Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/19 01:08:54


Post by: cuda1179


Through my years of playing 40k I have seen all levels of quality when it comes to conversions. Everything from near Golden Daemon standard to Army men used as Ogryn. Where is your personal line in the sand?

Some examples I can think of include using loyalist marines as Chaos Marines. Many have done this with starter boxes to make cheap armies. While technically proxies, I have never heard anyone complain about it, not even in a GW tournament. The same is true if IG players that modeled their guardsmen with autoguns. Also a proxy, Fantasy wytches as Dark Eldar wyches, although I'm still fine with it.

For some reason guys I've talked to draw the line at cult troops. It's "not 1000 sons" if it's just a marine with a bolter painted metallic blue.

Or for those of us with older collections, some people have trouble accepting large combat knives as chainswords.

Don't get me wrong, I don't exactly like having AoS cavalry used as 40k bikers, or an entire army of third party miniatures that barely resemble what they are trying to represent (these Mantic Forge Fathers are Grey Knights).

Where is your personal line?


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/19 03:09:22


Post by: Chamberlain


Space marines fall to chaos all the time. A paint job is more than enough to make them fit in. GW established that as normal with the Red Corsairs.

My line is "could this confuse an opponent during a game?" and "Does it look right/make sense?" So I'm totally fine with fantasy witches as wyches but not fine with a regular chaos marine painted metallic blue. A good ways into the game when there's loads to think about and an opponent could easily just think those are chaos marines and not rubric marines.

For the mantic Forge Fathers I think it's more about picking better rules. I'd probably go with imperial soup and pick units on a case by case basis for each unit. Grey Knights seems really strange for those models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and alternative miniatures should always be painted. If you're going to give your opponent non-standard general appearances they may as well be painted so they can be more easily identified.


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/19 03:31:52


Post by: ZergSmasher


I use Khorne Bloodreavers from Age of Sigmar as my Khorne Berzerkers and no one in my play group has complained. I feel that as long as a model is roughly the same size and shape and is an actual model (so no Dixie cups as drop pods) and has roughly equivalent wargear, it should be fine. All that matters is that the opponent can tell what something is, or rather that he can tell each type of unit apart from the others. Since my Berzerkers don't look like anything else I run, they work well.


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/19 16:55:05


Post by: cuda1179


When it comes to my own proxies, I will admit that I once used a couple Void miniatures in an actual GW tournament once. I made my list and forgot that they weren't GW models. The funny thing is, they looked enough like Catachan models, especially when painted in the same color scheme, that literally no one noticed. I'd say stuff like that is fine too.


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/19 17:03:59


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


For me, the most important thing is the scale.

Not everyone likes Obliterators for instance. And they're a commonly converted/scratch built unit.

Now I'm all for that. But the end product has to be the same rough size as the official models.


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/19 17:36:32


Post by: Elbows


For me it's pretty simple:

1) Do they match the size/shape/etc. of the replaced model?
2) Is it a YOLO stand-in model which distracts from the Warhammer aesthetic (read: No, I won't play your My Little Pony army on the table).

I'll be vocal about what I like/don't like if you ask for my opinion though, so that's the only caution I'd give someone.


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/19 17:45:43


Post by: Pseudomonas


 cuda1179 wrote:

Or for those of us with older collections, some people have trouble accepting large combat knives as chainswords.


Well, they aren't.

My armies, including such things as Necromunda gangs, are always100% WYSIWYG while at the same time usually using some kind of proxy or miniatures from an other manufacturer. As long as it is obvious what a particular miniature is meant to represent there isn't an issue.

I don't really mind all that much though in practical terms, unless the mess of half built and completely inappropriate miniatures are purely there for beardy purposes. The most egregious example was a Vampire army almost entirely consisting of a Bloodknight deathstar who looked suspiciously like random wolves and horses in various states of disrepair, unpainted of course.


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/19 17:58:53


Post by: Easy E


I honestly do not care that much.

You want a Necron force of rocks painted on bases? Fine.
An army of paper folded templates? Whatever you want.
An army of Imperial Assault Storm troopers and rebels as Imperial Guard? Okay by me.

I actually prefer some sort of creative conversion over the armies of grey armless Ultramarines.


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/19 17:59:01


Post by: Ruin


 cuda1179 wrote:


For some reason guys I've talked to draw the line at cult troops. It's "not 1000 sons" if it's just a marine with a bolter painted metallic blue.


If someone told me my converted CSM models could not be used as Plague Marines they'll get told to feth off.


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/19 18:10:22


Post by: JohnHwangDD


 cuda1179 wrote:
using loyalist marines as Chaos Marines.

guardsmen with autoguns.

Fantasy wytches as Dark Eldar wyches

cult troops. It's "not 1000 sons" if it's just a marine with a bolter painted metallic blue.

AoS cavalry used as 40k bikers,
____

or an entire army of third party miniatures that barely resemble what they are trying to represent (these Mantic Forge Fathers are Grey Knights).


OK, I added a line above.

Of all the things you called out it's the use of Mantic miniatures for anything except Mantic's own herpa-derpa games.


Newly-turned Chaos Marines still in Loyalist Armor? No problem! SM Chapters frequently turn to Chaos, but it takes a lot of time to add the spikes and chains.

Autoguns that count as Lasguns, metallic blue Bolters that count as magical Bolters? No problem!

If the player is cool, and the models look nice enough, then play.



Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/19 18:14:15


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


CSM as Thousand Sons all depends on context.

If your force is all one colour palette, please don't ask me to spot Unit A, B and C being Thousand Sons, Berzerkers and Plague Marines when the game gets going.


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/19 18:18:08


Post by: Elbows


And that's mostly at the crux of the discussion.

Do you have CSM models who (despite paintjob) simply "become" the cult troop of choice because you're bored? That's lazy and would get on my nerves. If you buy CSM minis and paint/build them to be Plague Marines or Berserkers or Thousand Sons = completely fine if they're painted/equipped like what they're supposed to represent.



Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/19 18:22:45


Post by: JohnHwangDD


IOW, apply the "Rule of Cool", and problem solved!


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/19 18:57:09


Post by: HuskyWarhammer


Usability is the key for me. Will my opponent confuse my fantasy undead hounds for anything other than flesh hounds in my otherwise all Khorne army? Probably not.

Alternatively, I remember a person at a tournament had a Disney princess Space Wolf army. Luckily, it consisted of pretty clear designations as to what was what (and 4 unit types, tops), so it wasn't unmanageable, but was closer to having crossed that line than not.


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/19 19:25:27


Post by: Talizvar


The difference between a conversion/counts-as vs proxy I think is when your "suspension of disbelief is broken."
When you encapsulate the functionality/essence of the model you are trying to represent it is a conversion or "counts-as".
Many separate the conversion/proxy to amount of effort made to represent the intended model.

A few conversations around this line as well:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/558839.page
http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2013/09/brent-asks-be-it-proxy-or-counts-as.html
http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/archive/index.php/t-49065.html
https://www.reddit.com/r/Warhammer40k/comments/6jhv40/question_regarding_conversionsproxies/
https://spikeybits.com/2015/08/proxies-where-do-you-draw-the-line.html

Anyway, rule of cool tends to be a guide with a healthy dose of WYSIWYG.
Hope this helps.


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/19 19:29:28


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


I have some basic rules for the Marine army I'm planning to build, as I can only use my friend's models for so long.

1. Consistency is key. I plan to use Volkite Culvirens as my Grav Cannons, but I'm not gonna have one be a Multi-Melta and another as a Heavy Bolter.
2. Does it make sense to an extent? My Intercessors are gonna be Mk3 Marines holding Boarding Shields, with Combi-Bolters being my Grenade Launcher, as there's no equivalent for 40k. So hopefully that's fine. Maybe someone won't like it, so I just won't use that unit entry if my opponent is that much a whiner.
3. Am I modeling for advantage? Correct base sizes for everything is what I'm gonna do. My Asterion, Lugft, and Tyberos will be Mk3 Marines on the 40mm base and with weapons and wargear that actually make sense. Rest of my HQ will be the same.


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/19 19:36:21


Post by: Polonius


A conversion is a conscious effort to represent a unit with a different unit, through different models, bits, paint job, etc.

A proxy is simply using a "close enough" model to represent the proper model.

So, adding bolt pistols to Khorne Bloodreavers is a converstion, because the final product looks like a khorne fighter, and has a pistol and a close combat weapon. A Stormcast model used as a Bullgryn is a proxy, because while they're close, they don't like the intended unit, or a variation on the theme.


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/19 19:57:50


Post by: Chamberlain


I'm going to use a Reaper bones "Mashaaf" as a nurgle daemon. I'm going to add green stuff scars and boils and whatnot.



Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/19 20:10:24


Post by: Pseudomonas




I was going to use these are Rubic Marines in a Khornate Chaos marine army. You would be hard pushed to find something that looks less like a Rubic marine.

However they were to represent lesser deamon engines (Rubic Marines have the closest rules to robotic infantry thingies) in a Dark Mechanicus army otherwise filled with cultists and deamon engines so perfectly fitting thematically.


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/19 20:14:51


Post by: JohnHwangDD


@Pseudomas - those aren't Rubric Marines or Daemon engines. Those are very obviously not-Necrons. You might as well use GW Necrons.


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/19 20:17:35


Post by: Pseudomonas


 JohnHwangDD wrote:
@Pseudomas - those aren't Rubric Marines or Daemon engines. Those are not-Necrons.


Originally yes, but as I said they would fit in well when painted up in red, black and brass and the necronesque markings greenstuffed out. Proxies are entirely about fitting the theme of the overall army and the general concept of the particular unit almost irrespective of their original 'purpose'.

Necrons would look like gak although they may well have seen some use as bits for cultists.


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/19 22:07:20


Post by: Chamberlain


I bet they'd make great dark mechanicus monstrosities. I don't know how big those are, but they might also work as obliterators if they're really big.

Paint scheme and same basing techniques can really tie things together.


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/19 22:40:22


Post by: JohnHwangDD


If I look at models and they're obviously not-Necrons, then they're not going to pass muster as Rubric Marines, given that I know the fluff states Rubric Marines are just animated suits of SM armor.


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/19 23:05:22


Post by: Azreal13


If your opponent explains they're playing 1K Sons and that those models represent Rubrics, and you can't hold that thought in your head long enough to complete a game, you need an easier hobby.

Like, I dunno, sitting in a chair staring into space?


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/19 23:15:12


Post by: Elbows


Did anyone here say that they couldn't remember it?


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/19 23:25:03


Post by: Azreal13


Yes, the Wangster there, right above my post. I mean, that's the only way I can see "pass muster" making any sense outside of him being a hobby snob and taking issue with someone else's creative decisions because he disagrees with them.


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/19 23:30:16


Post by: Elbows


Hmmm...that's not how I read it at all. You made a pathetic insult based on someone having a differing opinion than you? That's pretty mature. When something doesn't "pass muster" that means you don't like it or it isn't getting the job done.

If he's a hobby snob, what business is that of yours? News for you: none.


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/19 23:38:21


Post by: Azreal13


Just as much as another persons model choices are anyone else's? Agreed, which is where these threads always devolve, people looking down their noses at the decisions other people have made, for no other reason than they'd have made different ones.

There is literally nothing to be said beyond "as long as its identifiable as its intended thing." Whether you like it or not, whether it "passes muster" is utterly irrelevant. If those PW sculpts were used as Rubrics in a 1K Sons or Chaos army, there's no way they could be confused with anything else, because that's all they'd be representing.

If something like that offends a player's sensibilities so much, then they're free not to play, but that sort of snobbery strikes me as a far worse thing than somebody trying to be creative.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and FYI, one man's "pathetic insult" is another man's "tongue in cheek humor" but I guess it all depends on what you wish to project onto the words.


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/20 00:22:49


Post by: JohnHwangDD


I believe the topic was conversion vs proxy, and the models in question are very clearly proxies, no matter how much conversion work might be done, or how well the execution might be.

While I might play against it, I don't have to accept those models as good proxies, when they are clearly not, and never would be "Rubric Marines". For all intents and purposes, they might as well be generic Army Men spray-bombed blue.

My personal dislike of those particular proxies as poor base of conversion is simply that. To move on to name-calling is unacceptable, and in no way constitutes "tongue in cheek humor" in any way, shape or form. It was intended as, and taken as, an insult, plain and simple.


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/20 00:53:42


Post by: Azreal13


Doesn't name calling require calling people names? Something which I've clearly not done?


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/20 01:09:33


Post by: thekingofkings


 Azreal13 wrote:
Doesn't name calling require calling people names? Something which I've clearly not done?


I think it was the "wangster" comment, now maybe wangdawgg or wangDDawg or something like that may have more tongue in cheek or whatnot.


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/20 01:13:01


Post by: Azreal13


Do Americans not have the convention of adding a syllable to the end of someone's first or last name as an informal and spontaneous nickname? Jones-y, The Smithster, Philster, Dave-o etc?



Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/20 01:15:33


Post by: Digclaw


 Azreal13 wrote:
Do Americans not have the convention of adding a syllable to the end of someone's first or last name as an informal and spontaneous nickname? Jones-y, The Smithster, Philster, Dave-o etc?



It happens, but usually as a form of condescension. It usually isn't meant in a fun loving friendly way


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/20 01:16:45


Post by: Alpharius


Meanwhile, paying more attention to Rule 2 - and Rule 1 - in here...


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/20 01:18:06


Post by: Azreal13


 Digclaw wrote:
 Azreal13 wrote:
Do Americans not have the convention of adding a syllable to the end of someone's first or last name as an informal and spontaneous nickname? Jones-y, The Smithster, Philster, Dave-o etc?



It happens, but usually as a form of condescension. It usually isn't meant in a fun loving friendly way


Ah well, this side of the pond, calling somebody by a nickname is almost entirely and exclusively an informal and friendly thing to do, unless it's obviously offensive, which is something we only reserve for our close friends and family as a term of endearment.


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/20 01:29:09


Post by: luke1705


 Azreal13 wrote:
Yes, the Wangster there, right above my post. I mean, that's the only way I can see "pass muster" making any sense outside of him being a hobby snob and taking issue with someone else's creative decisions because he disagrees with them.


I doubt (though I can't speak for John) that he took huge offense with you coming up with a strange nickname, however potentially offensive the connotations might be. I mean, there's not a whole lot of things outside of an insensitive ethnic stereotype or a piece of genitalia that would make any sense for how you came up with that name. Maybe think for a few seconds before you type something next time?

The other issue with the above quoted post (because for some reason you can't see that either) is that the OP asked what constitutes a good conversion. No matter where you are in relation to the Atlantic Ocean, John answered that question by saying that he does not believe that the fake Necrons are a good counts as for a rubric marine. That's where he draws his line. And for you to say "I can't even begin to imagine where this guy gets off having that opinion".....is in fact.....wait for it.....your OPINION.

My opinion is that your opinion is actually exceedingly stuck up because you're literally saying that what you think is more important than what John thinks, and on this side of the pond, we learned in third grade that that's selfish and bad.

For me personally, I draw the line at using poker chips to represent nurglings. I'd say that's a pretty bad proxy.


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/20 01:40:19


Post by: Azreal13


Edited in the hope that topic can be located somewhere on the map.


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/20 01:40:22


Post by: JoshInJapan


 luke1705 wrote:
For me personally, I draw the line at using poker chips to represent nurglings. I'd say that's a pretty bad proxy.


I can beat that. In the 2002 40K Grand Tournament, one player fielded a WHFB Empire army as Dark Eldar, claiming that he "liked the army, but hated the models."


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/20 01:57:16


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


Pseudomonas wrote:
 JohnHwangDD wrote:
@Pseudomas - those aren't Rubric Marines or Daemon engines. Those are not-Necrons.


Originally yes, but as I said they would fit in well when painted up in red, black and brass and the necronesque markings greenstuffed out. Proxies are entirely about fitting the theme of the overall army and the general concept of the particular unit almost irrespective of their original 'purpose'.

Necrons would look like gak although they may well have seen some use as bits for cultists.

They might work better as Rubric Terminators due to size and having a melee weapon.


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/20 02:24:28


Post by: BobtheInquisitor


There often seems to be a subtext to proxies and their acceptibility based on expense. For example, a Dixie cup as a drop pod will rub many players the wrong way, but if you use a faberge egg dusted with Swarovski crystals as a drop pod, that's just classy.


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/20 02:46:53


Post by: Vulcan


Oh, yeah, the "I spent a ton of money on my army, you should too!" subset. They look down on anything that even LOOKS like you saved money on the conversion, whether that was the intent or not. Heaven forbid you convert generic space marines when there are Forge World minis to be had for a ton more.

My limit is simple. Can I mistake this unit for ANYTHING ELSE in your army? It doesn't have to be standard - indeed, after a while seeing space marines of various colors all the time gets boring, since that's the majority of 40K armies. Good conversions and proxies keep the game alive for a lot of people.


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/20 04:34:45


Post by: JohnHwangDD


[MOD EDIT - RULE #1 + RULE #2 - Alpharius]


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/20 05:09:43


Post by: Pseudomonas


 JohnHwangDD wrote:
then they're not going to pass muster as Rubric Marines, given that I know the fluff states Rubric Marines are just animated suits of SM armor.


They aren't supposed to; Rubic marines are simply the codex entry that most closely mirrors what I would expect from a bunch of deamonic robot infantry which is what they would be representing.

40k has always been about creativity, even if nuGW seems to be working very hard to curb individuality, so I have absolutely no issue with proxies that clearly aren't there purely for cheesy reasons and that involve at least some creativity on the part of the user, be that a unit type representing something that doesn't exist or a model substitution.





Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/20 06:48:44


Post by: Chamberlain


Pseudomonas wrote:
 JohnHwangDD wrote:
then they're not going to pass muster as Rubric Marines, given that I know the fluff states Rubric Marines are just animated suits of SM armor.


They aren't supposed to; Rubic marines are simply the codex entry that most closely mirrors what I would expect from a bunch of deamonic robot infantry which is what they would be representing.

40k has always been about creativity, even if nuGW seems to be working very hard to curb individuality, so I have absolutely no issue with proxies that clearly aren't there purely for cheesy reasons and that involve at least some creativity on the part of the user, be that a unit type representing something that doesn't exist or a model substitution.


I think this really gets at something important:

One approach is to take the entry codex entry and you then represent it with models.

Another approach is to take the models and then represent them with rules.

Just after 8th came out we were doing initial games at the club and a guy had his betrayal at calth stuff that he painted up as chaos. We were all like "they're cataphracti terminators with whatever weapons they have on them. Let's get going." But no, he had to represent the Chaos Terminator entry in the index despite having built them for 30k in the first place. We were all "just represent what the models have!" but he just couldn't let himself take a grenade harness despite it being right on the model. He hemmed and hawed for almost 20 minutes during army creation because his Cataphractii weren't "passing muster" as the Chaos Terminators while the rest of us were just wanting him to look at each model and write down the needed stats so we can get going.

"I've got this codex entry and I need to find models that will work for it."

"I've got these models and I need to find an entry that will work for it."

Two totally different approaches.


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/20 06:49:39


Post by: JohnHwangDD


@Pseudomas - OK, fair enough. You want to play your proxies "count as" Rubric Marines, and I understand that.

I still don't think that you've made a particularly good choice for the base model, but I've played against worse. Like stacks of red Solo cups proxied for Drop Pods. Or armless Ork bodies for Boyz. I wasn't particularly happy with those proxies, either.

They're still proxies, and if you brought them to one of our big, casual games, I'd accept them.

However, if this were an old school GT, I'd zero out your modeling scores, and I'd probably dock your sports a point or two for poor model choice.


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/20 07:01:39


Post by: Chamberlain


You might play against a guy who thinks the sportsmanship score is a tool to judge model choice.

Giant advertisement for not going to tournaments


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/20 07:13:09


Post by: Pseudomonas


 JohnHwangDD wrote:
@
However, if this were an old school GT, I'd zero out your modeling scores, and I'd probably dock your sports a point or two for poor model choice.


Just as well that I go nowhere near tournaments then and that I have absolutely no interest in your approval.


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/20 07:22:34


Post by: NH Gunsmith


 Chamberlain wrote:
You might play against a guy who thinks the sportsmanship score is a tool to judge model choice.

Giant advertisement for not going to tournaments


Pretty much. Silliness like this is why I am dreading my first 8th Tournament this Saturday.

I have already had one dude say I am modelling for advantage since all of my old metal Blood Angels are on 25mm bases. I stripped everything and have been rebuilding it all with new bits to update them, but had been out of the 40k loop for so long I had no idea the new base size even exist.


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/20 07:42:43


Post by: Chamberlain


Even if every tournament has a couple guys who thinks using the bases that came with the models is modelling for advantage or that they should use the sportsmanship score to judge your model choices, odds are you won't play them. Most people are reasonable and just want to have a good fun day of gaming.

Unless the guy who says you're modelling for advantage is the TO.


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/20 08:06:11


Post by: Byte


This is when I think hobbyists are more strick on this than tournament dudes.

Looking at Battle for Salvation and daBoyz requirements I see nothing about wysiwyg or even GW models for that matter.

If they arent GW overlorded what is the requirement? I say fun. The more creative and hobby centric the better We creative hobbyists arent lemmings . Dont try to tell me how to paint my toy men.


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/20 09:31:39


Post by: Slayer-Fan123


Pseudomonas wrote:
 JohnHwangDD wrote:
@
However, if this were an old school GT, I'd zero out your modeling scores, and I'd probably dock your sports a point or two for poor model choice.


Just as well that I go nowhere near tournaments then and that I have absolutely no interest in your approval.

It isn't the models, it's the unit choice being super bad on your end.

I made the suggestion of using them as Rubric Terminators instead as they have a melee weapon (the Scythe arm thing compared to the power swords) and that those models look pretty decent of size.


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/20 12:50:09


Post by: morgoth


Pseudomonas wrote:


I was going to use these are Rubic Marines in a Khornate Chaos marine army. You would be hard pushed to find something that looks less like a Rubic marine.

However they were to represent lesser deamon engines (Rubic Marines have the closest rules to robotic infantry thingies) in a Dark Mechanicus army otherwise filled with cultists and deamon engines so perfectly fitting thematically.


Oh look, yet another company making money selling gw-clone miniatures.


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/20 12:56:25


Post by: Chamberlain


If GW's ideas were original then they could get their lawyers involved and stop things like that. Most of GW's stuff is just not that original though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unless you're being ironic. Like as a reference to how necrons originally were Terminator 2 ripoffs. Even had "I'll be back" rules, right?


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/20 13:38:49


Post by: Easy E


morgoth wrote:
Pseudomonas wrote:
[img][/img]

I was going to use these are Rubic Marines in a Khornate Chaos marine army. You would be hard pushed to find something that looks less like a Rubic marine.

However they were to represent lesser deamon engines (Rubic Marines have the closest rules to robotic infantry thingies) in a Dark Mechanicus army otherwise filled with cultists and deamon engines so perfectly fitting thematically.


Oh look, yet another company making money selling gw-clone miniatures.


The Lost and the Damned are other Hobbyists!*

I would rather play an all proxy army than an army of grey, armless space marines (again!) any day of the week.


*= A paraphrase of the famous "Hell is Other People" quip.


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/20 13:38:55


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


There's a fine line though.

PuppetsWar stuff tends to be a bit more involved than 'Not-Crons'.

Yes, the look is clearly Necron-inspired, but the final product doesn't really resemble anything GW makes at the moment.

Other manufacturers aren't so subtle, and get horribly sued (right or wrongly)


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/20 14:32:18


Post by: Frazzled


Pseudomonas wrote:


I was going to use these are Rubic Marines in a Khornate Chaos marine army. You would be hard pushed to find something that looks less like a Rubic marine.

However they were to represent lesser deamon engines (Rubic Marines have the closest rules to robotic infantry thingies) in a Dark Mechanicus army otherwise filled with cultists and deamon engines so perfectly fitting thematically.

Just paint them well and swap out the weapons for proper rubric weapons to be WYSIWYG. Perhaps with magnets to be able to swap out arms.

These would be interesting combat servitors as well.


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/20 14:33:51


Post by: Chamberlain


He doesn't want rubric marines. That's approaching it backwards.

He has these models that with some modification and an appropriate paint job would be cool dark mechanicus daemon robots. Then we went and looked for appropriate rules so he could use them on the table top.

The goal was never to make rubric marines.


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/20 14:45:59


Post by: DCannon4Life


Technically, anything other than the original, sanctioned, model is a proxy. So, from my perspective, it's more useful to consider when conversions/proxies cross the line into unacceptability. I use three standards: 1) Silhouette, 2) Footprint, and 3) Threat Profile. The first two are easy enough to understand. The third is a bit more tricky: It's one thing to say a gelatinous blob is a mutated Killa Kan (for example), it's another (and unacceptable) thing to say that the blob's pseudopods 'count as' Rokkits and Saws. On the other hand, playing a gelatinous blob as a Chaos Spawn with the Mark of Nurgle...sure, as long as it adheres to standards 1 and 2.


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/20 15:15:55


Post by: Ruin


morgoth wrote:
Pseudomonas wrote:


I was going to use these are Rubic Marines in a Khornate Chaos marine army. You would be hard pushed to find something that looks less like a Rubic marine.

However they were to represent lesser deamon engines (Rubic Marines have the closest rules to robotic infantry thingies) in a Dark Mechanicus army otherwise filled with cultists and deamon engines so perfectly fitting thematically.


Oh look, yet another company making money selling gw-clone miniatures.


Oh look, Morgoth tilting at that particular windmill again...


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/20 15:30:31


Post by: Eddtheman


To me, a conversion has to be mostly built from GW parts. I think Custom Guard armies are the ones that most toe the line between the two. I think these guys are conversions, though others may consider them proxies.







For me, a conversion or proxy has to fit with the rest of the army, be a similar size to the original model and consistent across the entire army. The person using the conversion or proxy has to show some effort toward making the model fit the 40k universe. If someone took a plastic cup and built fins, thrusters and door hinges to make it look more like a real drop pod, I'm happy to play against it.

A unit like this fits and works in a beastmen IG army, but not in a standard cadian force




These Leman Russ scratchbuilds look great and fit the aesthetic of the guard, but would look weird and out of place in a pure space marine army






Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/20 15:43:05


Post by: Talizvar


Vulcan wrote:Oh, yeah, the "I spent a ton of money on my army, you should too!" subset. They look down on anything that even LOOKS like you saved money on the conversion, whether that was the intent or not. Heaven forbid you convert generic space marines when there are Forge World minis to be had for a ton more.
My limit is simple. Can I mistake this unit for ANYTHING ELSE in your army? It doesn't have to be standard - indeed, after a while seeing space marines of various colors all the time gets boring, since that's the majority of 40K armies. Good conversions and proxies keep the game alive for a lot of people.
I figure time or money is interchangeable.
You spend the time or the money to make it look good, a lazy substitution with little work has no "rule of cool" backing it.
As a "proxy" or "counts as" I agree that as long as it cannot be confused for another unit in that army.
morgoth wrote:
Pseudomonas wrote:

I was going to use these are Rubic Marines in a Khornate Chaos marine army. You would be hard pushed to find something that looks less like a Rubic marine.
However they were to represent lesser deamon engines (Rubic Marines have the closest rules to robotic infantry thingies) in a Dark Mechanicus army otherwise filled with cultists and deamon engines so perfectly fitting thematically.
Oh look, yet another company making money selling gw-clone miniatures.
To address the "company making money", it is called offering stuff the original manufacturer has not.
Look at automotive add-on parts or kit-cars or other car companies that make their car shape the same as the expensive alternative,.
At their base unit, they are very much "Not Necrons" but if a theme can be made in the army to tie-them in, it would be doable.
What seems to suck ("looking down one's nose"?!?) is when it is a substitution that appears for the sake of it... "I had these models kicking around extra and decided to use them." no real thought in tying them in.
It was mentioned earlier, it is much better than the unpainted, armless bare plastic models or my favorite: the printed card proxies.
Spoiler:
DCannon4Life wrote:Technically, anything other than the original, sanctioned, model is a proxy. So, from my perspective, it's more useful to consider when conversions/proxies cross the line into unacceptability. I use three standards: 1) Silhouette, 2) Footprint, and 3) Threat Profile. The first two are easy enough to understand. The third is a bit more tricky: It's one thing to say a gelatinous blob is a mutated Killa Kan (for example), it's another (and unacceptable) thing to say that the blob's pseudopods 'count as' Rokkits and Saws. On the other hand, playing a gelatinous blob as a Chaos Spawn with the Mark of Nurgle...sure, as long as it adheres to standards 1 and 2.
I like this guideline, it seems reasonable.
I "think" your rule 3 means to include some element of WYSIWYG where there are some visual cues to the models loadout.
I find this is key to making your opponent "happy" because they do not have to keep remembering what these non-standard strange models are and do.
It would defeat the purpose if you have to issue a "legend" to define what each unit and corresponding weapon is in 40k terms.
A transport, flyer, fast attack, melta, flamer: they all should give a visual cue of their role. <edit> or bare minimum be VERY consistent of their look.


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/20 17:24:15


Post by: Ruin


 Eddtheman wrote:
To me, a conversion has to be mostly built from GW parts. I think Custom Guard armies are the ones that most toe the line between the two. I think these guys are conversions, though others may consider them proxies.

Spoiler:





Ignoring the fact that all of these models are made from 100% GW parts...



Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/20 19:02:38


Post by: Pseudomonas


morgoth wrote:

Oh look, yet another company making money selling gw-clone miniatures.


Aren't you adorable.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

It isn't the models, it's the unit choice being super bad on your end.


It's hardly 'superbad' given that there would be no ambiguity as there is nothing else like them on the table and they would only be used for a single troop type. The close combat arm thing could just as easily be the close combat weapon that every infantry model in the game is armed with. I did consider terminators but it all depends on how big the actual models are, I haven't seen them in the flesh. The project has been shelved for the moment though as the army was heavily based on cultists and I didn't like my first batch of conversions and cultists seem amazingly bad on the table top so I am currently renovating my Death Guard instead.


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/20 20:57:14


Post by: Vulcan


What really gets my goat is looking at hordes of unpainted grey plastic all looking alike. I can't STAND that, not least of which because it becomes difficult to tell space marine squad a from squad b from squad c. Not so bad if they're all the same, but it gets really bad if one is a tac squad, one is an assault squad, and one is a HW squad.


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/20 21:01:45


Post by: Desubot


Honestly i dont think it can ever cross over from conversion to proxy as they are two different things.

if you are converting then you are generally going to keep the size comparable and similar enough load out to make sense.

and its not like you need to glue every single marine with a bolt pistol and close combat weapon or something.

Proxies on the other hand is for when some one doesn't have enough models to fill out a list they are trying or what not and are generally temporary. it can be any model but in general just something comparable in size and form you grab off the shelf to get a game in.



Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/20 21:05:20


Post by: Azreal13


Eh, technically a proxy is also any other model you use that isn't the official one, even if that's a permanent choice.

I use a Mierce Krull as a Bloodthirster, Tigers Of Dirz as Fiends etc etc, I've no intention of ever using the official models because either I don't like them or prefer my alternative.

One can call them "counts as" but that's really just a euphemism for proxy.


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/20 21:41:57


Post by: feeder


Quite a bit of gatekeeping in this thread.

If it's clear what the model is supposed to represent, and the owner has put a reasonable amount of effort into making it look decent, then the actual model shouldn't matter.

If one's opponent's models fulfill the above two criteria, and they are still vexing, then one is likely a bit of a control freak and should probably seek help before it degrades one's other, more important interpersonal relationships.


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/21 07:10:24


Post by: Fhanados


I've made big rants about this on other forums in years past, so I've copy/pasted my thoughts below (modified a tad since 8th added some interesting new opportunities). Arguments for and against this have been done to death with heavy casualties on all sides. For me this breaks down into several different components. This is all terminology I personally use, or has been used in my (fairly small) gaming circles, so it might not match how you picture it yourselves.

1) Substitution (aka Subbing). In my old gaming circle we used the term "subbing" to refer to temporarily using one model or object as another model, either for play testing new lists, units or equipment, or because we haven't completed the actual model. Generally I'm ok with this as long as the person doing the subbing has the intention of fielding the appropriate unit (or appropriate "Counts-as"), or if it's only short term. About 7 years back when I started getting back into 40k after a long break I had friends who were TERRIBLE with subbing. An Ork player would use his actual Ork Boyz as his elites choices and a hodgepodge of my old broken Tyranids and Chaos Space Marines as Ork Boyz, and a variety of old Chaos vehicles as basically whatever Ork vehicle he felt like fielding that day. Another player used stock standard Space Marines (also my models!) as Grey Knights and an egg carton as a landraider (the infamous egg-raider). This was all well and good when we started up, heck even I used cardboard cutouts to playtest Kroot Mercenaries and Dark Eldar Raiders at the time, but after a few months it became clear that neither of them had any intent on fielding proper armies which was a massive de-motivator for me having put in the money, time and effort to actually buy, assemble and (mostly) paint my army. To this day subbing leaves a bad taste in my mouth and I refuse to do it myself.

2) Counts-as units Not to be confused with subbing - this is using non-standard models to represent a normal unit on a permanent basis. For example using imperial guardsmen with pulse rifles as Fire Warriors in a Tau army, or in my case a unit of Dark Angels Veterans as Chosen Marines in my Chaos army before Fallen were a thing. This also extends to using non-GW models, such as Mantic's Forgefathers as Space Marines units, or how Pseudomonas is using Puppetswar robot thingies as Rubric Marines. In these cases I have absolutely no problem with Counts-as if the unit they're representing is easily identifiable as what they're supposed to be. Lets use my Dark Angels/Chosen as an example - I modelled them with the appropriate equipment for their unit's rules and gave them a few Chaosy bits to differentiate them from normal Dark Angels. I used the Cypher model as their unit champion equipped with bolt pistol, plasma pistol and power sword - a fairly silly combo but one matching the model. This was all pre-dataslates in 5th edition, and nobody questioned it. I think the key is to be reasonable and to not be confusing, and in Pseudomonas's case with the Robo-Rubric all it really takes is a quick "hey just FYI, these Dark Mechanicus robot things are using the Rubric Marine datasheet". As long as there's nothing else that is pretending to be Rubrics on the field, or they don't switch to being Plague Marines mid-game then I see no problem with that.

3) Counts-as armies When someone uses a different codex/army book to what their army actually is. The only instances of this I've actually come across is someone who was using the Blood Angels rules for their Chaos Space Marines army, and someone using Grey Knights as Chaos Space Marines, but I have heard of other. This was a big grey area for me, but not so much anymore. Generally I'm against it and here's why - motivation. Why are you using rules X for army Y? In 6th and most of 7th edition Chaos didn't have Legion rules, and I saw a lot of CSM players using rules from other codices to better represent their force, which was fine at the time. Now we have our Legions, and we have extremely flexible army building structure due to the variety of detachments. The main reason I see people codex-hopping in recent years is because a new book came out that is stronger than theirs and they want to use a better ruleset without investing in the army.


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/21 07:42:44


Post by: Peregrine


 Azreal13 wrote:
Eh, technically a proxy is also any other model you use that isn't the official one, even if that's a permanent choice.

I use a Mierce Krull as a Bloodthirster, Tigers Of Dirz as Fiends etc etc, I've no intention of ever using the official models because either I don't like them or prefer my alternative.

One can call them "counts as" but that's really just a euphemism for proxy.


That might be technically true by the dictionary definition, but I think it's a lot more than just a euphemism. A "counts as" model isn't the official model, and might not be 100% WYSIWYG, but it's a legitimate model that makes sense in the army. A proxy model is just a roughly model-shaped object to occupy space on the table, there's no attempt to make it a real or appropriate model. And from a game experience point of view those are two very different things. The "counts as" model is fun to play against, the blatant proxy takes away from the experience.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fhanados wrote:
The main reason I see people codex-hopping in recent years is because a new book came out that is stronger than theirs and they want to use a better ruleset without investing in the army.


Why is this a problem? List construction is part of the strategy of 40k, and of course people are going to try to improve the strength of their lists. And this complaint seems especially silly in the context of space marine armies, where the only difference between them is the color they're painted and there are no rules forcing you to comply with any particular paint scheme.


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/21 08:25:23


Post by: Chamberlain


My favorite thing about the Inquisimunda/AoS28 community is the sheer amount of custom miniatures. Very few "stock" miniatures see the table and I don't think I've ever seen anyone talk about "proxy" or "counts as" or whatever. Everyone seems to get that you have the models and you use the rules needed to make it work in a game.

The larger warhammer community seems to be crippled by some really rigid thinking in comparison. I guess that's natural given how much people expect to play against strangers who are going to do things they don't like.



Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/21 09:05:34


Post by: Blackie


WYSIWYG and conversions are completely different matters. You can have a scratch built model that is also 100% WYSIWYG like an ork trukk made of plasticard and bitz. I love conversions and I actually collected, over almost 20 years, only armies that can be converted and customized a lot.

Scratch built vehicles, converted standard miniatures into characters, home-made combi weapons, etc are amazing IMHO and I absolutely love this part of the hobby.

But they must be WYSIWYG, which means they must have similar size and the same loadout of the original models.

I also accept models that are not converted at all but belong to other companies if they really can replace the original models, for example Kromlech orks are acceptable to me, and I don't consider them proxies.

What I cannot accept is a pure proxy: a SM with a melta gun can't be considered as he had a plasma gun for example. A rhino is a rhino, not a razorback. A razorback with twin lascannon can't be played as it was equipped with twin assault cannon. These examples are proxies, and I tipycally not allow them unless I face inexperienced players that have only a few miniatures in their collection and they're learning how to play.


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/21 10:56:08


Post by: morgoth


 Blackie wrote:
A razorback with twin lascannon can't be played as it was equipped with twin assault cannon. These examples are proxies, and I tipycally not allow them unless I face inexperienced players that have only a few miniatures in their collection and they're learning how to play.


That's just way too much WYSIWYG for my taste.

Making weapons swappable is a huge waste of time and it doesn't help anyone really.

Good thing most people are dropping that WYSIWYG requirement.


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/21 10:57:15


Post by: Iron_Captain


The difference between proxy and conversion?
A proxy is something that does not resemble the model it is supposed to represent on the tabletop. As mentioned above, a Space Marine with a different weapon than that he is supposed to have is a proxy, or a vehicle counting as another vehicle. Third party miniatures are usually also proxies (unless they resemble very closely the official miniatures).
A conversion is something that uses the original model (or one that closely resembles it) and then modifies it to give it an unique appearance while preserving the characteristics of the model it represents. Using 3rd party heads on your guardsmen, adding details with greenstuff, altering the pose of a character etc. are all examples of conversions.

Where do I draw the line? The proxy has to be roughly the same size as the model it represents, needs to be armed with the same weapons (which need to be clearly identifiable and not confusing) and it needs to fit into the aesthetic of your army and of 40k. The robot as rubric marine thing mentioned in this thread I would not find acceptable in a normal CSM or Thousand Sons army. But in an army made of proxies that is supposed to represent the Dark Mechanicus? That would be totally thematic and acceptable (again, as long as different units and weapon types are clearly identifiable). But things like trying to use a razorback that is very clearly equipped with twin lascannons as one that has assault cannons is a big no no. Assault cannons do not resemble lascannons and it would be really silly and confusing if your list had any other lascannons in it. Only way I'd want to play against that is if all of your lascannons are assault cannons (and assault cannons are lascannons). Making weapons swappable is only a little effort, so there is no real excuse to not do it, apart from laziness.

Basically, WYSIWYG is important. Both for the 'feel' of the game and for clarity (especially in larger games). Proxies are okay if they are WYSIWYG and fit the theme of your army/40k.


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/21 12:40:47


Post by: Ruin


morgoth wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
A razorback with twin lascannon can't be played as it was equipped with twin assault cannon. These examples are proxies, and I tipycally not allow them unless I face inexperienced players that have only a few miniatures in their collection and they're learning how to play.


That's just way too much WYSIWYG for my taste.

Making weapons swappable is a huge waste of time and it doesn't help anyone really.

Good thing most people are dropping that WYSIWYG requirement.


*citation needed.


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/21 13:31:21


Post by: nareik


I'd rather play against basic marine models with a first company paint job and the correct weapon being used as sterngard than the official models with the wrong weapons.

I'm sure there are many people who are the opposite.

Clearly a large part of WYSIWYG is personal taste / perspective.


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/21 17:57:45


Post by: jeff white


Pseudomonas wrote:
 JohnHwangDD wrote:
@Pseudomas - those aren't Rubric Marines or Daemon engines. Those are not-Necrons.


Originally yes, but as I said they would fit in well when painted up in red, black and brass and the necronesque markings greenstuffed out. Proxies are entirely about fitting the theme of the overall army and the general concept of the particular unit almost irrespective of their original 'purpose'.

Necrons would look like gak although they may well have seen some use as bits for cultists.


I dunno.
I like them, dunno why they couldn't be Rubric marines, but the guns don't look much like bolters my only trouble...
I mean, they are cool and whatever, sure, but if it were me then I would use those for something else, like obliterators maybe that was a good suggestion.
The models seem like Necrons, but I can totally see them in a chaos army, and painted to match would have zero trouble and in fact be all complimentary about their use.
Creative, nifty, I like them...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
nareik wrote:
I'd rather play against basic marine models with a first company paint job and the correct weapon being used as sterngard than the official models with the wrong weapons.

I'm sure there are many people who are the opposite.

Clearly a large part of WYSIWYG is personal taste / perspective.


Yeah, the model should have the right kit, that is pretty important when surveying the field for threats.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
Spoiler:
The difference between proxy and conversion?
A proxy is something that does not resemble the model it is supposed to represent on the tabletop. As mentioned above, a Space Marine with a different weapon than that he is supposed to have is a proxy, or a vehicle counting as another vehicle. Third party miniatures are usually also proxies (unless they resemble very closely the official miniatures).
A conversion is something that uses the original model (or one that closely resembles it) and then modifies it to give it an unique appearance while preserving the characteristics of the model it represents. Using 3rd party heads on your guardsmen, adding details with greenstuff, altering the pose of a character etc. are all examples of conversions.

Where do I draw the line? The proxy has to be roughly the same size as the model it represents, needs to be armed with the same weapons (which need to be clearly identifiable and not confusing) and it needs to fit into the aesthetic of your army and of 40k. The robot as rubric marine thing mentioned in this thread I would not find acceptable in a normal CSM or Thousand Sons army. But in an army made of proxies that is supposed to represent the Dark Mechanicus? That would be totally thematic and acceptable (again, as long as different units and weapon types are clearly identifiable). But things like trying to use a razorback that is very clearly equipped with twin lascannons as one that has assault cannons is a big no no. Assault cannons do not resemble lascannons and it would be really silly and confusing if your list had any other lascannons in it. Only way I'd want to play against that is if all of your lascannons are assault cannons (and assault cannons are lascannons). Making weapons swappable is only a little effort, so there is no real excuse to not do it, apart from laziness.


Basically, WYSIWYG is important. Both for the 'feel' of the game and for clarity (especially in larger games). Proxies are okay if they are WYSIWYG and fit the theme of your army/40k.

This^^


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/21 20:00:04


Post by: Pseudomonas


nareik wrote:
I'd rather play against basic marine models with a first company paint job and the correct weapon being used as sterngard than the official models with the wrong weapons.


I can't even begin to see how anyone could object to normal marines painted in first company (or equivalent) colours as Sternguard.

 jeff white wrote:

I like them, dunno why they couldn't be Rubric marines, but the guns don't look much like bolters my only trouble...


They were going to get an arm swap to something more bolterlike.


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/21 21:06:33


Post by: Jimsolo


nareik wrote:
I'd rather play against basic marine models with a first company paint job and the correct weapon being used as sterngard than the official models with the wrong weapons.

I'm sure there are many people who are the opposite.

Clearly a large part of WYSIWYG is personal taste / perspective.


I would strenuously argue that a generic tac marine with the correct weapon bits being fielded as a sternguard is WYSIWYG. It has all the correct wargear (boltgun or upgrade weapon, power armor). Play on, player.


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/21 23:21:30


Post by: Azazelx


 cuda1179 wrote:
Through my years of playing 40k I have seen all levels of quality when it comes to conversions. Everything from near Golden Daemon standard to Army men used as Ogryn. Where is your personal line in the sand?[

Some examples I can think of include using loyalist marines as Chaos Marines. Many have done this with starter boxes to make cheap armies. While technically proxies, I have never heard anyone complain about it, not even in a GW tournament. The same is true if IG players that modeled their guardsmen with autoguns. Also a proxy, Fantasy wytches as Dark Eldar wyches, although I'm still fine with it.


Those are all "close enough" and for a long time the Dark Eldar range was a bit rubbish (sorry, Gary!) so there were LOTS of Dark Elf models and parts seen for those armies.



For some reason guys I've talked to draw the line at cult troops. It's "not 1000 sons" if it's just a marine with a bolter painted metallic blue.


For those, I'm going to say that it depends on how obvious it is compared to the rest of the army. Depending on the source, the Thousand Sons numbered between 10k and 85k marines during the heresy. No one is going to convince me that they all had fancy helmets at that time, and considering what they are "now" in the 41st millennium, I think making their armour more fancy might not be the top priority for those changed by the rubric. So it comes down to how (or how well) they're painted and/or modelled and how well that makes them stand out from the rest fo the (presumably) CSM army.


Or for those of us with older collections, some people have trouble accepting large combat knives as chainswords.
Where is your personal line?


Don't play with people like that is a pretty good place to start the line if they're unwilling to deal with older models.


 Chamberlain wrote:

Oh, and alternative miniatures should always be painted. If you're going to give your opponent non-standard general appearances they may as well be painted so they can be more easily identified.


Or to put it another way - all of your miniatures should ideally be painted. The identifying thing is just as relevant vs the different units contained in the "grey horde" armies that don't feature proxies or conversions


 ZergSmasher wrote:
I use Khorne Bloodreavers from Age of Sigmar as my Khorne Berzerkers and no one in my play group has complained. I feel that as long as a model is roughly the same size and shape and is an actual model (so no Dixie cups as drop pods) and has roughly equivalent wargear, it should be fine. All that matters is that the opponent can tell what something is, or rather that he can tell each type of unit apart from the others. Since my Berzerkers don't look like anything else I run, they work well.


Bloodreavers also look far, far better than the so very old and not ageing well Khorne Berserker models. Fingers crossed for a refresh on those inside the next year or so, hopefully after Slaanesh gets the proper treatment for the first time ever.


Pseudomonas wrote:
 cuda1179 wrote:

Or for those of us with older collections, some people have trouble accepting large combat knives as chainswords.


Well, they aren't.


With rules changes through the editions, they might well have to be.



My armies, including such things as Necromunda gangs, are always100% WYSIWYG while at the same time usually using some kind of proxy or miniatures from an other manufacturer. As long as it is obvious what a particular miniature is meant to represent there isn't an issue.


My Necro gangs followed (almost) the exact same procedure with the exception of Autogun/Lasgun or "Autopistol/Laspistol/Stub Pistol". Shotguns etc remaining distinct models. Until the model was complete in terms of painting. At that point, I've never been willing to chop up the model further or swap its bits around. I'd replace the model entirely in some circumstances (like a ganger changing loadout style entirely from "autogun" to "sword and pistol" or the like, but once the model was complete, it was, well, complete.

40k models follow pretty much the same outline, except I'm not chopping up my old Rogue Trader models or swapping out their weapons to stay in line with the latest edition's latest changes to their allowed armament. Which will change again later this edition or next edition. Hence that "chainsword" from up the page.


Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I have some basic rules for the Marine army I'm planning to build, as I can only use my friend's models for so long.

1. Consistency is key. I plan to use Volkite Culvirens as my Grav Cannons, but I'm not gonna have one be a Multi-Melta and another as a Heavy Bolter.
2. Does it make sense to an extent? My Intercessors are gonna be Mk3 Marines holding Boarding Shields, with Combi-Bolters being my Grenade Launcher, as there's no equivalent for 40k. So hopefully that's fine. Maybe someone won't like it, so I just won't use that unit entry if my opponent is that much a whiner.


Agreed on consistency.

The MK3 Breacher marines would be better used as Company Veterans with Storm Shields & Combi-weapons/Storm Bolters as appropriate. Essentially, those models are perfectly codex-legal in 8th. They'd be odd as Intercessors with those huge boarding shields as Intercessors have the same armour save as regular marines.


 JohnHwangDD wrote:
If I look at models and they're obviously not-Necrons, then they're not going to pass muster as Rubric Marines, given that I know the fluff states Rubric Marines are just animated suits of SM armor.


Rule of cool, baby. Painted in the appropriate way in a thematic "counts-as" army, they're fine. They're not Rubric marines. They're DM automatons that happen to be using the same rules as Rubric marines. At that point the rules are sort-of proxies as well as the models being proxies (as are pretty much all "unofficial" models, but as long as it's "book-legal" and everything looks cool, I'm happy to do it. I have entire KoW units (and one day, whole armies!) based around this concept and they look fething awesome.


 Chamberlain wrote:
You might play against a guy who thinks the sportsmanship score is a tool to judge model choice.

Giant advertisement for not going to tournaments


As we say in this country. fething Oath.

Aside from pointing out how that in fact is awful sportsmanship.


DCannon4Life wrote:
Technically, anything other than the original, sanctioned, model is a proxy. So, from my perspective, it's more useful to consider when conversions/proxies cross the line into unacceptability. I use three standards: 1) Silhouette, 2) Footprint, and 3) Threat Profile. The first two are easy enough to understand. The third is a bit more tricky: It's one thing to say a gelatinous blob is a mutated Killa Kan (for example), it's another (and unacceptable) thing to say that the blob's pseudopods 'count as' Rokkits and Saws. On the other hand, playing a gelatinous blob as a Chaos Spawn with the Mark of Nurgle...sure, as long as it adheres to standards 1 and 2.


But speaking of the whole "official models" thing, it gets real interesting when dealing with the many, many Generic Fantasy and Directly-Ripped-From-Historicals units in WHF/AoS. Is using a Mantic Zombie in place of a Games Workshop Zombie a Proxy? A Reaper Skeleton with spear in place of a Games Workshop Skeleton with spear? Is using a Kev Adams-sculpted Heartbreaker Fantasy Orc in a Warhammer Fantasy unit made up of Kev Adams-sculpted Games Workshop Fantasy Orcs a proxy? Perry-brothers sculpted Landsknechts from Foundry as Empire State Troops? Using Polish Winged Hussars from Warlord or Foundry as Kislev Winged Lancers?


Ruin wrote:

Oh look, Morgoth tilting at that particular windmill again...


I honestly can't tell if he truly believes the gak he spouts or if he's just a troll. Throw him on ignore and let him live in his fantasy world where GW invented Winged Lancers and Landsknechts and the Chaos Star and Rambo and The Terminator. Works for me.


 Eddtheman wrote:
To me, a conversion has to be mostly built from GW parts.


Well, you're using the word wrong right off the bat. A conversion is a converted model. That's it. I've got converted models that contain no GW parts that I use for non-GW games. It doesn't make them not conversions. A conversion may also be a proxy, and may contain 0-100% GW (or Reaper, Mantic, Warlord, etc, etc) parts.


 Peregrine wrote:
 Azreal13 wrote:
Eh, technically a proxy is also any other model you use that isn't the official one, even if that's a permanent choice.
I use a Mierce Krull as a Bloodthirster, Tigers Of Dirz as Fiends etc etc, I've no intention of ever using the official models because either I don't like them or prefer my alternative.
One can call them "counts as" but that's really just a euphemism for proxy.


That might be technically true by the dictionary definition, but I think it's a lot more than just a euphemism. A "counts as" model isn't the official model, and might not be 100% WYSIWYG, but it's a legitimate model that makes sense in the army. A proxy model is just a roughly model-shaped object to occupy space on the table, there's no attempt to make it a real or appropriate model. And from a game experience point of view those are two very different things. The "counts as" model is fun to play against, the blatant proxy takes away from the experience.


Without meaning to be snarky, what you're forgetting is that many of us here don't spend all of our time on the internet or play out games with your local group using your local group's parlance and shorthand. Local groups will have their own shorthand terms for different things, and while we all come together on the internets, there are subtle nuances in local terms, even within something as niche as gaming jargon. Both uses of proxy make logical sense - "This fully painted Krull is my Proxy Bloodthirster" and "I'm proxying this sponsonless Predator for a Razorback today". Neither is wrong or an incorrect usage of the word even though the nuance of the term can be different to different groups of people, and it can come down to a very local usage of the term, right down to you and your three mates that you play with. No pretensions of "in my city we all..." as I keep seeing from some people on this forum (but thankfully, not this thread)...


Fhanados wrote:
The main reason I see people codex-hopping in recent years is because a new book came out that is stronger than theirs and they want to use a better ruleset without investing in the army.


Why is this a problem? List construction is part of the strategy of 40k, and of course people are going to try to improve the strength of their lists. And this complaint seems especially silly in the context of space marine armies, where the only difference between them is the color they're painted and there are no rules forcing you to comply with any particular paint scheme.


I'd say it's really only a problem if you paint your marines dark green with white winged sword icons and then tell me that they're Blood Angels today. If they're clearly from a named chapter that has its own specific rules, then don't do it. If you want to list-jump your space marine army then come up with an original scheme and/or chapter badge and then call them successors to whoever you like as much as you like. Just don't tell me that your fully-painted-blue with "U" icon Ultramarines are actually Space Wolves. (I mean, try it out for a game or two to see if you like the rules, but don't do it permanently!)


 Blackie wrote:

What I cannot accept is a pure proxy: a SM with a melta gun can't be considered as he had a plasma gun for example. A rhino is a rhino, not a razorback. A razorback with twin lascannon can't be played as it was equipped with twin assault cannon. These examples are proxies, and I tipycally not allow them unless I face inexperienced players that have only a few miniatures in their collection and they're learning how to play.


Depends on context. You don't get to "allow" or "disallow" anything unless you're a TO. You can choose to play or not play with a given individual, but that's a different matter.

Spoiler:

This guy was built during 3rd or 3.5 or somewhere around there. I'm pretty sure he was legal when he was built, anyway. I took most of a decade off 40k and now in 8th edition he most definitely can't have a thunder hammer, and the weapon look way too pissweak to be a power maul. My group's solution is that he can have the Thunder Hammer grandfathered in the the correct points and future models are, you know, built to the current rules as much as possible. (Hello Techmarines with Conversion Beamers!)

Spoiler:

Pretty much the same deal with this guy, who has a power sword.

Then there's the "Original (often Rogue Trader-era) model has a thing that's no longer a thing in the current rules" thing. Along with Index vs Codex in 8th. Original RT-era PA SM and/or the SM Scout with Shuriken catapult? Both of them are going to have something that's not a shuriken catapult, and if I were playing you I'd politely ask you to pack up your stuff and move on if you told me that you were "disallowing" my model(s). That also applies to my RT-era Predator that has been converted to a Razorback with Las/Plas.


 Iron_Captain wrote:
The robot as rubric marine thing mentioned in this thread I would not find acceptable in a normal CSM or Thousand Sons army. But in an army made of proxies that is supposed to represent the Dark Mechanicus? That would be totally thematic and acceptable (again, as long as different units and weapon types are clearly identifiable).
...
Basically, WYSIWYG is important. Both for the 'feel' of the game and for clarity (especially in larger games). Proxies are okay if they are WYSIWYG and fit the theme of your army/40k.


I believe that the guy who was talking about using the robots as rubrics was planning a Khorne-themed SM+Dark Mechanicus army using the CSM rules. In that context I think they work perfectly as Rubrics, as we all know Khorne hates psykers, so (to me) it makes more sense than having 10 Khorne Berserkers and 10 Thousand Sons in the same army that probably only has about 40 guys in powered armour in total. Nothing wrong with having cool models that fit the army theme you want to use then finding the post appropriate rules to use for them, as long as it's not abusive or confusing to your opponent. Rule of Cool again. So that WHFB Empire army being used as counts-as Dark Eldar doesn't fit the RoC.


Well, that was fun! I should go paint some models now!


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/22 01:27:57


Post by: thekingofkings


I am generally ok with conversions so long as I know what it is I am facing, I dont like proxy up to a point, If I am playing 40k, I want to play against 40k models,. I am not interested in what ifs or crossovers. I have played WoK against a proxy goritsi force that was all confrontation wolfen, I was ok with it because they are very similar. the models above (the notnecrons) as rubrics, I would not.


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/22 01:58:04


Post by: TangoTwoBravo


I will proxy in pick-up games when I am trying something out. So I might say: "Hey, this Landspeeder is a proxy for a Landspeeder Vengeance - I want to try it out before I go hunting on eBay. You cool with that?" My model being the proxy will not have any duplicates being something else to avoid confusion. So all the Landspeeder models would have to be Vengeance models if I wanted to proxy. I have a Plan B if my opponent objects. I never proxy in a tournament. I suppose I don't really do conversions, but its hard to see how somebody would object to a conversion unless it was modeling for advantage?

Cheers!




Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/22 04:26:16


Post by: Azazelx


 thekingofkings wrote:
I am generally ok with conversions so long as I know what it is I am facing, I dont like proxy up to a point, If I am playing 40k, I want to play against 40k models,. I am not interested in what ifs or crossovers. I have played WoK against a proxy goritsi force that was all confrontation wolfen, I was ok with it because they are very similar. the models above (the notnecrons) as rubrics, I would not.


Interesting. Would you play against a guard force made of Victoria Miniatures or Anvil Industry "regiments" miniatures?



Blood Warriors as Khorne Berserkers?
Spoiler:



Dreamforge Eisenkern as Scions?
Spoiler:


...or a "15mm" Dreamforge Leviathan as a Dreadknight?


...because while many of them draw from the same generic historical concepts (Hi Morgoth!) that GW draw their own inspiration from, none of those are Officially "40k" miniatures.



Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/22 04:33:38


Post by: thekingofkings


 Azazelx wrote:
 thekingofkings wrote:
I am generally ok with conversions so long as I know what it is I am facing, I dont like proxy up to a point, If I am playing 40k, I want to play against 40k models,. I am not interested in what ifs or crossovers. I have played WoK against a proxy goritsi force that was all confrontation wolfen, I was ok with it because they are very similar. the models above (the notnecrons) as rubrics, I would not.


Interesting. Would you play against a guard force made of Victoria Miniatures or Anvil Industry "regiments" miniatures?



Blood Warriors as Khorne Berserkers?
Spoiler:



Dreamforge Eisenkern as Scions?
Spoiler:


...or a "15mm" Dreamforge Leviathan as a Dreadknight?


...because while many of them draw from the same generic historical concepts (Hi Morgoth!) that GW draw their own inspiration from, none of those are Officially "40k" miniatures.



Honestly the top ones I wouldn't really know the difference without getting too close to the model than is polite, the middle, depending on the rest of the army, and the third, no. yeah they are cool models, but no. If we were playing mutant chronicles or Void 1.1 probably.


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/22 04:52:43


Post by: Actinium


It's more a matter of the fielding player's intent than a strict measurement.

If an object is standing in for something it clearly isn't because you don't currently have access to something better, it's a proxy.

If the player fielding it thinks it's an entirely suitable representation of the thing it isn't, then it's a counts-as.

If they cut up or glued bits and bobs to the counts-as model to make it more like the thing it isn't, then it's a counts-as conversion.

If it is the thing it is, but they still cut it up or glued things to it to make it look cool or hold the right guns, then it's just a conversion.

If something is made up of exactly 50% of the thing it is and stuff it isn't, then it becomes a shrodinger's proxy counts-as conversion and it both is and is not okay to play games with them until someone opens the box and observes them.


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/22 05:26:56


Post by: NH Gunsmith


 thekingofkings wrote:
 Azazelx wrote:
 thekingofkings wrote:
I am generally ok with conversions so long as I know what it is I am facing, I dont like proxy up to a point, If I am playing 40k, I want to play against 40k models,. I am not interested in what ifs or crossovers. I have played WoK against a proxy goritsi force that was all confrontation wolfen, I was ok with it because they are very similar. the models above (the notnecrons) as rubrics, I would not.


Interesting. Would you play against a guard force made of Victoria Miniatures or Anvil Industry "regiments" miniatures?



Blood Warriors as Khorne Berserkers?
Spoiler:



Dreamforge Eisenkern as Scions?
Spoiler:


...or a "15mm" Dreamforge Leviathan as a Dreadknight?


...because while many of them draw from the same generic historical concepts (Hi Morgoth!) that GW draw their own inspiration from, none of those are Officially "40k" miniatures.



Honestly the top ones I wouldn't really know the difference without getting too close to the model than is polite, the middle, depending on the rest of the army, and the third, no. yeah they are cool models, but no. If we were playing mutant chronicles or Void 1.1 probably.


I would play against any of those with no problem. I personally hate the Dreadknight model and find that a suitable replacement. I don't mind those Dreamforge Eisenkern, I would personally swap the arms out for something that looks a bit more 40k, same with the heads, they are a bit derpy.

The Blood Warriors I wouldn't mind as long as there was a pistol on the model somewhere at least.

Shoot, in my Death Guard army I had a few years ago, I used the Fantasy Nurgle Sorcerer/Lord on horseback as my Chaos Lord on Palanquin of Nurgle. I never got any complaints about it since people thought it was cool.

Shoot, I don't mind if people use alternate models, I just want to play games.


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/22 15:03:41


Post by: thekingofkings


 NH Gunsmith wrote:
 thekingofkings wrote:
 Azazelx wrote:
 thekingofkings wrote:
I am generally ok with conversions so long as I know what it is I am facing, I dont like proxy up to a point, If I am playing 40k, I want to play against 40k models,. I am not interested in what ifs or crossovers. I have played WoK against a proxy goritsi force that was all confrontation wolfen, I was ok with it because they are very similar. the models above (the notnecrons) as rubrics, I would not.


Interesting. Would you play against a guard force made of Victoria Miniatures or Anvil Industry "regiments" miniatures?



Blood Warriors as Khorne Berserkers?
Spoiler:



Dreamforge Eisenkern as Scions?
Spoiler:


...or a "15mm" Dreamforge Leviathan as a Dreadknight?


...because while many of them draw from the same generic historical concepts (Hi Morgoth!) that GW draw their own inspiration from, none of those are Officially "40k" miniatures.



Honestly the top ones I wouldn't really know the difference without getting too close to the model than is polite, the middle, depending on the rest of the army, and the third, no. yeah they are cool models, but no. If we were playing mutant chronicles or Void 1.1 probably.


I would play against any of those with no problem. I personally hate the Dreadknight model and find that a suitable replacement. I don't mind those Dreamforge Eisenkern, I would personally swap the arms out for something that looks a bit more 40k, same with the heads, they are a bit derpy.

The Blood Warriors I wouldn't mind as long as there was a pistol on the model somewhere at least.

Shoot, in my Death Guard army I had a few years ago, I used the Fantasy Nurgle Sorcerer/Lord on horseback as my Chaos Lord on Palanquin of Nurgle. I never got any complaints about it since people thought it was cool.

Shoot, I don't mind if people use alternate models, I just want to play games.


I can completely respect your sentiment in the last sentence, and can somewhat agree with it, but again, if I want to play specific games, then I would like to have the overall feel of it. Bringing in that kind of proxy while in no way is "game breaking" it does take something out of it for me. If those blood warriors were surrounded by an army of CSM then I would likely not have any issue at all, but if the whole army was bloodbound I probably would. I dont much like having to keep reminding myself or asking my opponent what model x or y is supposed to be. 40k and AoS are a little more nebulous than the games I am used to playing *(they dont have room much for proxies)
That being said, if thats all the other person had and it came down to me being a _______________ about it, I would probably suck it up and play but I would seek to play with that person again. I would look for a player more in line with my own desires for a game. I am also one of those guys who wont play on a table with that neoprene flat terrain. I love the "pageantry" of the 3d experience of minis and just something about that flat featureless field irritates me, sure it has great art and looks "nice" but it takes away from the experience for me.


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/22 17:16:17


Post by: solkan


 feeder wrote:
Quite a bit of gatekeeping in this thread.


Quite a bit of English composition, typing, and grammar in this thread, too.

It's a thread asking about people's standards, and people are replying with their sometimes strict standards. Why are you trying to pick an argument by disparaging those other opinions?


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/22 17:26:25


Post by: Chamberlain


People always interpret other people having standards as some sort of personal attack because they don't meet them.

Like how when someone only wants to play with painted miniatures on the table. People who don't like that lose their gak and call the person elitist/gatekeeper/etc.,.


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/22 17:28:03


Post by: feeder


solkan wrote:
It's a thread asking about people's standards, and people are replying with their sometimes strict standards. Why are you trying to pick an argument by disparaging those other opinions?



feeder wrote:If it's clear what the model is supposed to represent, and the owner has put a reasonable amount of effort into making it look decent, then the actual model shouldn't matter.

If one's opponent's models fulfill the above two criteria, and they are still vexing, then one is likely a bit of a control freak and should probably seek help before it degrades one's other, more important interpersonal relationships.


If one's "strict standards" consist of "that representation of a fantasy space army is different than my representation of a fantasy space army and therefore I won't play against it" then one should seek help for their control freak issues. I'm serious.



Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/22 17:44:17


Post by: Boss Salvage


Peregrine wrote:
 Azreal13 wrote:
One can call them "counts as" but that's really just a euphemism for proxy.

That might be technically true by the dictionary definition, but I think it's a lot more than just a euphemism. A "counts as" model isn't the official model, and might not be 100% WYSIWYG, but it's a legitimate model that makes sense in the army. A proxy model is just a roughly model-shaped object to occupy space on the table, there's no attempt to make it a real or appropriate model. And from a game experience point of view those are two very different things. The "counts as" model is fun to play against, the blatant proxy takes away from the experience.

Desubot wrote:Proxies on the other hand is for when some one doesn't have enough models to fill out a list they are trying or what not and are generally temporary. it can be any model but in general just something comparable in size and form you grab off the shelf to get a game in.
Stepping in to throw out some QFTs re: 'Counts As' being a very real thing and entirely separate from 'proxy', and proxy being inherently / ideally temporary.

Succinctly, Counts As is driven by artistic intent backed up by in-game consistency. Proxies on the other hand allow access to in-game abilities, if in a purely 'gamey' way (i.e. entirely separate from the hobby aspect of the game). See: solo cup drop pod.

If it matters in any way, I'm a die hard Counts As modeller with a strong dislike for proxies, including all those lame marine armies masquerading as different chapters / legions depending on the flavor of the month.* I avoid running proxies if I can at all help it, and these days will prefer to use something else or simply not play until the new unit / model is built / painted.

Also funny that we have this argument like every 18 months or so Guessing it might crop up in connection to new editions or price hikes or dangerous influxes of new players or converts from other games?

- Salvage

*I have however seen some really awesome chapters/legions that were intentionally converted to count s other chapters/legions, particularly when it comes to the whole falling to chaos thing, or loyalist marines on the whole standardized but with units of models converted intentionally to count as the odd amazeballs unit in this chapter or that other one. You can do this swap in an aesthetically impressive (and abundantly clear in-game) way through the magic of Counts As ... or not. Different strokes for different folks, since we're all in this hobby for different reasons.


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/22 17:50:44


Post by: Chamberlain


Only if the person actually wants to control someone else. I don't play with any unpainted miniatures on the table. I don't care if people paint their miniatures or not or if two people who are not me go ahead and play a game with their grey hordes.

I imagine if someone has some sort of vision for what 40k should look like and they don't find a given miniature or conversion to fit, then whether or not they are a control freak would be if they care at all about what the person does with people who are not them.

At a tournament, it's the TO's job to define acceptable models and people to vote with their entrance fees accordingly. It would be poor form to use the sportsmanship score to penalize someone for using something the event organizers okayed.


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/22 17:57:26


Post by: Boss Salvage


 Chamberlain wrote:
I don't care if people paint their miniatures or not or if two people who are not me go ahead and play a game with their grey hordes.
Same. Rock on, people who aren't me.
I don't play with any unpainted miniatures on the table.
I try very hard to not play with any of my own unpainted any longer, but you certainly get a larger player pool if you can stomach other people's unpainted stuff. That said, tabletop wargaming is really sweet when everything is painted, and it's only recently I've gotten to enjoy that in W40K. So thanks 8E

Extremely Brief Anecdote: I used to play WMH, and enjoyed the game. But one of the reasons I ultimately quit was absolutely because nobody painted their gak. I'm in these games for the hobby.

As for tournaments, yea, that's a different kettle of fish and expectations for painting and proxies should be spelled out by the TO before the event. Ideally with paint scoring breakdown and all that - but that's not really what we're talking about it here.

- Salvage


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/22 18:09:16


Post by: Rayvon


Rule of cool is good by me, as long as its easy to keep track of what is what.


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/22 18:15:45


Post by: Yodhrin


 Chamberlain wrote:
He doesn't want rubric marines. That's approaching it backwards.

He has these models that with some modification and an appropriate paint job would be cool dark mechanicus daemon robots. Then we went and looked for appropriate rules so he could use them on the table top.

The goal was never to make rubric marines.


 feeder wrote:
Quite a bit of gatekeeping in this thread.

If it's clear what the model is supposed to represent, and the owner has put a reasonable amount of effort into making it look decent, then the actual model shouldn't matter.

If one's opponent's models fulfill the above two criteria, and they are still vexing, then one is likely a bit of a control freak and should probably seek help before it degrades one's other, more important interpersonal relationships.


/thread, really.

As long as someone isn't taking the piss("This marine with a flamer is a plasma gun, that marine with a flamer is a sniper rifle, and those three marines with missile launchers are a missile launcher, a plasma cannon, and a lascannon. Also that half-eaten sandwich is an autolas predator."), use whatever rules you like with whatever models you like, "official" be damned. If you want your experience to be more curated than that, form a regular group with people who have similar opinions and game with them.


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/22 18:16:50


Post by: DCannon4Life


As head judge and assistant TO for the 40K events at a convention, Gatekeeping is very much my responsibility.


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/22 19:54:00


Post by: Chamberlain


Boss Salvage wrote:I try very hard to not play with any of my own unpainted any longer, but you certainly get a larger player pool if you can stomach other people's unpainted stuff. That said, tabletop wargaming is really sweet when everything is painted, and it's only recently I've gotten to enjoy that in W40K. So thanks 8E


I was only recently convinced to go painted only by a local guy. It's been 4 months and I've noticed the amount of games I've been playing has actually gone up. The local people who do painted only tend to exchange details and be active in social media groups. A lot of the people are more competitive than I am (by far) but if people are painting to score points in an event, I'll still enjoy their painted miniatures even if they crush me and my terrible lists and sloppy game play. Though I'm far happier playing with my group of friends doing skirmishy inquisimunda/qausi-RPG type stuff. Friends of mine now have a lot of young children so we tend to meet up at each other's places as usually someone has to be at home for the kids on a given saturday night.

Once a year I do like to go to an ITC event and meet new people there. They're usually all painted only as people with unpainted miniatures are barred from prizes.

I think there definitely are stylistic differences between model ranges, conversions, proxies, and even paint jobs. I get it that some people have an idea in their head about what the 40k universe looks like and as "anime" as the tau are, for example, I get it when people find most gundams not to fit stylistically with the range (as an example).


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/22 20:03:40


Post by: Captain Brown


As long as I get the explanation before the game and there are not too many. Sometimes you seen really neat models from other ranges that fit perfectly with the genre.

My group instituted that every game played with partially painted miniatures would require something else painted before the next match. Suddenly those armies of silver, grey and black blossomed into colour.

My two cents,

CB


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/22 22:07:17


Post by: Luciferian


I love conversions and scratch builds. I personally spend an extensive amount of time converting models from starter sets to save money, because it lets me get armies done at around $2 per model or less in a lot of cases. I'm talking about buying large batches of the starter armies and bits and then individually converting each one to fit an actual list.

BUT - I am very careful to only use the EXACT weapons that I'm trying to represent. No exceptions; if it's on my list, it's 1:1 on the model. I don't know all of the rules and wargear options for every army out there, but I know what the weapons look like. Keeping to that convention is, for me, a modicum of courtesy. I spend a lot of time converting my models to make them fit the part, so I am not going to be impressed by someone who just throws down some non-standard models and asks me to remember what each piece is supposed to represent when that takes more effort than their "conversion" did in the first place.


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/23 04:19:56


Post by: Azazelx


 NH Gunsmith wrote:
 thekingofkings wrote:

Honestly the top ones I wouldn't really know the difference without getting too close to the model than is polite, the middle, depending on the rest of the army, and the hird, no. yeah they are cool models, but no. If we were playing mutant chronicles or Void 1.1 probably.


I would play against any of those with no problem. I personally hate the Dreadknight model and find that a suitable replacement. I don't mind those Dreamforge Eisenkern, I would personally swap the arms out for something that looks a bit more 40k, same with the heads, they are a bit derpy.
The Blood Warriors I wouldn't mind as long as there was a pistol on the model somewhere at least.
Shoot, in my Death Guard army I had a few years ago, I used the Fantasy Nurgle Sorcerer/Lord on horseback as my Chaos Lord on Palanquin of Nurgle. I never got any complaints about it since people thought it was cool.
Shoot, I don't mind if people use alternate models, I just want to play games.


Yeah, I got the Dreamforge Leviathans because I think they look much better than the official Dreadknight for that specific job.


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/24 00:59:42


Post by: Shiro-chan


For me, it mostly depends on "Does it make sense?" and "Could be this confusing?"

In a serious tabletop battle, it should be clear what is supposed to be what. I can accept the traditional example of a soda can used as a Carnifex to try out the monster's rules.
I also once had a not-so-serious game where I played a whole Ork army using Guard models to test the rules (this was when I started and we wanted to know if the Orks are good, which they were). Since that was a not so serious game and a one-time deal, it was alright.

On the other hand, if someone for example uses a Grot as an Ogyrn (should use something of similar size like a Terminator really), or say 40 identical Space Marines to portray a squad of regular CSM, Berserkers, Thousand Sons and Noise Marines each at the same time, I'd definitely say no to that because it would be very confusing. Same for an entire army of Tyranids made of bottle caps propped upright (yes I've seen that), used multiple times at that. Once for testing I'd say ok but not more than that.

I myself play Orks and I know quite well how hard it can be to discern between the various units, so I took to modeling/converting (and to some degree also painting i.e. with "troop marks") them into different-looking styles that are similar across the mob but still visually distinct from other mobs. One of my Ork Boy mobs is made from Savage Orcs of Fantasy with some guns, for example, and it works very well.
So say, if someone models their Cadian troops with assault rifles rather than laser guns, that would be fine with me, or say they use different Guard models for different troops, that's alright too if it's obvious in regards to what they actually are. Using a blingtastic Command Squad as Penal Troops for example might be ok once but not multiple times and definitely not en masse (it would also be a pretty weird choice).

In short, if you want to convert but also play, I won't say no to playing provided the conversions are consistent and sensible enough.


Considering WYSIWYG, At what point does "conversion" cross into "proxy". @ 2017/09/25 01:47:05


Post by: SexierThanYou13


 Luciferian wrote:
I love conversions and scratch builds. I personally spend an extensive amount of time converting models from starter sets to save money, because it lets me get armies done at around $2 per model or less in a lot of cases. I'm talking about buying large batches of the starter armies and bits and then individually converting each one to fit an actual list.

BUT - I am very careful to only use the EXACT weapons that I'm trying to represent. No exceptions; if it's on my list, it's 1:1 on the model. I don't know all of the rules and wargear options for every army out there, but I know what the weapons look like. Keeping to that convention is, for me, a modicum of courtesy. I spend a lot of time converting my models to make them fit the part, so I am not going to be impressed by someone who just throws down some non-standard models and asks me to remember what each piece is supposed to represent when that takes more effort than their "conversion" did in the first place.


This. I'm a baller on a budget, I'm at uni, and as much as I'd like to buy all the models in the world, I can't - I just don't have the money. But what I do have is time, and I put that into my army(s), from things like converting a second set of plague marines from dark imperium so that I don't have two identical squads running around, to using a grenade throwing marine as a base for a Biologus Putrifier conversion covered in grenades, canisters, and such. The big thing for me is to make sure that everything is WYSIWYG. Every time I work on a conversion, once I decide what it's going to be, then I make sure that every weapon/piece of gear is represented on that model, and looks similar to the GW 'official' piece of kit.

I don't mind playing against completely proxies armies, and I actually prefer playing against armies which are creatively modelled (I don't want to see three of the same marine across the table) - one of the blokes down at the local GW is building a night lords army basing large portions of it on the vampire counts range. Yes please!

And as far as painting goes, it always looks better painted, but it is rather snobbish to refuse to play someone with an unpainted army. I've only got a couple of models painted in my death guard, not due to laziness but simply because I'm not quite old enough to purchase spray paint to undercoat with. And I'm going around that by having some shipped to me asap. But until then, my grey hordes will continue to rampage across the board, and when they're painted, likely play against loads of grey plastic armies themselves.