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.

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

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

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

Oh, yea I'm down with that.

Frazzled wrote:

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

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

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

Oh, yea I'm down with that.

Yeah, I think maybe peopel were thinking I'm being TFG, but I'm just trying to lay down some rules to avoid having to argue with him. Plus, I got to use the term Safe Harbor, which is one of my favorite concepts in administrative law.

OddJob. wrote:Really? How much of your humungous collection is painted?

It has taken me longer to type this post than it would do for me to explain which models are painted.

I don't like painting. I derive no enjoyment from it. This is why me actually painting my Necrons is a big deal, because it's the first time I've ever tried to paint an army. Hell it's the reason I bought Necrons - something easy so that I could teach myself how to paint.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

OddJob. wrote:Really? How much of your humungous collection is painted?

It has taken me longer to type this post than it would do for me to explain which models are painted.

I don't like painting. I derive no enjoyment from it. This is why me actually painting my Necrons is a big deal, because it's the first time I've ever tried to paint an army. Hell it's the reason I bought Necrons - something easy so that I could teach myself how to paint.

You and your group play a lot of big games, right? I know that in my experience having a proxy in a 1500pt game is no problem, having 4 in a 6000pt game becomes problematic. In Apocalypse WYSIWYG goes from a polite suggestion to almost the only way to play....

I think I actually worked out where my psychosis comes from the other day. We've been cleaning out a lot of crap from the house, and that includes getting rid of all my old toys that I've had in storage for years.

Going through it one thing thing I found was the Ninja Turtle Sewer Playset and the Ninja Turtle Technodrome playset. I remember now that, as a child, these two things substituted for a Ghostbuster headquarters, the Jurassic Park visitor centre/control room, Mortal Kombat stage backgrounds, Transformers base and probably half a dozen other things. Dino-Rider figures subbed as Jurassic Park workers, Mortal Kombat fighters, and a few things here and there. With no fleet of vehicles, I had an old Mercedes model, a small Tonka car, a COPS attack vehicle (don't ask me where I got that) and some other random things.

So I basically had a few big things that I used to represent everything else, depending on what thing I was in to.

So now, with the means to get what I want for 40K, I think I'm trying to avoid what I had in my eariler years by ensuring that I don't ever have to pretent the Technodrome is a Ghostbuster Firestation, or that a Coke Bottle is a Carnifex (I love that TSOLAR comic... 'Hello Boys' has become a catch-cry for my 'Fexes). That's probably the reason why I always ensure that I have the exact model, exactly WYSIWYG, where ever possible.

That's a guess though.

Polonius wrote:You and your group play a lot of big games, right? I know that in my experience having a proxy in a 1500pt game is no problem, having 4 in a 6000pt game becomes problematic. In Apocalypse WYSIWYG goes from a polite suggestion to almost the only way to play....

You're right there. In all the Apoc games we've played it has always been a case of what's the model's armed with is what the model's armed with. No variation. That dude with the Meltagun has a Meltagun no matter what.

The only time WYSIWYG doesn't factor in is for things that constantly shift - Wargear and Vehicle Upgrades. I'm not going to model Extra Armour when I don't always take Extra Armour - my vehicles can be internally reinforced if I ever do take it. I'm not going to model an Adamantium Cloak or Meltabombs. Jump Packs are a little different, similar to Bikes, but Wargear that changes between games won't be represented all the time.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Polonius wrote:You and your group play a lot of big games, right? I know that in my experience having a proxy in a 1500pt game is no problem, having 4 in a 6000pt game becomes problematic. In Apocalypse WYSIWYG goes from a polite suggestion to almost the only way to play....

You're right there. In all the Apoc games we've played it has always been a case of what's the model's armed with is what the model's armed with. No variation. That dude with the Meltagun has a Meltagun no matter what.

The only time WYSIWYG doesn't factor in is for things that constantly shift - Wargear and Vehicle Upgrades. I'm not going to model Extra Armour when I don't always take Extra Armour - my vehicles can be internally reinforced if I ever do take it. I'm not going to model an Adamantium Cloak or Meltabombs. Jump Packs are a little different, similar to Bikes, but Wargear that changes between games won't be represented all the time.

Yeah, I remember my first big game, I made this big deal about all of my missle launchers being lascannons (this was the old book, where only 5pts seperated the two), and I kept forgetting if they were lascannons or missile launchers. Same thing in later games, when I used the griffon as a basilisk counts as, after they pulled the griffon form the roster. Of course, I remembered the rules, and I kept shooting it like a griffon.

the moral of the story is that while having a print out for characters to keep track of wargear works fine, It a model looks like it has something, it should have it.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

OddJob. wrote:Really? How much of your humungous collection is painted?

It has taken me longer to type this post than it would do for me to explain which models are painted.

I don't like painting. I derive no enjoyment from it. This is why me actually painting my Necrons is a big deal, because it's the first time I've ever tried to paint an army. Hell it's the reason I bought Necrons - something easy so that I could teach myself how to paint.

I was teasing, but also trying to subtly point out that everyone's idea of the importance of aesthetics seems to differ. WYSIWYG comes a distant second to painting in terms of visual appeal for me, especially for a game like apocalypse where visual appeal is hugely important.

I'm very much a tournament gamer, but all of my armies are painted to a decent standard.

As a side note- on apocalypse. I read on these forums (and hear by word of mouth) of huge and impressive apocalypse armies, then see the photos and often realise nothing is painted. I generally find that hugely disapointing. It's not an army as I know it. When I rule the world I'm going to limit apocalypse to painted models only ( retardant underwear...check).

p.s. Good on you for having a go at the old painting. I don't really enjoy it either, but find the results very satisfying.

I would say that it is a fair replacement. As others have said, however, I would suggest modifying the model to represent the Defiler equivalent weapons/gear. Not a requirement in most cases, but probably necesary if you did any "serious" tournament.

Generally, for myself, in standard games played at home or a weekend game at the local shop, I could really care less about proxies or "counts as" situations. You could use bottle caps and pogs for all I care, as long as we are in strict agreement on what is what. Now in a tournament or any serious competition environment, that's a different story. It's a bit disrespectful to your opponent to bring models having too many instances " this is really that" or "these guys count as this". (Even worse if it's unpainted) There should be little confusion in what you are trying to represent with your models.

Thats not to say that in competions, I'm completely against "counts as" situations. For instance, cetain weapons that look very similar or appear as though they could fill another weapon's role. An example would be the forgeworld Warboss on a bike. My list has him with a power klaw, however that's not quite what is on the model. It's more of a bionic buzzsaw thing. Now my conversion-fu is not quite up to snuff, so like hell I'm going to take a knife to that model just to stick an actual power claw on him. The buzzsaw looks big and mean enough, so I would count it as a power klaw.

i played my second game today, against a bunch of mates.

i got myself a kommando's squad on monday but don't have any metal glue, so i just proxyed the bases instead of the units...
nobody objected. even though during the games they provided me an unfair advantage in that my opponents didn't notice them.
but nobody cared, there was plenty of "you can't shoot what you can't see!" jokes...

Glad to see this idea didn't inspire a bunch of flaming

Seems reasonable, and while there's a lot of shades of grey, I think everyone's on the same page about this

OddJob. wrote:

As a side note- on apocalypse. I read on these forums (and hear by word of mouth) of huge and impressive apocalypse armies, then see the photos and often realise nothing is painted. I generally find that hugely disapointing. It's not an army as I know it. When I rule the world I'm going to limit apocalypse to painted models only ( retardant underwear...check).

p.s. Good on you for having a go at the old painting. I don't really enjoy it either, but find the results very satisfying.

Does this make you happier? That's my Praetorian 37th, Company B. 8000pts fully painted.

Unpainted Apocalypse games? What's that?

Edit: Oh Irony, you're a cruel Mistress! I just noticed that the picture of my Dark Angels force was taken before one of those dreads was painted.

Polonius wrote:Does this make you happier? That's my Praetorian 37th, Company B. 8000pts fully painted.

It certainly does!

However, the question is, do you have any oponents in a similar position (massive painted army) and do you view yourself to be in the majority apoc wise (by having eveything painted).

OddJob. wrote:

Polonius wrote:Does this make you happier? That's my Praetorian 37th, Company B. 8000pts fully painted.

It certainly does!

However, the question is, do you have any oponents in a similar position (massive painted army) and do you view yourself to be in the majority apoc wise (by having eveything painted).

My primary opponent has his stuff mostly painted, but having a predominantly black color scheme it's easier to hide. I actually have a pretty similarly sized space marine army all painted, but I'm clearly in the minority of the minority in not only having such a large force, but having it painted.

In all fairness, I can paint to a tabletop standard very quickly, but I struggle to paint any better than that. I'd rather have my ability than, say, be able to paint really, really well but slowly.

Trenchie, I fully sympathize with your position in this matter, but didn't we just have this conversation (except it was about old Kev Adams Space Orks) a few weeks ago?

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

I believe that the "Douchebag Rule" applies in situations like this. Everyone should agree to not play with douchebags. They can either reform or quit the hobby.

Pariah Press wrote:Trenchie, I fully sympathize with your position in this matter, but didn't we just have this conversation (except it was about old Kev Adams Space Orks) a few weeks ago?

Yes, and that was one of two separate, slightly different threads on the WYSIWYG.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

OddJob. wrote:Really? How much of your humungous collection is painted?

It has taken me longer to type this post than it would do for me to explain which models are painted.

I don't like painting. I derive no enjoyment from it. This is why me actually painting my Necrons is a big deal, because it's the first time I've ever tried to paint an army. Hell it's the reason I bought Necrons - something easy so that I could teach myself how to paint.

4 words: Dipping. Is. Your. Friend.

It'll cut down the time for a fully painted model so much and it covers a lot of mistakes. Except for my converted wyches, my entire Dark Eldar army (yep, vehicles included) are dipped. Painting is my least favorite part of the hobby but if you find a way to make it easier or more fun (like painting in groups), it's not so bad.

On the topic of proxy armies, I've got a question about the Genestealer Cult I'm working on. Now, do keep in mind that it will never get fielded in a competitive environment.
Anyway, I initially made my cultists/brood brothers with the IG codex in mind, thinking I'd include a unit og Stealers, Broodlord and a Lictor from the Nid codex. My FLGS and gaming friends were 100% okay with this.

But, as the army has grown, it's become obvious to me that pure Nid rules will do it more justice. So, my unit of "spinegaunts" is actually cultists, armed with everything from laspistols to Empire blackpowder pistols through to flamers and even a (one) missile launcher. I modeled them all arouind the IG book originally, but since they're already painted and that changing them now would probably ruin their ankles/bases, I don't want to risk it.

Now, in a friendly environment, would anyone have a problem with a unit with mixed weapons, some of which are recognisably Imperial ones, simply counting as Spinegaunts? The unit has two flamers, a G-launcher, an R-launcher and a plasma pistol if you look closely, but it all counts as spinefists.

Acceptable?

I wouldn't have a problem with it.

After all, Gaunts have no options for special or heavy weapons anyway.

Ktulhut wrote:On the topic of proxy armies, I've got a question about the Genestealer Cult I'm working on. Now, do keep in mind that it will never get fielded in a competitive environment.
Anyway, I initially made my cultists/brood brothers with the IG codex in mind, thinking I'd include a unit og Stealers, Broodlord and a Lictor from the Nid codex. My FLGS and gaming friends were 100% okay with this.

But, as the army has grown, it's become obvious to me that pure Nid rules will do it more justice. So, my unit of "spinegaunts" is actually cultists, armed with everything from laspistols to Empire blackpowder pistols through to flamers and even a (one) missile launcher. I modeled them all arouind the IG book originally, but since they're already painted and that changing them now would probably ruin their ankles/bases, I don't want to risk it.

Now, in a friendly environment, would anyone have a problem with a unit with mixed weapons, some of which are recognisably Imperial ones, simply counting as Spinegaunts? The unit has two flamers, a G-launcher, an R-launcher and a plasma pistol if you look closely, but it all counts as spinefists.

Acceptable?

I don't mind this kind of thing at all as long as it is a stopgap. In the long run I would expect you to replace the proxy models with proper ones. It's like in Napoleonic gaming you might fancy a French vs Austrian bash but you only have Russian and Spanish armies. So you proxy for a game, but if you want to carry on with it properly you get the proper armies.

It's not a stopgap, I'm afraid.

My "spinegaunts" are extensively converted (mostly Empire flagellant bodies and IG bitz) human figures, representing the cultists of the Genestealer cult. They are armed with a variety of weapons, but (as Orkeosaurus said), gaunts can't have any special or heavy weapons so it's not like my ML would magically be a Lascannon, or my flamer become a melta. They're all spinefists.

My "Hormagaunts" are VC Crypt Ghouls with some minor converting and a purple paint scheme, no equipment no foul.

Two units of Genestealers are just that, Genestealers.

The Broodlords' bodyguard counts as (6) genestealers, two of them are, but the other four are extensively converted human models representing the magus, cult champions etc.

The Lictors, Broodlord and Ripper swarms are stock figures for what they're meant to be.

So basically, considering almost every model in the army is converted, and under this list any gun=spinefist, what other problems could arise?

Constructive criticism/advice is more than welcome.

Personally, I believe that proxying has three situations where it is acceptable.

1) When trying out some new units in an army. Especially for people with limited budgets (yay Americorps salary!) this is an important rule. You may have read something in the codex but don't want to spring for it until you see how good it is. So, for a couple of battles you try the unit out. If it's fun/flavorful/useful, go for it. Did this in Magic a bit, so don't see why it can't apply to Warhammer. The corrollary to this one would be "they're not assembled yet." So they aren't built? That's cool- just work on it and use other models as stopgaps so strategies can be tested.

2) To get new players into the game. This is actually how I got into the game. I had a friend's Eldar army which was pretty small, so I was proxying troops and vehicles all the time so that I could have awesome lists and figure out what play style suited me. Eventually I grew to like the game so much that I bought my first units a couple of weeks ago. I plan on going for as close to WYSIWYG as possible, but I never would have made it if not for proxying.

3) When everyone is doing it. This can lead to a lot of really fun and crazy games involving invisible carnifexes, wraithlords and dreadnoughts running around as war walkers and boxes acting as artillery. Sure, don't do this too often, but it's very useful to let people try out completely new tactics and armies.

As far as conversions go, I have no problem with them. In fact, I value them even higher than the original models! I mean, if you spent all that time and effort making some genestealer cultists, and there is NO ambiguation as to what they are (i.e. cultists=gaunts), go for it. I mean, 40k is a hobby in addition to being a game, and getting to see kicka$$ models running around is a lot of the fun.

Just my 2 cents

Maxtermynd wrote:As far as conversions go, I have no problem with them. In fact, I value them even higher than the original models! I mean, if you spent all that time and effort making some genestealer cultists, and there is NO ambiguation as to what they are (i.e. cultists=gaunts), go for it. I mean, 40k is a hobby in addition to being a game, and getting to see kicka$$ models running around is a lot of the fun.

Definitely, this is how almost everyone will feel if your models are converted well . Go for it!

Maxtermynd wrote:
As far as conversions go, I have no problem with them. In fact, I value them even higher than the original models! I mean, if you spent all that time and effort making some genestealer cultists, and there is NO ambiguation as to what they are (i.e. cultists=gaunts), go for it. I mean, 40k is a hobby in addition to being a game, and getting to see kicka$$ models running around is a lot of the fun.

Ah. There are three cultists (all with chainswords, something the others don't have) and a cultist-ish (but with a bright blue cape!) magus, who count as genestealers (they are in a brood with two legitimate genestealer figures) who are the patriachs retinue. You guys think I should do something to dis-ambiguate this?

You might want to post a separate thread under the modelling forum with pictures to get better feedback about that . Just reading what a model is armed with is really different from seeing it! I would think this would especially be true for genestealer cult armies where a lot of conversions are necessary, and a variety of different (but equivalent) weapons would likely be represented on the models.

That way you can also get some modelling suggestions if more distinguishing features are needed

Indeedy.

Also, do the people stricter on WYSIWYG remain anal about thematic conversions.

For example, I have a Savage Orc army. Recently, I felt it was time to consider dethemeing it somewhat for expansion (bit too limited in scope beyond 2,000!). So I have added in two Rok Lobbers to give me some instant variety, not to mention some ranged capability.

However, given the rest of my army is repetitive, to say the least, I have converted one from a River Troll, specifically the one with the Club held about his head. Remove the club, replace with the body of a Boar Chariot. Use Cows, Goats and Halflings from the Giant Kits I have (bought one, got one for Chrimbo off flatmate) as ammo, and looking at using the Orc Raiders from the collectors range for the Crew. WYSIWYG? Not especially. But could it be anything else? Not especially.

So where is the line there. Well, where is your line at any rate.

IMO, the troll-lobber is both excellent and awesome. Obviously I'd accept it, and as there's NOTHING else it could be, I'd probably think less of anyone who did take exception to it.

IF I can dig out my Camera, and the relevant cable, I'll see if there's enough juice to post up a piccy.

Bah! Enough to take the shot, but not enough to get it onto the Laptop. Will have to wait until I can find Batteries.

Sweet.