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.
Wyzilla wrote: If you're going to turn someone down simply because you take offense at a models appearance (which is absurd, it's a model, the point of a proxy is to see if you want to invest the money and time in either buying the set or hand-building a high-quality scratch model), you should at least pay your opponent the gas he used to drive there.
There's a difference between a proxy used as a one-time thing to test a model before buying the real one and a proxy that's intended to be used indefinitely because you're too lazy or cheap to buy/build a real model. And in the case of a Reaver titan, where everyone knows already that it's a powerful game-winning unit and doesn't have to test it, there's no real reason to ever need a proxy.
And paying for my opponent's gas because they brought an ugly army is just a joke, right?
Unless they show up with ten quick build titans decked out with D weapons, you don't really have any right to refuse to play someone who packed up a kit of models, drove over to the location, unpacked, assembled, only to be turned down because one model is a poor looking scratch build the point of which is to look poor as it's just a stand in because he wants to know if he should invest time and/or money in and take time out of his life to build.
Sure I do. What are you going to do, hold a gun to my head and force me to play? And why is having one ugly proxy better than having ten? If you're justified in bringing one then why not bring ten to "test" your ten-titan list full of D-weapons?
The point of the proxy is to test run something if you're competitive to see if it's worth buying or building yourself from scratch as a competitive unit to save money.
And if you're playing competitively with titans you're doing it wrong. Apocalypse is about putting awesome armies on the table, not playing competitively in an utterly broken game variant that's full of overpowered balance mistakes just waiting to be exploited.
That's the point. Unless it's a competitive tournament with rules as for the painting quality of miniatures participating in the battle, it doesn't matter what your armies look like. They could be finely painted masterpieces or globs of paint suffocating the miniature underneath, so long as it's the proper size of LOS, they can look like anything and refusing a game simply because they're fugly is hilariously petty.
“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.”
And if you're playing competitively with titans you're doing it wrong.
Exactly, so why care about D weapons?
In Apocalypse, there are things that can easily take care of that. If it had been Escalation, sure, that's another cup of tea. But Apocalypse is Destroyer's home realm.
If you turn down proxies because you demand that someone needs to spend a certain amount of $$$ to play with you, whether by buying the model, paying someone to build/paint it, or both, then say that. Don't blame Destroyer, especially when most Reavers are not actually armed with the 2x Laser Blaster - 1x Turbolaser build.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/08 08:20:12
Wyzilla wrote: That's the point. Unless it's a competitive tournament with rules as for the painting quality of miniatures participating in the battle, it doesn't matter what your armies look like. They could be finely painted masterpieces or globs of paint suffocating the miniature underneath, so long as it's the proper size of LOS, they can look like anything and refusing a game simply because they're fugly is hilariously petty.
Of course it matters what they look like. 40k's rules are garbage, the only reason to play the game is the experience of seeing two awesome armies on the table and imagining the fluff behind it. And that's especially true in Apocalypse, where the average "game" consists of standing around trying not to fall asleep while your opponents spend an hour-long shooting phase taking half your army off the table. If you replace the awesome armies with ugly proxies/gray plastic/etc you lose that entire aesthetic factor and the game isn't worth playing. I'd rather just pack up and go home than suffer through the multi-hour masochism ritual of "playing" 40k with a bunch of proxies that might as well just be cardboard counters.
Because it often provides a hint to the proxy builder's intent. Most of the cardboard "titans" I've seen have been armed with lots of D-weapons, which suggest that the builder's attitude was that the most important thing is getting to use the overpowered titan rules and putting an awesome model on the table doesn't matter. If someone brought a Reaver proxy with dual powerfists and a flamer at least I'd know that they weren't just looking for the easiest way to win the game.
If you turn down proxies because you demand that someone needs to spend a certain amount of $$$ to play with you, whether by buying the model, paying someone to build/paint it, or both, then say that.
It's not about money. If you don't want to spend $900 on a Reaver then invest the effort in scratchbuilding one that looks as good as the real thing. Don't tell me how you absolutely have to use this cardboard proxy titan you built the night before the game.
And you don't have to buy a titan to play with me. Feel free to bring a conventional army instead.
Don't blame Destroyer, especially when most Reavers are not actually armed with the 2x Laser Blaster - 1x Turbolaser build.
Most of the proxies I've seen are.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/01/08 08:38:04
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
It's not about money. If you don't want to spend $900 on a Reaver then invest the effort in scratchbuilding one that looks as good as the real thing. Don't tell me how you absolutely have to use this cardboard proxy titan you built the night before the game.
And you don't have to buy a titan to play with me. Feel free to bring a conventional army instead.
Don't blame Destroyer, especially when most Reavers are not actually armed with the 2x Laser Blaster - 1x Turbolaser build.
Most of the proxies I've seen are.
This cardboard reaver strawman is getting really tedious now, Peregrine. I do not think anyone is arguing for putting up a box on the table and saying it is a Reaver. Rather they are arguing for putting up something like a Leviathan-style model. What is even wrong with that? It fits the 40K aesthetic (It is basically a big Dreadknight), it can be armed with distinct weaponry that can plausibly match its in-game weapon options- And if not, well, it's Apocalypse, man! You can easily make up your own rules for its weapons, stats and stuff. Apocalypse is the home of homebrews. A homebrew (small, no less) Titan is just as believable as a homebrew Chapter.
You are free to turn down someone because they do not have a strict tournament-styled army with 100% official models, rules and WYSIWYG equipment in the single most casual and open-to-homebrews game mode in all of 40K, but do not expect that to be some kind of standard.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/08 08:45:50
But it doesn't really. If the Leviathan cost as much as a real titan interest in the "alternate pattern" would be virtually nonexistent. It's no better a match for 40k than any other generic scifi walker of comparable size, it's just cheap enough that people want to use it.
it can be armed with distinct weaponry that can plausibly match its in-game weapon options
No it can't. The guns look nothing like the weapons any 40k titan is armed with, they're no more "plausible" than any other random scifi guns.
Apocalypse is the home of homebrews.
And that homebrew should be motivated by doing something awesome that the existing rules/models can't handle, not by cutting the price of a Warhound from $500 to $150.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
But it doesn't really. If the Leviathan cost as much as a real titan interest in the "alternate pattern" would be virtually nonexistent. It's no better a match for 40k than any other generic scifi walker of comparable size, it's just cheap enough that people want to use it.
it can be armed with distinct weaponry that can plausibly match its in-game weapon options
No it can't. The guns look nothing like the weapons any 40k titan is armed with, they're no more "plausible" than any other random scifi guns.
Apocalypse is the home of homebrews.
And that homebrew should be motivated by doing something awesome that the existing rules/models can't handle, not by cutting the price of a Warhound from $500 to $150.
I am not so sure. I am seeing some voices simply preferring the Leviathan model due to aesthetics. Do not be so quick to assume the intentions of all others, even if you might be correct in some cases.
The plausibility of the weapon options is subjective. I think they will work. They certainly look suitably sci-fi-40K-ish, and while they are not identical, if you want a fluff reason I am sure there are Forge Worlds out there with their own very different patterns of weaponry. We know that different patterns van vary a lot in appearance, after all, and this is not outside its parameters.
And, again, you make assumptions. If someone likes the Leviathan model, paints it like a big Dreadknight andsays 'Here, here is my Grey Knight Titan that my guys built to counter that big nasty Ang'grath.', I would not only accept it, I would encourage it.
The price is of course a major factor. That is obvious. The Warhound is, like all GW stuff, hilariously overpriced. If you can get yourself a cheaper model that looks good and tells a story to boot (Why does your Titan mini-Legion use this prototype Titan? How did they obtain it? Stolen xenotech? Do they want it back?) then that should be encouraged, not discarded in favour of pretty little straight-out-of-the-box armies.
The same goes for a Reaver, even if a Leviathan is perhaps less ideal there due to the size difference.
A cheap model and an awesome one does not have to be mutually exclusive, you know.
And we can put the walmart reaver strawman behind us, yes?
BrotherHaraldus wrote: I am not so sure. I am seeing some voices simply preferring the Leviathan model due to aesthetics. Do not be so quick to assume the intentions of all others, even if you might be correct in some cases.
But how much of that is legitimate interest in the Leviathan regardless of its cost, and how much if it is an attempt to justify using the Leviathan as something more than just a cheap proxy?
The plausibility of the weapon options is subjective. I think they will work. They certainly look suitably sci-fi-40K-ish, and while they are not identical, if you want a fluff reason I am sure there are Forge Worlds out there with their own very different patterns of weaponry. We know that different patterns van vary a lot in appearance, after all, and this is not outside its parameters.
But the point is that they don't look more like 40k weapons than any other random scifi weapons. You could put Star Wars guns on the Leviathan and they'd be just as "close" a match. And if you show someone a Leviathan without telling them the rules they'd have no clue what 40k guns it's supposed to have. All you're really saying here is the obvious fact that any vaguely gun-shaped object can be proxied as a plasma gun if you tell everyone what rules it's supposed to be using and don't really care about having the model look anything like a plasma gun.
If someone likes the Leviathan model, paints it like a big Dreadknight andsays 'Here, here is my Grey Knight Titan that my guys built to counter that big nasty Ang'grath.', I would not only accept it, I would encourage it.
My opinion of that depends on whether it's a legitimate desire to build a GK titan (which is completely against the fluff, but lots of people add titans to armies that shouldn't have them) and it being pure coincidence that the most appropriate model also happened to be cheap, or a case of after-the-fact rationalization for why such an inappropriate model is "fluffy" and the cheap proxy should be allowed.
The Warhound is, like all GW stuff, hilariously overpriced.
Not really. Huge complex resin kits are not cheap. Don't confuse "I don't want to pay that much" with "objectively overpriced".
If you can get yourself a cheaper model that looks good and tells a story to boot (Why does your Titan mini-Legion use this prototype Titan? How did they obtain it? Stolen xenotech? Do they want it back?) then that should be encouraged, not discarded in favour of pretty little straight-out-of-the-box armies.
But it doesn't tell the story just as well, because it isn't a 40k model. It's like asking me to play against your Star Trek/your favorite football team/40k fanfiction army and expecting me to love it because you've been so "creative".
And we can put the walmart reaver strawman behind us, yes?
Sure, just as soon as it starts being a strawman and stops being an accurate description of a lot of proxies in Apocalypse.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
BrotherHaraldus wrote: I am not so sure. I am seeing some voices simply preferring the Leviathan model due to aesthetics. Do not be so quick to assume the intentions of all others, even if you might be correct in some cases.
But how much of that is legitimate interest in the Leviathan regardless of its cost, and how much if it is an attempt to justify using the Leviathan as something more than just a cheap proxy?
The plausibility of the weapon options is subjective. I think they will work. They certainly look suitably sci-fi-40K-ish, and while they are not identical, if you want a fluff reason I am sure there are Forge Worlds out there with their own very different patterns of weaponry. We know that different patterns van vary a lot in appearance, after all, and this is not outside its parameters.
But the point is that they don't look more like 40k weapons than any other random scifi weapons. You could put Star Wars guns on the Leviathan and they'd be just as "close" a match. And if you show someone a Leviathan without telling them the rules they'd have no clue what 40k guns it's supposed to have. All you're really saying here is the obvious fact that any vaguely gun-shaped object can be proxied as a plasma gun if you tell everyone what rules it's supposed to be using and don't really care about having the model look anything like a plasma gun.
If someone likes the Leviathan model, paints it like a big Dreadknight andsays 'Here, here is my Grey Knight Titan that my guys built to counter that big nasty Ang'grath.', I would not only accept it, I would encourage it.
My opinion of that depends on whether it's a legitimate desire to build a GK titan (which is completely against the fluff, but lots of people add titans to armies that shouldn't have them) and it being pure coincidence that the most appropriate model also happened to be cheap, or a case of after-the-fact rationalization for why such an inappropriate model is "fluffy" and the cheap proxy should be allowed.
The Warhound is, like all GW stuff, hilariously overpriced.
Not really. Huge complex resin kits are not cheap. Don't confuse "I don't want to pay that much" with "objectively overpriced".
If you can get yourself a cheaper model that looks good and tells a story to boot (Why does your Titan mini-Legion use this prototype Titan? How did they obtain it? Stolen xenotech? Do they want it back?) then that should be encouraged, not discarded in favour of pretty little straight-out-of-the-box armies.
But it doesn't tell the story just as well, because it isn't a 40k model. It's like asking me to play against your Star Trek/your favorite football team/40k fanfiction army and expecting me to love it because you've been so "creative".
And we can put the walmart reaver strawman behind us, yes?
Sure, just as soon as it starts being a strawman and stops being an accurate description of a lot of proxies in Apocalypse.
So, my question here is two-fold...
One, if the model is cool, which I personally think the Crusader and Mortis are, why does it matter if they're cheap? The price of the model has nothing to do with how it looks, or how it plays on the table(other attributes of the model might, the price does not). The model is one that apparently a fair few people think looks really cool. I think it looks really cool. Does it really matter how much they paid for it, since it's not some walmart toy, or a cardboard box?
Two, who cares if it's a GW model? It's a COOL model. It's not like GW has a monopoly on models that can be used to play 40k, unless you want to be the most intentionally obtuse ruleslawyer and TFG ever. "That's not a citadel mini, you can't use it." Who takes that attitude outside of GW themselves? It's basically contrary to the entire spirit of the game. It would be one thing if you said you just didn't want to play against a Titan, but you don't want to play against Titan proxies, so what magical property do FW models possess that makes them acceptable to field, with identical weapons configurations to non-GW proxies?
BrotherHaraldus wrote: I am not so sure. I am seeing some voices simply preferring the Leviathan model due to aesthetics. Do not be so quick to assume the intentions of all others, even if you might be correct in some cases.
But how much of that is legitimate interest in the Leviathan regardless of its cost, and how much if it is an attempt to justify using the Leviathan as something more than just a cheap proxy?
The plausibility of the weapon options is subjective. I think they will work. They certainly look suitably sci-fi-40K-ish, and while they are not identical, if you want a fluff reason I am sure there are Forge Worlds out there with their own very different patterns of weaponry. We know that different patterns van vary a lot in appearance, after all, and this is not outside its parameters.
But the point is that they don't look more like 40k weapons than any other random scifi weapons. You could put Star Wars guns on the Leviathan and they'd be just as "close" a match. And if you show someone a Leviathan without telling them the rules they'd have no clue what 40k guns it's supposed to have. All you're really saying here is the obvious fact that any vaguely gun-shaped object can be proxied as a plasma gun if you tell everyone what rules it's supposed to be using and don't really care about having the model look anything like a plasma gun.
If someone likes the Leviathan model, paints it like a big Dreadknight andsays 'Here, here is my Grey Knight Titan that my guys built to counter that big nasty Ang'grath.', I would not only accept it, I would encourage it.
My opinion of that depends on whether it's a legitimate desire to build a GK titan (which is completely against the fluff, but lots of people add titans to armies that shouldn't have them) and it being pure coincidence that the most appropriate model also happened to be cheap, or a case of after-the-fact rationalization for why such an inappropriate model is "fluffy" and the cheap proxy should be allowed.
The Warhound is, like all GW stuff, hilariously overpriced.
Not really. Huge complex resin kits are not cheap. Don't confuse "I don't want to pay that much" with "objectively overpriced".
If you can get yourself a cheaper model that looks good and tells a story to boot (Why does your Titan mini-Legion use this prototype Titan? How did they obtain it? Stolen xenotech? Do they want it back?) then that should be encouraged, not discarded in favour of pretty little straight-out-of-the-box armies.
But it doesn't tell the story just as well, because it isn't a 40k model. It's like asking me to play against your Star Trek/your favorite football team/40k fanfiction army and expecting me to love it because you've been so "creative".
And we can put the walmart reaver strawman behind us, yes?
Sure, just as soon as it starts being a strawman and stops being an accurate description of a lot of proxies in Apocalypse.
I have never seen any cardboard, box with 'reaver' written on, or walmart titans. Your experience may vary, but I have no reason to assume it even is a risk playing. The people I meet generally have better judgement. Besides, nobody here is even arguing for it. I am not arguing for it. So do not use counter-arguments for it against us.
How much of your resistance to alternate models is legitimate concerns and how much is just pettiness?
I'd argue that the Vulkan cannon looks pretty much exactly like a big Assault Cannon, and for an oversized Assault Cannon I'd see Vulcan Mega-Bolter rules as entirely appropriate.
The H.E.L. weapon, for example, matches aesthetics of 40K, which is why it is more legit than, say, a Star Wars model. That you have to explain it beforehand is the same as me having to explain beforehand when I am using the DV Chaos Lord as a Sorcerer, and you can't seriously proclaim that as out of place in 40K. That artillery-esque cannon also is entirely in the same style as, say, a Basilisk.
A GK Titan built to counter utterly massive Daemons like the FW ones is not unreasonable, it is just furthering the Dreadknight concept. It might not be a coincidence that it is cheaper, of course, that is obvious, but it should not be detrimental to you that it is. It is only positive for the owner that it is. After all, it is not like you gain something if he forks out the cash for another model. Money does not gaurantee quality, and that one is there does not gaurantee that the other is.
The Warhound is overpriced. It is complex, it is resin, but it is more expensive than it should be, really.
That a model does not have the 40K stamp on it does not make it the equivalent of 'my favourite football team', and you know that too. Bad strawman is bad.
And, for Zog's sake, man. I am not telling you to change your opinion. I am telling you to stop assuming that your own opinion forms some kind of twisted 'standard'.
MIni MIehm wrote: One, if the model is cool, which I personally think the Crusader and Mortis are, why does it matter if they're cheap?
It doesn't matter. The problem isn't that it's a cheap substitute, it's that it's an inappropriate substitute that's being used just because it's cheaper. The Leviathan doesn't look anything like the model it's being proxied as, so including it as a "Warhound" interferes with my appreciation of the awesome armies on the table.
Two, who cares if it's a GW model?
Nobody. The problem isn't that it's a non-GW model, it's that a non-40k model. It doesn't look like it belongs in 40k, just like a random Star Wars model (even a very nice and expensive one) doesn't look like it belongs in 40k. I'm perfectly fine with people scratchbuilding their own versions of GW models and not paying GW anything, as long as the end result is an appropriate 40k model that's as nice as the model it is replacing.
so what magical property do FW models possess that makes them acceptable to field
The magical property of actually looking like a titan from the fictional universe of 40k.
with identical weapons configurations to non-GW proxies?
And, once again, the weapons are NOT identical. None of the Leviathan weapons match the options a Warhound can take. The only one that's even close is the "mega bolter", the others are just random generic scifi guns. If you asked someone to identify the guns on a Leviathan-as-Warhound-proxy they'd have absolutely no clue what they were until you told them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrotherHaraldus wrote: How much of your resistance to alternate models is legitimate concerns and how much is just pettiness?
All of it is a legitimate concern. I don't like the model, I don't think it's appropriate for 40k, and I'm tired of the attitude that people are entitled to use their cheap proxy just because they don't want to buy a real Warhound.
I'd argue that the Vulkan cannon looks pretty much exactly like a big Assault Cannon, and for an oversized Assault Cannon I'd see Vulcan Mega-Bolter rules as entirely appropriate.
Not really. The mega bolter is two sets of barrels mounted in a boxy housing with just the tips sticking out, this is a single set of barrels with most of the gun exposed. You could probably guess what Warhound gun it's supposed to be just because it looks even less like anything else, but it's still not a very good match.
The H.E.L. weapon, for example, matches aesthetics of 40K, which is why it is more legit than, say, a Star Wars model.
Not really. It's just a generic scifi gun. If anything it looks like some kind of Tau gun, not an appropriate Warhound weapon.
That artillery-esque cannon also is entirely in the same style as, say, a Basilisk.
Warhounds can't take any kind of artillery cannon. If you show me a Leviathan armed with one I have no idea what it's supposed to represent.
A GK Titan built to counter utterly massive Daemons like the FW ones is not unreasonable, it is just furthering the Dreadknight concept.
I guess, but that would be a special melee "super Dreadknight", not a Warhound.
The Warhound is overpriced. It is complex, it is resin, but it is more expensive than it should be, really.
And you're basing this on what exactly?
That a model does not have the 40K stamp on it does not make it the equivalent of 'my favourite football team', and you know that too.
It's not just the lack of an official stamp, it's the fact that it looks nothing like the model it's being used as a proxy for. It's very clearly a model from some other fictional universe being used in a 40k game as a proxy.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/01/08 10:51:43
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
The burning pits of Hades, also known as Sweden in summer
Yep, it'd be a proxy. Ehh... What's the argument? I see proxies all the time. My Chaos Lord-used-as-a-Chaos Sorcerer is a proxy. My friend using his awesome kitbash scratchbuild Wazdakka is a proxy. Using any rules (Like Looted Wagon) without an official GW model is a proxy.
Big deal.
That it somehow stands out too much to be used in 40K is absurd. Aesthetically it matches the universe's themes. The major difference is for LOS purposes. And if you complain on the inch of height difference in an apocalypse game... Yeah.
Again... You are free to go on as much as you wish about it not living up to your standards or whatever. Fine. Your standards. Not anyone else's.
BrotherHaraldus wrote: Yep, it'd be a proxy. Ehh... What's the argument? I see proxies all the time. My Chaos Lord-used-as-a-Chaos Sorcerer is a proxy. My friend using his awesome kitbash scratchbuild Wazdakka is a proxy. Using any rules (Like Looted Wagon) without an official GW model is a proxy.
Except those (presumably) are legitimate 40k models that look like the models they're using the rules for. The Leviathan, on the other hand, doesn't look like a Warhound.
The major difference is for LOS purposes.
No, the major difference is that it looks nothing like a Warhound. A Warhound is a bipedal walker, but very clearly not human-shaped. It has legs, but its guns are just turret mounts instead of arms, and its head/body are solid blocks instead of a representation of a person. In terms of posing the Warhound is very top-heavy and almost always has a pose that is leaning forwards a bit, like it is stalking aggressively through the battle to fill its scouting/flanking role. The Leviathan, on the other hand, is a suit of armor scaled up to titan size. It's very human-like in shape with conventional arms/legs and weapons mounted on its hands. In terms of posing it's also very human-like, and tends to look like an armored knight advancing slowly but unstoppably into battle (preferably to go cut something in half with its giant sword).
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
No it doesn't. Not to me. Not at all. I'd grudgingly grant you it's use as a Knight, but not a Warhound titan.
However, as I only play Apocalypse with people I know well, and would never play a titan outside of an Apocalypse game, I really have nothing to worry about in this regard.
The argument either way is really a moot point to me.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/08 13:31:29
No it doesn't. Not to me. Not at all. I'd grudgingly grant you it's use as a Knight, but not a Warhound titan.
However, as I only play Apocalypse with people I know well, and would never play a titan outside of an Apocalypse game, I really have nothing to worry about in this regard.
The argument either way is really a moot point to me.
Warhound or Knight is irrelevant to me. If I had a Levvy it'd matter much less than getting to use the model at all.
