), I still think it’s quite fun.
Some of the comments here are pretty precious to say the least. As someone who has run (and will continue to run) some dumb armies over the years, I had always found the less uptight gamers find them amusing and the more “sensitive” gamer thinks they aren’t quite “right”, normally in direct proportion to how well the army is doing in the competition.
Folk seem to forgot the early days of White Dwarf and Matchbox cars for Genestealer cults, Fantasy orcs on plastic elephants and the 40K Deodorant Bottle Tank.
I’m way more bothered for the increasing trend of bucking WYSWG, like Saurus blocks with spears mysterious having hand weapons, Chaos Knights with lances “having” magic weapons, invisible unit banners/musicians and units “with” shields who must be concealing them in their pants, because they clearly aren’t on their arms.
http://waaghdrillteef.blogspot.co.nz/2015/02/joke-armies-editorial.html
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting take on the same sort of issue
Mike Vercoe again - nice article and states both sides of the case, and the fact that folk will never agree on it, which is fine really.
Delete