Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => Fantasy Adventures => Frostgrave => Topic started by: The Red Graf on 20 October 2015, 01:16:48 AM
-
I have a couple of miniatures that I want to use as thugs for the game. Both are armed with two hand weapons. I am not sure if I want to mutilate them to make them meet the letter of the law. Thoughts. suggestions, random bits of invective thrown my way.
-
IMO, that is completely up to your campaign's group. I figure thugs will be left behind after a few good treasure hauls, anyway.
-
We will be playing as WYSIWYG as possible in our upcoming campaign (we might even give extra XP for people who paint and field figs that are closest to what they are supposed to be) but even then our rule of thumb is as long as it's clearly stated what the figs is and what weapon it's carrying at the start of the game we can let that kind of details slide.
Anyways that's how we intend on playing it. The only big no-no in our group is you cannot field a figurine that could be confused with a monster from the random encounter table (so no skeleton army)
-
I think as long as you don't also have say a Barbarian in your party that looks a lot like the thugs you should be good. My group has a limited WYSIWYG were we don't worry if a thug has a shield as long as the guy you are using as a man at arms is clearly better armored. We sort of go through war bands at the start so people know what each-other have to avoid confusion. We do have a hard and fast rule that troops armed with missile weapons have to have a missile weapon.
-
Thanks for the replies guys, that helps a lot. One point of clarification. The potential thugs are each carrying two one handed weapons, not two handed weapons like the barbarian. So dual wielding.
Specifically
Her
(https://www.coolminiornot.com/shop/media/catalog/product/j/o/jotnarsbane2_2.jpg)
and her.
(http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/OTAwWDkwMA==/z/R10AAOSwwNVTr7R0/$_1.JPG?set_id=880000500F)
As you can see, excessive armor is not really an issue.
-
In our group we are pretty lax about things like this as long as you make your opponent aware and it looks right (rule of cool).
For instance my barbarian is this girl http://www.copplestonecastings.co.uk/images/BQ1col.jpg
Obviosly a barbarian compared to the rest of my crew but not armed technically correctly.
as Irishvince says we just go through what all our guys are pre game.
However we have ruled that models with black powder weapons have to be crossbows rather than bows.
-
I like that Copplestone Barbarian girl myself. I had thought about getting her as well.
I think the one point that really hit home was the one about how long the thugs are going to be in my band. I hadn't thought about that aspect.
-
Those women seem to have forgotten to put their clothes on, its cold in Frostgrave, they'll catch their deaths.
-
They come from hardy stock and laugh at what passes for cold in Frostgrave.
-
No one is that hardy.
-
my personal opinion is that WYSIWYG is vastly overrated. I totally understand that in many situations it is important to be able to tell the difference between units based on their appearance. however, this is largely limited to using one appearance to represent more than one thing (e.g. "this Ork with a shoota has a shoota, but this Ork with a shoota has a rokkit launcher").
as long as it is possible to tell two different units apart, you have made it clear to your opponent which rules will be used for which unit and have your list to hand for reference (all pretty basic good sportsmanship), then I can't see any reasonable ground to object. In my experience, more often than not WYSIWYG is used as a crutch for gamers who can't be bothered to engage with their opponent properly or as a needless stick to punish people for artistry and creativity.
these things are especially true of Frostgrave, where you only have to keep track of ten men. of which, 8 have set stats that can't be changed. even the most vaguely astute opponent is in no danger of a surprise.
-
They come from hardy stock and laugh at what passes for cold in Frostgrave.
I thought they were just pleased to see me :~}
-
my personal opinion is that WYSIWYG is vastly overrated. I totally understand that in many situations it is important to be able to tell the difference between units based on their appearance. however, this is largely limited to using one appearance to represent more than one thing (e.g. "this Ork with a shoota has a shoota, but this Ork with a shoota has a rokkit launcher").
as long as it is possible to tell two different units apart, you have made it clear to your opponent which rules will be used for which unit and have your list to hand for reference (all pretty basic good sportsmanship), then I can't see any reasonable ground to object. In my experience, more often than not WYSIWYG is used as a crutch for gamers who can't be bothered to engage with their opponent properly or as a needless stick to punish people for artistry and creativity.
these things are especially true of Frostgrave, where you only have to keep track of ten men. of which, 8 have set stats that can't be changed. even the most vaguely astute opponent is in no danger of a surprise.
This is really an answer after my own heart. I don't see why you couldn't print out a little one page explanation of who was who in your warband complete with a picture of each model and present it to your opponent.
-
As far as showing what the model has.... As has been said so long as it is clear what each figure is I see no problems keeping the model as it was cast.
-
A lot of it is about the look of the game for me, it ruins the suspension of disbelief a little if I have to remember that those skeletons are archers and those ones are thugs when they all have hand weapons and spears, in a game with as small a force as Frostgrave where most of the difference is just in the weapons of which there are only a few categories, there is not really much excuse not to have WYSIWYG, its not hard to get the right models painted so they at least have the right weapons.
-
WYSIWYG is simply good for the flow of the game, not to mention the overall look and feel. Always having to refer to a table/list or asking your opponent everytime what's what definitely slows down the game. Maybe not by much but enough to make a difference. I mean it doesn't have to be 100% accurate, we all understand that in the first few games this might happen and to clearly state that one or two models are innacurate is perfectly fine but to play the game non-WYSIWYG on a permanent basis is definitely not the experience I'm looking for. Also, keep in mind that a thug's a thug...when I saw the barbarian queen with her two hand weapons up there to be used as a thug I was a bit meh...as good looking as this model is, it is definitely not a thug. Anything but. The "Epic-ness" of the models should go according to the in-game cost of the model imo.
In the campaign I'm playing in, we are giving bonus pts on the painting % and accuracy of the models to encourage players to play as WYSIWYG and fully painted as possible.
-
In Frostgrave think the term thug refers mainly to the gear the model is carrying. I can see where having two almost identical models serving as two different types of mercenaries is a problem this is not the case here. We are talking about a model that is carrying two swords instead of one. Neither of the models I showed are queens.
-
Neither of them are just your lowly hired mook either, they don't look like a thug you'd pay 20 gold to accompany you into a ruined city.
Also they need clothes.
-
I wouldnt mind some rules for "upgrades", so that models used are more WYSIWYG. Shields, heavy armor, extra weapon, etc.
-
If a model is obvious, then it doesn't need to be WYSIWYG; if it isn't then WYSIWYG helps.
For example, any barbarian model = Barbarian henchman is fine. No confusion.
However, five barbarian models, representing a mixture of different henchmen = confusing. Having WYSIWYG weapons and suitable accessories helps both players remember which model is which.
Using WYSIWYG as a stick to cajole your opponent with just because a barbarian (who represents a Barbarian henchman) has the wrong weapons seems very petty to me; I personally always try to be reasonable and accept my opponent's models as-is if I can, whilst at the same time trying to make it fairly simple for my opponent with my models where I can.
So, if your proposed models for Thugs look suitable for Thug henchmen, then I'd just get on with it - no need to clip weapons off I think. ;)
-
I'm just starting to build my warband, and am going down the WYSIWYG-ish route. In other words my thugs, though classed as having a single weapon, also have an extra sword/dagger moulded on them. I can't be bothered to try to hack them off, so they're staying on - I'll just ignore them (or explain them away as ceremonial items etc.)
-
I'm just starting to build my warband, and am going down the WYSIWYG-ish route. In other words my thugs, though classed as having a single weapon, also have an extra sword/dagger moulded on them. I can't be bothered to try to hack them off, so they're staying on - I'll just ignore them (or explain them away as ceremonial items etc.)
That seems imenently reasonable to me. I hate to desecrate a good miniature and as the rules don't allow for two hand weapons at the same time I can't imagine what they would be mistaken for.
-
In our games, we have always tried to keep to the WYSIWYG standard as much as possible, but without making it a "do this or don't play" imperative. After almost 30 years of tabletop gaming, I have hundreds of painted minis, and can usually find one that fills the bill, but if I can't, nobody in our group is going to complain as long as the mini is reasonably close. Recently, for example, I was stumped for a Frostgrave Tracker -- staff and bow...how many minis have you seen with that combination? I could have done a conversion, but I have plenty of other modeling projects to work on and didn't feel like putting the time into it, so I just used an elf ranger-type with a long bow. As long as there isn't a lot of confusion caused by using identically equipped models, I say don't sweat the small stuff. Pick an appropriate substitute and have fun...because having fun is the point, after all.
rags
-
IMO, a dagger is an eating utensil for the FG era. The belt dagger can be only that, and not useful as a weapon - well, no better than unarmed combat.
-
After all is said and done it is you and your friends who will make the final call. We all have a broad background and all of us different. I prefer fun gaming over miner discrepancy . Paint the non valid weapon black or tack a bag to it to make it not a weapon. I agree that using a knight in plate armor with two handed sword as a thief is over the top but a thug who happens to have two hand weapons modeled on.... Not a big issue. Eventually the figure in question may be upgraded to something better equipped as I have seen on one of the other members AAR. Play the game and have fun.
-
In our games, we have always tried to keep to the WYSIWYG standard as much as possible, but without making it a "do this or don't play" imperative. After almost 30 years of tabletop gaming, I have hundreds of painted minis, and can usually find one that fills the bill, but if I can't, nobody in our group is going to complain as long as the mini is reasonably close. Recently, for example, I was stumped for a Frostgrave Tracker -- staff and bow...how many minis have you seen with that combination? I could have done a conversion, but I have plenty of other modeling projects to work on and didn't feel like putting the time into it, so I just used an elf ranger-type with a long bow. As long as there isn't a lot of confusion caused by using identically equipped models, I say don't sweat the small stuff. Pick an appropriate substitute and have fun...because having fun is the point, after all.
rags
I don't think I'm the first to think of this, but just in case. Hugo Le Petite from the Bowmen of Bergiac.
(http://www.roundtable-bretonnia.org/index.php?option=com_joomgallery&func=watermark&catid=17&id=5002&Itemid=103)
-
Red Graf,
Thanks for the response, but at this late stage in my gaming life, one of the absolute essentials for getting involved with Frostgrave was that I should not have to buy or paint any more miniatures. I already have more lead and pewter than I could ever possibly need...and so I am using my existing collection, and that is all. Nice mini, though.
rags