unit fillers

[redzed]

kinda D

If you game Warhammer and a unit is composed of 40 models - 10 wide and 4 deep, instead you take say 4 and replace them with 2 models doing something else (having a fight if it's Gobbo's), the replacements take up the same amount of base size though.  It's actually more work to to do but the effects can be amazing.

Impetus just uses base sizes you can put as many or as few figures on them as you wish.

[Mr Brown]

I would disagree with the sentiment of 'less effort' being used on unit fillers. Of all the unit fillers I've ever used/created, I would say each cost more time, if not money, and effort to prepare. Unlike simply basing individually, you can be a bit more dynamic with positioning. You can also add more thematic content that individual figures alone could not provide.

I would to an extent agree with someone simply basing one figure on a base size intended for four or more. That in of itself is no different from putting down a piece of card with the unit's name written on it.

Ultimately, each to their own. As to whether people would object etc I go back to my first comment. If you are happy with it and  it looks ok plus you aren't trying to gain some advantage then your opponent shouldnt have any cause for concern. Obviously this becomes a moot point if you are taking part in a competition or event with clear guidance on what can and cannot be done.

[Vermis]

To me though, from a visual perspective where in my head the scaling is 1:1 that unit of 20 goblins with a 4 base unit filler is a unit of 20 goblins that carries round a huge stone idol. Not 24 goblins because look, there are only 20 goblins. Count them. Where do you draw the line are 4 goblins and 5 of the 4 base unit fillers OK? What ratio is fine?

So it's where unit size is determined by base size and money/effort is saved by filling up the base with something other than the unit it portrays.

I see the objection.

The legacy of single casualty removal in 'the game of fantasy overbloated skirmishes'. Although even GW promotes 'multibasing' with half of their big bases. Not to mention those two at the bottom of the page. (Given the cost of GW bases and models, I guess they're not too worried about making much of a loss. :p )

How do you feel about skirmisher bases in other games?

And lookit that Impetus samurai base.  

Guy at my club had a bit of a laugh in a GW once. He asked what the model scale was in a chaos vs. empire game being played, and was told it was 1:1. To him that was like Archaon invading the empire with a dozen knights.

How much do 4 goblins cost after all?

From GW?

That is a factor, though. You can't just buy four goblins from GW, only the full box. A unit filler might allow a gamer to stretch out a single box in a creative, personalised way; especially if unit restrictions or optimal unit sizes don't quite tally up with the numbers or components in the box. (It's the case with a few GW boxes, I hear. Heck, it's the case with Perries ACW infantry...)

That, or a few models held back from multiple units might help make up an extra unit themselves, stretching the boxes a bit further. I can't look down on anyone for that.

And yeah, what difference does four gobbos make?

[Glitzer]

So if I do a "unit filler" that simply uses other minis instead of simpled based ones it wouldn't be a a Unit filler for some of you?

Let's say I do a 40mm square base with a dwarfen king standing on a shield born by three dwarfs... Is that a unit filler or just unconventional basing?

[Mr Brown]

With your example question there it becomes difficult depending on the rules you are using. If the dwarf king on shield bearers is just a unit filler in the unit somewhere then yeah, I think that's more than fine. If however its a character you just happen to put on a bigger base at the front then there will be concern as the character who originally was meant to have a frontage of say 20mm now has a frontage of 40mm.

I'm not a leading authority on this by any means but I would say that as long as whatever you are doing has no bearing on the effect the unit has ruleswise then there surely should be no problem. Its not like you are adding in extra ranks or frontage for free by using a filler. The idea is that its exactly what it should be but just looks different.

This then gets to the point where not only will some people not accept unit fillers, but they will also not accept anything that isn't exactly what the games manufacturer's line produces. A slippy slope. Fine logic if you are promoting something through a supported tournament say. In the local club or on the kitchen table? Well horses for courses I guess.

I accept that people look for different things in different games. Wargamers tend to be more fickle than most; to the point of hypocracy a lot of the time. Me? I just do what I enjoy with like minded gamers.

[Sangennaru]

Well Impetus uses base sizes and you can unit fill to your heats content with fillers or just load it with figures.

and that's why i conceptually LOVE impetus, even though i'm not into big battles wargames

[eilif]

As to the overall subject, I don't have much problem with unit filers. I'd prefer that they be thematic or visually interesting, but if you drop a unit of dwarves in the middle of your men-at-arms I'm not going to take offense.

I'm basing up four reaper fire giants to play as "Ogres" in Kings of War.  The will be on 40mm squares but are notably larger than Ogres, so I'll be making 4 20x40 unit fillers to go into a movement tray.  So four Giants will take up the appropriate space for a KoW unit of 6 Ogres.

While we're on the subject...

What would your feelings be about a rank of pack horses used to bulk out a unit of knights? 

I've got 6 Essex pack horses staring forlornly at me from my painting table. I want going to paint them up, but there are only a couple of uncommon scenarios where they'd be of any use, so they are continually going to be shifted to the back of the painting queue. 

[Momotaro]

GW had an online article on this very subject a while back, although it's been lost in the depths of the new site.  At the time, they described it as a way to make units look more interesting AND bulk them out.  I imagine their philosophy has changed on the latter.

As long as you can see how many ranks and files there are in the unit (and how many of the ranks contribute the rank bonus), there's no problem.  I certainly don't assess players based on how much they've spent on their army (or not ).

Although I prefer a unit to be more than 2 goblins and a rock  

[Gibby]

*throws two Goblin/rock diorama in the bin*

[Ramshackle_Curtis]

It can be done well, and it can be done badly. Here is a great example:



However, it can be done in a cheap way, which might look tatty I mean, this one. Is it good or bad? To me, it adds alot of animation to the unit, even though it is very simple and cheap:



This unit is really cool, or is it a diaorama? I cant tell!




A bit of a naff one, but it adds theme to an army:

[Momotaro]

*throws two Goblin/rock diorama in the bin*

I suppose if it's a really well sculpted rock... 

[phreedh]

I think the main reason for people to not like unit fillers is the fact that they're often static, inanimate objects. It doesn't make sense to have a tree and fences move with your unit of zombies. And, on the topic of fences. That very same fence used on those zombies would add cover if it was standing on it's own base. I'm not saying it's impossible to understand what's going on, but it adds a layer of confusion (albeit instantly dispelled) and clutter to an already rather confusing and cluttered game system.

For me it's not a matter of "cheating" or being "cheap". I just don't like seeing stuff that should be fixed on the battle field move with the models. It works in HOTT or similar games, where a stand of miniatures is already a rather abstract entity. In WHFB, the models have always represented a single model. I don't think it works very well there.

[eilif]

It can be done well, and it can be done badly. Here is a great example:

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1620284a_Blog140111_3_XL.jpg

However, it can be done in a cheap way, which might look tatty I mean, this one. Is it good or bad? To me, it adds alot of animation to the unit, even though it is very simple and cheap:

http://i1044.photobucket.com/albums/b450/Snuggleflux/Tombkings/IMAG0161.jpg
This unit is really cool, or is it a diaorama? I cant tell!

http://warpsignal.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/zombies.jpg


A bit of a naff one, but it adds theme to an army:

http://i414.photobucket.com/albums/pp221/Kees-aka-Ghenkadh/IMG_5887.jpg

I think that all the examples you showed look intentional and thematic.  It won't be to everyone's taste (especially the ones that look dioramma'ish) , but they all look fine to me.

I think that many of the GW examples with 4 miniatures worth of filler might stem from GW kits that have 16 miniatures when the rules require that the unit have 20.  Pretty clever.

[Dr.Falkenhayn]

cool,16 Archers and some kind of Champion/Hero on special Base 

[Glitzer]

I think the main reason for people to not like unit fillers is the fact that they're often static, inanimate objects. It doesn't make sense to have a tree and fences move with your unit of zombies.

True, that's why I prefer unit fillers that could actually be dragged along (Soup kitchens, liftable idols etc.)

But then I usually prefer to play skirmish games, where every mini hast to have it's single base anyways and things are exactly what they look like.