Frost weapons - modeling, and proxies?

[skeletoro]

Hey all.

 

I like the idea of frost weapons. I think the image of a space wolf with a big axe is much more "iconic" than a power fist. But, sadly, frost weapons aren't very good. I'd go so far as to say that there are very, very few situations where giving a unit a frost weapon is a worthwhile use of points.

 

I've had a few ideas milling around in my head though. The first idea is how I could have my cake and eat it: have a frost axe on a model without having to be suboptimal. The second idea is a way to model frost axes/swords etc so as to make them look distinct from power weapons.

 

1. Army-wide proxy?

Given that I'm generally going to pack wolf claws and power fists over frost swords and frost axes, why not just model them as frost weapons, but have them "count as" WC/PF respectively? Taking this a step further, a chainfist could even be modeled as a frost HAMMER. This would mean that the old PF+WC or CF+WC combos could be modelled as a big frost axe (or hammer) paired with a frost sword (perhaps a long knife depending on your aesthetic preferences.) Incidentally, it would make the default loadout for the finecast Thunderlord model quite optimal (currently it's a bit poo, and it's a shame to cut off that axe because it actually looks pretty cool!)

 

This might not be seen as kosher by some players, and potentially could be an issue in tournaments. I think you'd probably need to try and do as many as possible of the following to minimise the risk of disagreements:

 

1) Model frost axes VERY distinctively. There should be zero ambiguity as to whether something is a frost weapon or a power weapon (more of this later).

2) Don't actually include any frost weapons in your list - this will lead to confusion. If you're using frost weapons as proxies, then do so consistently.

3) Possibly also, don't model any WC/PF/CFs in your army. This might also lead to confusion, which you want to avoid ("Wait, so that guy with the frosty-looking axe, and that other guy with the big fist, are actually the same, rules-wise??")

4) Magnetise. That way, if your opponent really cares (or frost weapons are updated to be a competitive option in their own rights), you can switch back to the standard representation scheme.

 

2. Modelling frost weapons distinctively

This is less of an idea and more of an open question - what are the best ways of doing this? I have a few ideas about how frost weapons could be modelled to look really cool, and they generally involve using clear plastic or some kind of snow mix (e.g. baking soda, snow flock, etc, mixed with pva, water effects etc) to make the weapon look distinctly icy.

 

Here's some links explaining how to make icicles - I think this could work quite well for a frost weapon!

http://sproketsmallworld.blogspot.co.nz/2012/02/ice-magic-making-icicles.html

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?318549-Icicles

 

I've also tried my hand recently at cutting custom axe heads out of plasticard for variety. I found it surprisingly easy... and now I'm wondering whether it might be possible to do the same thing with CLEAR plasticard, for a fully transclucent frost weapon.

 

Any other ideas?

[Wulfebane]

Ehhh.. no thanks.

 

Needless confusion to my mind. I don't see the point. I can appreciate trying to combine weapons for the sake of WYSIWYG to avoid having to model several weapon combinations, but trying to claim a fist is an axe or a chainfist is a hammer is too much of a stretch imo.

[skeletoro]

The point is a purely aesthetic one. I really like the idea of frost weapons, but they frankly suck, rules-wise. I'd rather model my army with frost axes than power fists.

I'm not sure it would be TOO bad, cognitively. I mean... sword = AP3, axe or hammer = AP2. Frost typically means "better version" (except for hammer, I guess, as thunder hammers are more of a sidegrade to chainfists - if you wanted, you could model chainfists as frost chainaxes instead of frost hammers as I had suggested before)

 

So, you wouldn't do it yourself (personal choice, perfectly valid)? Or you'd object to an opponent doing it?

[skeletoro]

I'm also not 100% sure I read what you wrote right. What exactly did you mean by "combine"?

[Valerian]

Skeletoro,

 

Just my opinion, obviously. I for one wouldn't do this, and wouldn't appreciate it if my opponent did it, and I'm just an easy-going casual player. Frankly, there is enough in this game to keep track of - rules for everyone in your own army - rules for units in your opponent's army - the basic rules of the game (which can get pretty tricky), etc. Having to do your own mental gymnastics on who has what, and which weapons "count-as" other weapons just needlessly complicates things, and forces your opponent to conduct that mental gymnastics, as well, which is something a pick-up player at the LGS probably doesn't want to have to deal with.

 

There are choices in life, and there are choices in the game; everything comes at a cost, including opportunity costs. In this case, Frost Weapons are a cool-enough concept, and when modeled help create cool looking miniatures, but aren't particularly effective/cost efficient. You have to weigh that "cool factor" against in-game utility. Some folks weight cool over effectiveness and choose to model with the Frost Weapons. Other folks don't, and go with the clearly superior (for the points) Power Fist. It's just part of the whole experience, and a choice that you have to make.

 

Make enough clamor about it, however, and perhaps in the future when the codex is revised, some game designer will hear your cries and make Frost Axes and Swords worth taking.

 

Best,

 

Valerian

[skeletoro]

I get what you're saying. I don't personally think it's very complicated at all, though of course that intuition could turn out to be incorrect in actual play.

I don't really think it's good game design to balance style against power level. I know that you didn't say it is good game design - you merely said that we all have choices - but I thought it  bears pointing out.

Personally, I'd never, ever take frost weapons over claws/fists merely because they win on cool-factor.

But, I think magnetizing and modelling both allows you to have your cake and eat it (at the expense of time investment). Display them with frost weapons for the cool factor, and play with claws/fists and WYSIWYG. AND, if your opponent doesn't care either way, do the proxy scheme above so that you can have cool+competitive at the same time.

[Wulfebane]

I'm also not 100% sure I read what you wrote right. What exactly did you mean by "combine"?

This is my Wolf Lord's frostblade /power sword/powerfist/wolfclaw/swiss army knife... Its profile is dependent on what I've given him for my myriad of lists. Though based purely on WYSIWYG aesthetics, I would not attempt to pass it off for an axe/hammer/chainfist.

[Durfast Spiritwolf]

Nice work, little brother.

 

Though it is strange to have heard you advocating using feather festooned Death Wing figures as WG in another thread, but worried that a 'frost hammer' counting as a chain fist would be too confusing ;)

[Wulfebane]

I never strayed from the notion that the only confusion would be in WYSIWYG wargear. It could be 10 lego men sitting on the table, but so long as the player declares they're GHs, I know what they're about. A TDA model will always be TDA, whether Deathwing or Wolfwing. The problem is remembering in a squad of 3 swords, 3 hammers, 2 frostaxes, and a bloody stump, which one is in fact wielding the chainfist when it isn't modeled as such.

 

In an edition where true los matters, I've seen several people try to claim their sergeant (who was in front row) somehow managed to live, but mooks #3-6 in the back died, etc, because the sergeant is not clearly defined. I, myself, have been tempted to claim my motw was in fact this guy, not that dead guy because my opponent doesn't realize that the rune I painted on his face marks him as such. But there's no question when I place the whole squad on the table whether they're GHs, BCs, or WG when I state as such, whether my Wolves are blue, grey, or pink, because I've told my opponent I'm playing Wolves.

 

Its much easier to keep track of fewer, broad groupings, rather than a multitude of smaller ones.

 

Now, we went back and forth in the other thread, so aside from this reply, I'd rather not carry it further.

[BrotherCaptainArkhan]

Poking my head in to say that's an awesome weapon (and nicely painted too). Nothing else to add here sorry - my frost weapons are all ENORMOUS chainblades from Kromlech. Like bigger than a Terminator enormous. I tend to figure more = better and bigger = best. Should probably be playing Orks...

[skeletoro]

I never strayed from the notion that the only confusion would be in WYSIWYG wargear. It could be 10 lego men sitting on the table, but so long as the player declares they're GHs, I know what they're about. A TDA model will always be TDA, whether Deathwing or Wolfwing. The problem is remembering in a squad of 3 swords, 3 hammers, 2 frostaxes, and a bloody stump, which one is in fact wielding the chainfist when it isn't modeled as such.

After reading this, I find myself in the same position as Durfast Spiritwolf - not 100% sure why you're willing to countenance all of that, but not my suggestion. Obviously this is a matter of preference to some degree, but you're happy to use lego models as a proxy for grey hunters (personally I think playing 40k with lego is a cool idea, but that's not my point), but not "frosty axes" for power fists? If your reason is that axes don't look like fists, well, lego men don't look like space marines, either. It makes me wonder whether you might have misread my suggestion or something? It might be worth double checking, because if we're "arguing" about this just because of a miscommunication, well, that's a bit of a waste of our time :)

 

In an edition where true los matters, I've seen several people try to claim their sergeant (who was in front row) somehow managed to live, but mooks #3-6 in the back died, etc, because the sergeant is not clearly defined. I, myself, have been tempted to claim my motw was in fact this guy, not that dead guy because my opponent doesn't realize that the rune I painted on his face marks him as such. But there's no question when I place the whole squad on the table whether they're GHs, BCs, or WG when I state as such, whether my Wolves are blue, grey, or pink, because I've told my opponent I'm playing Wolves.

 

OK but... what's the relevance to this thread?

 

Its much easier to keep track of fewer, broad groupings, rather than a multitude of smaller ones.

 

Yes - I suggested exactly 3 broad groupings across the entire army.

wolf claw -> frost sword

power fist -> frost axe

chain fist -> (actually I'm less sure about this one because it's hard to be really consistent. Perhaps frost-chainaxe is the most consistent here as it's adding chains to the frost axe/power fist)

 

That's a few, broad groupings. Honestly it seems a little out of place that you're in favour of modelling a character with an ambiguous conversion (is it a fist? Is it a sword? Is it a wolf claw?) Presumably you only do this for a single model, but if you do it for multiple models in your army, do you make ALL sword fists count as X on the day, or is there a different rule for each? Obviously the latter would be very confusing, but assuming for the sake of the argument that you just do one such proxy (or do it across multiple models but consistently), I still think it's more confusing than my suggestion, for the following reason:

 

A fist is very different to a wolf claw, mechanically. Your opponent needs to be able to tell, first and foremost, whether a weapon is unwieldy or not. Following this, they'll often want to know the weapons AP (i.e. whether it's AP2 or 3), and/or whether it inflicts instant death. Because power axes and thunder hammers are both AP2/unwieldy, and swords are AP3/@init, I think my suggestion above does a great job of proxying weapons in a relatively comprehensible way. Your opponent will know that their terminators only need fear axes and hammers, while their characters need fear frost axes and hammers for their ID properties. With your method, the weapon is truly ambiguous - is it a fist or a sword? Like with my method, they will need you to clarify/explain. So there's room for confusion. But with my method, the costs of an error are generally not going to be very high. "Oh crap, I thought it was a power sword! You get to reroll to wound? Oh, that's not such a big deal" vs "Oh crap, I thought it was a power sword! I don't get my 2+ armour save?! I totally wouldn't have challenged you if I'd remembered that!"

 

On top of that, your method seems to be born out of a desire to avoid modelling multiple weapon options differently... a motivation I can't say I totally agree with. If you're not going to take the time to model different weapons differently, then what's the point? I'll admit, like yours, my method does potentially introduce confusion. But it is done purely for aesthetic reasons - I wouldn't model fewer weapons at all (I'd just be "re-fluffing" some of them). Perhaps the confusion is too high a price to pay, but it the reward (having a unique army with the aesthetic you personally prefer) is (to ME at least) much more worthwhile, and something I'd be much more likely to admire in my opponent's army. 

 

I actually don't mind your way of doing it, personally; I'd be fine with my opponent doing such a thing, as long as all swordfists meant the same thing. I wouldn't be very enthusiastic if it meant one thing on your wolf lord and another thing on your lone wolf, but even then I'd probably tolerate it. Hell, I'd be OK with ad-hoc proxies (i.e. "generally power axes are power axes, except for THIS ONE GUY) as long as my opponent explained things clearly and was willing to accommodate any confusion I might have). Let me reiterate: I don't mind your way of doing it and wouldn't object. In some ways it's quite ingenious. But I don't really understand how you're in favour of that, yet strongly opposed to my suggestion. It doesn't seem consistent to me.

 

Now, we went back and forth in the other thread, so aside from this reply, I'd rather not carry it further.

 

No worries. Don't feel like you need to respond to this post if you don't want to. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I don't expect everybody to like the idea I outlined above.

[skeletoro]

Does it actually say in the fluff anywhere that frost weapons are actually cold?

[Valerian]

No.

[skeletoro]

Ah, lame. That's kinda a missed opportunity on GW's part, IMO. My whole thing above is premised on the idea that frost weapons look very different to power weapons. If they look pretty much the same, their aesthetics are no better than their mechanics - a dud in every respect.

 

I guess there's still the whole "carved from diamond" look. Done right, that could look very distinctive. I'm itching to buy some clear styrene!

 

Plus, there's no reason I can't just ignore the lack of fluff and make them frosty anyway ;)

[skeletoro]

The more I read what wulfebane wrote, the more I suspect our disagreement hinges on how "clearly defined" the frost weapons would be. If I did what I spelled out in the OP, I'd make frost blades look completely distinctive to power weapons - to the point that you COULDN'T use one to represent the other. I'd likely go by the codex description and model the blades out of transparent plastic or as BIG chain weapons, and then go beyond the fluff and model all such weapons with icicles, frost, etc (though I'm as of yet unsure how icicles would build up on a chainblade.. I guess they wouldn't.)

I definitely think that it's very important the difference be clearly defined. I wouldn't advocate painting all your power weapons blue and designating SOME as frost weapons. I certainly wouldn't go a step further and designate SOME of those generic blue power weapons as power fists etc. that would be super cheese... If that's what wulfebane thought I was suggesting then I'm not surprised he responded that way.

Again, to clalrify, these are the only weapons I'd have in my army:

• Power sword/maul/axe/thunder hammer -> Modeled as usual, preferably different colour palette to frosty themed weapons.
• Wolf claw -> Modeled like a power or chainsword, but noticeably bigger, differently colored (ones modeled like power weapons could be transparent) and painted with whatever "ice" effects my meager skills can muster. E.g. Icicles, water effects, white weathering powder on blade and hand/arm, etc etc.
• Power fist -> Modeled like power or chainaxe (see wolf claw above)
• Chain fist: unsure.
• Frost weapons: I would not take any, because they're not very good and I want to stay consistent for clarity.