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

This is totally a newbie question, but is it allowed to proxy a custom model in my army as a named character? I'm trying to build up a Chaos army of my own and I want to use Typhus for his special abilities. Am I allowed to just straight up use a different model, like say a Termie Chaos Lord and apply Typhus' stats and abilities to him? I'd really like to use Typhus, but he's too expensive and only available in materials I don't want to work with, plus I want to avoid using named characters as I'd like my army to be uniquely my own.

You can use a potato as far as the rules are concerned.

99% of the 40k population would appreciate it if you used a model that stands out from the rest of your army and at least tries to look like the character he's representing.

That last 1% is just really hungry.

So as long as he looks like a fungus encrusted Termie with a scythe, he's good? I think I can manage that. Thanks.

It all depends on your local gaming group. What a bunch of strangers on the internet thinks is entirely irrelevant. I know that my FLGS has a very strict "No Proxies" rule (at least at it'sofficial fuctions), and there are several gamers there who won't let proxies fly either.

Ask the people you play with if they are confortable with it, and I'm sure the VAST majority of them will be fine with it as long as you make it very clear which model is which.

RAW: no. You are not permitted to violate WYSIWYG or use non-standard models.

However, most reasonable people will allow you to use your own model for a character as long as it is clear what it represents. But there is no universal standard in the rules for this, it's entirely up to the opinions of the people you're playing against. So, instead of asking random strangers on a forum, you need to show your proxy model to the people you want to use it with and ask if they're willing to allow it.

You are generally allowed to use a model you converted/built yourself as a named character, so long as you have clearly represented their wargear on the model. I myself use a custom-built Vulkan, since I'm not particularly fond of the GW model.

 Peregrine wrote:
RAW: no. You are not permitted to violate WYSIWYG or use non-standard models.

Where is that rule?

I am not seeing it in the BRB.

I think the rule of cool should apply. If it looks dumb I say no(unless it just very clearly is what the chara should look like) if it looks cool I want to see it on the table yes please thank you. I love conversions and custom work done well.

 Barzam wrote:
So as long as he looks like a fungus encrusted Termie with a scythe, he's good? I think I can manage that. Thanks.

I think just using a Magic Mushroom would suffice.

You could give all your squads Combat Drugs!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mythra wrote:
I think the rule of cool should apply. If it looks dumb I say no(unless it just very clearly is what the chara should look like) if it looks cool I want to see it on the table yes please thank you. I love conversions and custom work done well.

Is it okay to use a model that looks dumb if the character already looks dumb?

A good example is Dante. Can I use.... Oh, I don't know.... What's a really ugly model...



Not gonna Lie, Dante is a pretty horrible model, but this one really takes the cake.

It takes the cake because after it has taken a piece, no one else wants one.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
RAW: no. You are not permitted to violate WYSIWYG or use non-standard models.

Where is that rule?

I am not seeing it in the BRB.

Don't worry, he sees this rule all the time in his imagination...

As long as a character is obviously represented properly, few players should give you any grief. I have three customized Belials, and I am not buying another one.

rigeld2 wrote:
You can use a potato as far as the rules are concerned.

You can't use a potato!!!
What would we sell to American tourists for slowed prices, on this the holiest day of the Irish calendar?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
RAW: no. You are not permitted to violate WYSIWYG or use non-standard models.

Citation needed.

In general I try to make my models WYSIWYG.

However, in general, as long as everyone knows what model is what you can run whatever model for whatever you want as long as you are running on the same base its supposed to be on.

Additionally, some options you can take do not have model kits. In general, if a model does not have a kit, you have to get creative and use something similar.

For example, Asdrubal Vect (the big cheese for DE) has no model, but I like to run him occasionally so I use my one Archon for him.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Citation needed.

No, YOU need to cite the rule which allows proxy models. Because that's how 40k works, unless you have permission to do something you can't do it, just like how I can't just fire an extra shot with my lascannons because you can't show me a rule saying I can't shoot several times per turn.

 Peregrine wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Citation needed.

No, YOU need to cite the rule which allows proxy models. Because that's how 40k works, unless you have permission to do something you can't do it, just like how I can't just fire an extra shot with my lascannons because you can't show me a rule saying I can't shoot several times per turn.

In that case please show a rule even allowing you to assemble models. WYSIWYG was a rule for characters in 5th edition. Most codices also include something along the WYSIWYG line (for example: Remember that you cannot field models that are equipped with weapons or wargear not shown on the model).

 Peregrine wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Citation needed.

No, YOU need to cite the rule which allows proxy models. Because that's how 40k works, unless you have permission to do something you can't do it, just like how I can't just fire an extra shot with my lascannons because you can't show me a rule saying I can't shoot several times per turn.

See, you're incorrect here.
There are rules that say you can fire once with a defined profile.
Are there any rules defining what miniatures are required to be used?
If there are no rules requiring "non-proxy" models, then you can play using different potatos for your models and everything is fine.
Your assertion is that there is a rule requiring the right model to be used. I don't know of one.

 Peregrine wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Citation needed.

No, YOU need to cite the rule which allows proxy models. Because that's how 40k works, unless you have permission to do something you can't do it, just like how I can't just fire an extra shot with my lascannons because you can't show me a rule saying I can't shoot several times per turn.

Are you seriously going to challenge me on St Patrick's day about potatoes and the ability to use them in a game of 40k to represent a unit?
Oh before you even quote citadel minature, GW sells potatoes, go to Nottingham and check out warhammer world.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Citation needed.

No, YOU need to cite the rule which allows proxy models. Because that's how 40k works, unless you have permission to do something you can't do it, just like how I can't just fire an extra shot with my lascannons because you can't show me a rule saying I can't shoot several times per turn.

See, you're incorrect here.
There are rules that say you can fire once with a defined profile.
Are there any rules defining what miniatures are required to be used?
If there are no rules requiring "non-proxy" models, then you can play using different potatos for your models and everything is fine.
Your assertion is that there is a rule requiring the right model to be used. I don't know of one.

page 2 says you play the game with citadel miniatures. Now you need permission to use something else. By RaW no conversions or proxies are allowed. Not that anyone cares because only an idiot would aim to play RaW all the time.

You're right, it does. So no potatoes.

Is a citadel mini converted with all citadel parts not still a citadel mini?

Further, couldn't I have grots representing my entire army?
I'm still following that rule.

There's no rules basis for saying no proxies as long as its a citadel mini.
Conversions are debatable.

Conversions are no longer citadel miniatures even if made purely from citadel parts. You are not given permission to proxy and therefore you have to use citadel miniatures as what they're supposed to be. Interestingly this means you can't use the SM commander box as there is no SM commander option only Captain and Chapter Master...

as long as the model follows WYSIWYG then there is no shenanigans...

I use a customized citadel model to proxy coteaz all the time

of course the proxy has a hammer, artificer armour, and all the other equipment modeled on it,

so its still WYSIWYG,

which is the only requirement written down for models being used in this edition

you need to make your potatoe wysiwyg, so use some green stuff to put some power armour and a power axe on it and your good to go.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Conversions are no longer citadel miniatures even if made purely from citadel parts. You are not given permission to proxy and therefore you have to use citadel miniatures as what they're supposed to be. Interestingly this means you can't use the SM commander box as there is no SM commander option only Captain and Chapter Master...

The bolded has no basis in rules.
Page 2 implies that only citadel minis are allowed. It does not imply or state anything near WYSIWYG.
There is no rule forbidding proxies and since I have permission to use a grot miniature, I can use it to represent any model.

This thread is full of win.

On topic: I think Mythra said it best, for casual games, rule of cool will fly against almost any opponent. For tournaments you'd have to ask the TO, but they're typically nice people and allow it.

(Totally sig'd you rigeld.)

Ah, Peregrine has a knack for sidelinkng a simple thread...

Listen, as long as your conversion is a reasonable replacement for the model, you should be fine. Just make sure it is clear what he is armed with, who he is, and he is on the correct sized base. As I said, I don't own the new Belial model, and nor will I, as I made converted models of all three of his loadouts. And I intend on doing the same with Azrael, too.

Peregrine wrote:RAW: no. You are not permitted to violate WYSIWYG or use non-standard models.

You can't be violating a rule, RAW if the Rule is not Written. As there is no ""WYSIWYG"" rule in the Sixth Edition codex, you cannot cite a RAW argument, in fact you can't even cite a RAI argument.

You are citing a HYWPI argument, which can't be argued against.

Peregrine wrote:However, most reasonable people will allow you to use your own model for a character as long as it is clear what it represents. But there is no universal standard in the rules for this, it's entirely up to the opinions of the people you're playing against. So, instead of asking random strangers on a forum, you need to show your proxy model to the people you want to use it with and ask if they're willing to allow it.

You could've just said this.

Peregrine wrote:
No, YOU need to cite the rule which allows proxy models. Because that's how 40k works, unless you have permission to do something you can't do it, just like how I can't just fire an extra shot with my lascannons because you can't show me a rule saying I can't shoot several times per turn.

Actually, YOU need to cite the rule when you refer to a "Rule As it is Written."

You can't make an argument that is "This therefore that." That doesn't cut it on YMDC. Your argument has to be This rule, found on page xx States that yy. Therefore zz. Citation is key.

The only reference to WYSIWYG is found in some of the older codexes (and is not called WYSIWYG). Black Templar, Eldar, Orks, and Tau are the only ones that still have a stipulation that you cannot use a model that has wargear not modeled or a model with wargear modeled that it did not pay for.

 Happyjew wrote:
The only reference to WYSIWYG is found in some of the older codexes (and is not called WYSIWYG). Black Templar, Eldar, Orks, and Tau are the only ones that still have a stipulation that you cannot use a model that has wargear not modeled or a model with wargear modeled that it did not pay for.

Having said all this, the player and modeller must usually strive to make his models represent what he brings to the table. This is a gaming etiquette rather than a gaming rule.

 Scipio Africanus wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
The only reference to WYSIWYG is found in some of the older codexes (and is not called WYSIWYG). Black Templar, Eldar, Orks, and Tau are the only ones that still have a stipulation that you cannot use a model that has wargear not modeled or a model with wargear modeled that it did not pay for.

Having said all this, the player and modeller must usually strive to make his models represent what he brings to the table. This is a gaming etiquette rather than a gaming rule.

Right. it is a player convention not a rule that you must have wargear/weapons equipped (except for the aforementioned armies).

 Cheesedoodler wrote:
...there are several gamers there who won't let proxies fly either.

That's good, because then you could only hit them with Snapshots! *Ba-dum-PSH* I'm here all week.

 loreweaver wrote:

 Cheesedoodler wrote:
...there are several gamers there who won't let proxies fly either.

That's good, because then you could only hit them with Snapshots! *Ba-dum-PSH* I'm here all week.

I loled.

WYSIWYG was removed in 6th... but it doesn't mean you have the right to field pennies and cokecans.

WYSIWYG is now a social convention and a 'house rule' for events. Which is fine, because when two people are playing, whatever the two people agree to is 'the rules'.

As for converting named characters... If the wargear and wound/armor profile is similar and it has a similar size, you won't have issues. RULE OF COOL helps a ton as well. The goal should be making it clearly look like what it represents and not be larger/smaller for advantage.

If someone refuses to allow it, no amount of rulebook citing is going to change his mind.

 Barzam wrote:
This is totally a newbie question, but is it allowed to proxy a custom model in my army as a named character? I'm trying to build up a Chaos army of my own and I want to use Typhus for his special abilities. Am I allowed to just straight up use a different model, like say a Termie Chaos Lord and apply Typhus' stats and abilities to him? I'd really like to use Typhus, but he's too expensive and only available in materials I don't want to work with, plus I want to avoid using named characters as I'd like my army to be uniquely my own.

As others have pointed out, there is no rule in the BRB with a statement about this except the pg2 one about using Citadel models. There are, however, a few TFGs that don't like this; but it's probably best to avoid those people anyway. They take it a bit too seriously. The GW staff has made it perfectly clear lately that this is a Hobby first and the game is a distant consideration. This is further backed up by the fact they regularly feature conversions in WD. I've been to a few local tournaments and thus far haven't run into anyone with an issue with conversions.

HIWPI: I love conversions so if you want to use a chaos lord as Typhus, go for it. I'd prefer that it looked a bit plague like and didn't look like any other Chaos Lord in your army. To me the biggest thing is simply that if it has a bolt pistol, then a bolt pistol is on the model.

Incidentally, my game group does this all the time. I've seen a converted Kharn based on a regular CSM, looks really cool. Thousand Sons (prior to the conversion packs) converted from Berzerkers; DE blasters converted from other DE weapons that look really good; etc. Then again, we also allow non-GW parts and even encourage using non-GW models especially when a GW equivalent isn't available. One example are the Primarchs from HH:Betrayal. Only one primarch currently has a model but there are plenty of 3rd party companies that make great stand ins. IMO, anyone still hung up that it has to be only GW OR has to be the exact model GW produced to represent that character has other issues.