Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

(First off in the spirit of full disclosure, the above title is not a Trenchie original. It was borrowed from an old issue of "Miniature Wargames" which featured a humorus article that lampooned different types of gamer. One of these was the "Fantasy Frother" which was a not too disguised shot at GW fans and featured that wonderful phrase.)

Anyway, this all starts with a thread I saw recently in the 40k tactics forum. On it someone asked if using a Soul Grinder as a Defiler would be an acceptable "counts as" proxy. I took interest in the thread as I had thought about doing the exact same thing for my newly repainted Slaaneshi CSM army. (I think the Soul grinder is a much better looking model and it could do double duty in my Daemon army as well) Well most people who responded to the thread took a reasonable view of the question, but to my horror there were two or three people who stated that no it would not be an acceptable proxy and that they would object to playing against such as that, especially in a competative setting.

I've seen this sort of thing again and again over the years both in person and on these forums and it always makes me shake my head. But were does this mindset come from? To determine this, we have to go back to the original question in regards to the Soul Grinder proxy that sparked my interest.

What reasonable person could find grounds to object to such a proxy? Certainly in legalistic terms it's a violation of the much vaunted "WYSIWYG" rules. But it is certainly within the spirit of that rule. Aside from forcing people to buy more miniatures if they want options, the main purpose of WYSIWYG is to avoid hard feelings that might stem from misunderstandings caused by proxy models. But the Soul Grinder proxy is not really in that catagory, is it? There is no other option aside from the Defiler that any player who is halfway awake could mistake it for. It fits the bill quite nicely as a "counts as" for that vehicle...in fact the models share many of the same parts for god's sake. It's a far cry from the "all my heavy bolters are actually lascannons" type of proxy that WYSIWYG is designed to stop. So I ask again what reasonable person, even in a tournament, would object to such a proxy?

The type who takes everything GW says seriously and feels that their "company line" is the only way to play the game....the "WHATDOYUOMEANYOUPLAYITONORDINARYPAPER!!11!??" crowd.

GW would of course object to such a common sense use of the "counts as" rule as it would represent a lost sale. Just as the Daemon and Chaos armies were seperated to encourage players to build more than one army and they would no doubt object to the use of square based WFB figures doing double duty in 40k armies, this sort of thing flies in the face of a set of tourny/in store gaming rules and a encouraged mindset designed solely with their bottom line in mind and must be discouraged. It's shameful, but there is a minority of players out there who have drank the GW Koolaid quite deaeply and takes everything they say as gospel...sometimes to the extreme that they would object to even the most common sense deviations from the GW orthidoxy.

What do you think of the "WHATDOYOUMEANYOUPLAYITONORDINARYPAPER!!1!??" crowd and what steps can we as a community take to open their eyes?

TR

Well, there is always a chunk of the community that hears the words "proxy" or "counts as" and immediatly assumes the worse: a model that isn't WYSIWYG, painted so that it clashes with the rest of the force, and is clearly an attempt to simply use something convenient.

For the defiler/soulgrinder, I think as long as you can identfiy clearly the relevant weapons, there is no argument. Keep in mind that the Defiler can take a variety of weapons, so making sure that the soul grinder is unambigious would help.

The actual defiler model literally has the CCws, the reaper AC, and the Heavy flamer modeled on. They can be switched for CCWs, so making sure that your soulgrinder clearly has some sort of gun and some sort of flamer looking thing would help.

As is, the model simply ain't WYSIWG, and while I'd never refuse to play it, I can see why people can.

FWIW, I have played WHFB using ordinary cardboard counters. Once. The next day Rick Priestly and Jervis Johnson were waiting outside the school yard...... they smashed my pretty paper counters, broken my fingers, and jammed the rules you know where...... I haven't been able to respond humanely to a "counts as" post since. I'm sorry Trenchie, I was probably one of those evil gitz who attempted to tell you exactly how you could play with your little toy soldiers.....

Polonius wrote:Well, there is always a chunk of the community that hears the words "proxy" or "counts as" and immediatly assumes the worse: a model that isn't WYSIWYG, painted so that it clashes with the rest of the force, and is clearly an attempt to simply use something convenient.

Oddly enough I don't find this to be a serious issue. What's wrong with using something convenient for a past time that's supposed to be fun?

It's of the same rough dimensions, and is based on the same chassis. Far as I'm concerned, as long as proxies are reasonable, there is no problem whatsoever.

What do I mean by reasonable? Well, a Missile Launcher model can be a Lascannon, no problem. Unless, Missile Launcher A is a Lascannon, Missile Launcher B is an Autocannin etc. Same goes with troops. If you have a preferance for a kind of model, say, Plaguebearers, and decide to use them as Daemonettes, which you view less favourably, fair enough. As long as ALL your Plaguebearers count as Daemonettes.

However, I am not noted for my anality (it's a word now! I'm British. Our language our rules! ) and still (Fairly fondly) remember the early days of not having much cash and a very much 'mend and make do' mentality as to what is what, so my opinion should be taken in said context.

To sum up? Keep in consistent, and the problem is entirely your opponents, not yours.

I have no problems with people doing conversions for "counts as" models as long as they:

1. Put the time and effort into the conversion so it's not just a "I'm too cheap to buy the actual model and too lazy to convert my own version"

2. Make sure it's crystal clear what it represents, mostly for wargear (an axe is NOT a bolter).

I don't sweat it if someone is working towards getting their army done as long as there's progress (even if it's slow). Practically, this means that I've never actually refused to play someone on this basis. I will make jokes about it during the game, though.

I just dont like it when people take the count as rule really far. like my entire tau army is being played as space marines. this group of fire warriors is a scout squad, this one a devaster, these two tacticals. stuff like that where its way to confusing to play. smaller stuff like hey i dont have enough money to get this one group of marines so im using a few eldar to supplement is cool.

1. Put the time and effort into the conversion so it's not just a "I'm too cheap to buy the actual model and too lazy to convert my own version"

You see and that sort of attitude is the kind of thing that gets my back up. What business of anyone's is it if you ARE too cheap the buy the actual model? Honestly?
For example I tend to use the same motorpool of neutral grey vehicles for all the MEQ armies (four with another on the way) I own. This is specificly done as a cost save measure due to the expense of providng duplicate vehicles for several armies. That's a classic example of what you are talking about and I don;t see anything wrong with it.

TR

My gaming group is fine if I use my GK's incinerator's as psycannons. It's not my fault that GW decided to put inferior weaponry in all their packages.

Trench-Raider wrote:

1. Put the time and effort into the conversion so it's not just a "I'm too cheap to buy the actual model and too lazy to convert my own version"

You see and that sort of attitude is the kind of thing that gets my back up. What business of anyone's is it if you ARE too cheap the buy the actual model? Honestly?
For example I tend to use the same motorpool of neutral grey vehicles for all the MEQ armies (four with another on the way) I own. This is specificly done as a cost save measure due to the expense of providng duplicate vehicles for several armies. That's a classic example of what you are talking about and I don;t see anything wrong with it.

TR

Lots of players are strongly interested in the aesthetic side of the game.

I don't proxy anything. If I don't own the necessary model to field something I'll either drop it from my list, or go out and buy it.

I'm very much what KK just described - into the aesthetic side of things.

H.B.M.C. wrote:I'm very much what KK just described - into the aesthetic side of things.

Really? How much of your humungous collection is painted?

An interest with the aesthetic side of things does not necessarily require painted models to fulfil that interest - I should know.

It can smack slightly of playing the mechanics as opposed to playing the models. I’m a bit of a WYSIWYG Nazi when it comes to my own stuff. I hate having the wrong gun/model of tank etc. and will convert them as soon as possible but I have many ‘alternate figures’ such as Citadel zombies as Risen for Warmachine (because they were cheaper) and even kit bash figures.

A Soulgrinder with a sufficient number and location of guns seems ok as a Defiler to me.

H.B.M.C. wrote:I don't proxy anything. If I don't own the necessary model to field something I'll either drop it from my list, or go out and buy it.

I'm very much what KK just described - into the aesthetic side of things.

I am very much like this, at least when it comes to my own models. I like to have at the least all weapons modeled properly in my army before I field it, which is why I tend to build most of my units with magnets built in now.

On the other hand, even if I prefer to play like this, never do I impose the same on my opponent. I just make sure I know what is what before we start. I don't expect everyone to model everything exactly WYSIWYG. Even though I wouldn't do it personally, I would never make a big deal about an opponent using a soul grinder as a defiler or vice versa (or any other proxy for that matter).

I guess I am being dense once again, but what context is the "Whatdoyoumeanyouplayitonordinarypaper!!11??" supposed to be used in?

I'm guessing it means a RPG player who is so keen they use parchment for their character sheets.

OddJob. wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:I'm very much what KK just described - into the aesthetic side of things.

Really? How much of your humungous is painted?

Wow.

Just... Wow...


Personally, I (almost) don't care WHAT is proxied, as long as it's reasonable (unlike the aforementioned Tau-Space Marines).


Eric

I am in the "As long as I know what it is as the beginning of the of the game and all of these are proxied as th same thing, it's all good" crowd.

I play the game with other people for the fun of it. having 2 fully painted and based armies on the table is just an added bonus for me. If I want to delve into the ascetic part of the hobby, I'll sit down and paint, or something like that.

Hell, I even proxy stuff every now and again.

Just my $0.02 USD
BLAGAG!!!

MagickalMemories wrote:

OddJob. wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:I'm very much what KK just described - into the aesthetic side of things.

Really? How much of your humungous is painted?

Wow.

Just... Wow...

Thats exactly what I thought right after typing it, but I left it in that format for an enterprising soul to exploit. Despite seeing it coming, I still laughed! :p

Well, the thread isn't for mocking HBMC's collection so let's get back on topic.

I'm sure everyone has got a limit for what they would tolerate on the table.

Polonius wrote:Well, there is always a chunk of the community that hears the words "proxy" or "counts as" and immediatly assumes the worse: a model that isn't WYSIWYG, painted so that it clashes with the rest of the force, and is clearly an attempt to simply use something convenient.

For the defiler/soulgrinder, I think as long as you can identfiy clearly the relevant weapons, there is no argument. Keep in mind that the Defiler can take a variety of weapons, so making sure that the soul grinder is unambigious would help.

The actual defiler model literally has the CCws, the reaper AC, and the Heavy flamer modeled on. They can be switched for CCWs, so making sure that your soulgrinder clearly has some sort of gun and some sort of flamer looking thing would help.

As is, the model simply ain't WYSIWG, and while I'd never refuse to play it, I can see why people can.

To avoid the losers just put a flamer on the claw arm. Then you're wyswyg. the harvester is a perfect reaper cannon.

I think it's fine.
As long as my CSM opponent was willing to show me his list and point out to me what the weapons were it'd be fine.

For about 4 months I was playing with a WFB High Elf spearman as a Dire Avenger.
No-one cared.

I don't see the Defiler issue as a million miles away from this. It's big, stompy and looks pretty darn similar.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Trench-Raider wrote:

1. Put the time and effort into the conversion so it's not just a "I'm too cheap to buy the actual model and too lazy to convert my own version"

You see and that sort of attitude is the kind of thing that gets my back up. What business of anyone's is it if you ARE too cheap the buy the actual model? Honestly?
For example I tend to use the same motorpool of neutral grey vehicles for all the MEQ armies (four with another on the way) I own. This is specificly done as a cost save measure due to the expense of providng duplicate vehicles for several armies. That's a classic example of what you are talking about and I don;t see anything wrong with it.

TR

Lots of players are strongly interested in the aesthetic side of the game.

Then they would support using the soulgrinder. Its a fantastically inspired mini (and I like the Defiler).

Kilkrazy wrote:I'm guessing it means a RPG player who is so keen they use parchment for their character sheets.

I always thought it was referring to computer RPG players(either chat, MUD, or graphical online games) who get roped into playing pen and paper not knowing what they're actually getting into.

Platuan4th wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I'm guessing it means a RPG player who is so keen they use parchment for their character sheets.

I always thought it was referring to computer RPG players(either chat, MUD, or graphical online games) who get roped into playing pen and paper not knowing what they're actually getting into.

My idea is more interesting though.

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Trench-Raider wrote:

1. Put the time and effort into the conversion so it's not just a "I'm too cheap to buy the actual model and too lazy to convert my own version"

You see and that sort of attitude is the kind of thing that gets my back up. What business of anyone's is it if you ARE too cheap the buy the actual model? Honestly?
For example I tend to use the same motorpool of neutral grey vehicles for all the MEQ armies (four with another on the way) I own. This is specificly done as a cost save measure due to the expense of providng duplicate vehicles for several armies. That's a classic example of what you are talking about and I don;t see anything wrong with it.

TR

Lots of players are strongly interested in the aesthetic side of the game.

Then they would support using the soulgrinder. Its a fantastically inspired mini (and I like the Defiler).

I expect they probably would.

I mean there is a tendency to describe things in absolutes and really, different people will accept different levels of 'counts as'. Players shouldn't be condemned unless they go too far.

Frazzled wrote:

Polonius wrote:Well, there is always a chunk of the community that hears the words "proxy" or "counts as" and immediatly assumes the worse: a model that isn't WYSIWYG, painted so that it clashes with the rest of the force, and is clearly an attempt to simply use something convenient.

For the defiler/soulgrinder, I think as long as you can identfiy clearly the relevant weapons, there is no argument. Keep in mind that the Defiler can take a variety of weapons, so making sure that the soul grinder is unambigious would help.

The actual defiler model literally has the CCws, the reaper AC, and the Heavy flamer modeled on. They can be switched for CCWs, so making sure that your soulgrinder clearly has some sort of gun and some sort of flamer looking thing would help.

As is, the model simply ain't WYSIWG, and while I'd never refuse to play it, I can see why people can.

To avoid the losers just put a flamer on the claw arm. Then you're wyswyg. the harvester is a perfect reaper cannon.

I know I could give a damn about what a defiler is armed with, and if it is or isnt' WYSIWYG. My point is that the defiler has weapon options, and any vaiance from the stock (2 DCCWs, HF, RAC) would make it even more difficult to simply "keep in mind" what the model is armed with.

I think the question needs to reach to the heart of the debate, which is "where do you draw the line between counts-as and proxying?"

Counts as is a legitimate and honorable part of the hobby. If done porperly, no oppoenent with any self pride would refuse to allow a model that was properly sized and WYSIWYG simply because it's a counts as model.

Proxying is what you do when you don't own a model and want to use a unit, and throw the closest thing you've got down on the table.

Actually converting/painting/modelling a soulgrinder so that it's a legitimate counts as defiler makes it's use unimpeachable. Simply slapping one on the table isn't necessarily a proxy (it's really close), but it's close enough that it can feel more like a proxy than a counts as.

It wouldn't take much, both walkers have hurty arms and a couple of guns, so it's easy to model.

the point isn't to create a model that most people will accept, because I think most people will accept any model. The only questions worth asking are:
What will be accepted by any gaming group, TO, etc. as an acceptable counts as, or
What will the group I play with regularly accept.

We cant' help answer the second one, but the first one I think requires meticulous attention to WYSIWYG for all non-stock models.

Wait wait, you're saying an unbound defiler feels more like a proxy then a counts as, to a defiler? It has nearly the same weapon load out, has the same frame. Frankly its just better looking. Respectfully thats like saying a veteran dread is a proxy for a standard dread. If it has the same weapon loadout it IS the same model.

Trench-Raider wrote:

1. Put the time and effort into the conversion so it's not just a "I'm too cheap to buy the actual model and too lazy to convert my own version"

You see and that sort of attitude is the kind of thing that gets my back up. What business of anyone's is it if you ARE too cheap the buy the actual model? Honestly?
For example I tend to use the same motorpool of neutral grey vehicles for all the MEQ armies (four with another on the way) I own. This is specificly done as a cost save measure due to the expense of providng duplicate vehicles for several armies. That's a classic example of what you are talking about and I don;t see anything wrong with it.

TR

As was said elsewhere in the thread, it's an aesthetic thing. Without the "COOL! Look at all the army dudes on the table!" factor, we may as well be playing an Avalon Hill game that you don't need a month to play. I'm not a big fan of cardboard chits, and your approach isn't that much different to me.

I've also played Warhammer 40k when I was dirt poor (one summer, my food budget was $20 a week). I still made do with what I had, used old models other people didn't want, etc. I am a snob about this hobby, but only about putting the work in. Even the quality isn't important; some people just don't do that side of it well. You can tell when they try, though, and I really appreciate that.

@ Frazz: if the weapons are the same, it's counts as. Like I've said about five times, I have no problem with it. I'm merely pointing out that by a strict interpretation of WYSIWYG and Counts as, there must be a readily identifiable bit to represent each weapon. I think the first example would be beyond reproach if it had a clearly identifiable heavy flamer. I mean, given that as a defiler, there are only two weapon arms that could legitimately be considered DCCWs, it's safe to assume that it still has the default weaponry (RAC/HF), but the bedrock upon which Counts-As rests is that everything is clearly WYSIWYG, just different. Any deviation from that could, potentially, run afoul of somebody who might not be TFG, but simply doesn't like counts as. It's a safe harbor, in other words.

To 90% of gamers, the soulgrinder is an utterly reasonable counts as. A fully WYSIWYG soulgrinder gets you to 99% of gamers, with the remainder simply being tool boxes that are stuck in their ways.

In other words, a converter must be like caeser's wife: beyond reproach.