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.

Peregrine wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I assume all those opposed to using proxies field fully painted armies, there would be a condratiction there otherwise.

I do, actually. IMO bare plastic = not allowed to play in the event.

I don't think it's hyperbole at all. For example, there's a dedicated Apocalypse group around here, and they're horrible about using toys as proxies. Their armies are full of random toys from walmart with a token 40k weapon glued on the side, minimally "painted" models, old GW models that look nothing like the modern ones, etc. And they've openly posted things like "hey look at this new toy I found, it's so much cheaper than the expensive FW model I'm going to count it as".

So, I have no doubt that there are people with that kind of attitude in normal 40k who would love to be able to replace their unpainted netlist-of-the-month armies with the cheapest bag of army men they can find.

I've seen the same thing actually. Only for 40k though for some reason, although I have no idea why. That game generally seems to have the most unpainted, the most armless and headless grey torsos engaging in combat with the enemy. WFB/WM seems to have people care much more about that 'social compact' element of the game, in so far as making an effort with your army. The historicals/FoW guys right at the other end, with fully painted armies (which extends to unit markings/tank names) on themed terrain playing campaign games.

nkelsch wrote:40k is not good enough of a game for 'the game' to be the exclusionary primary focus of any event. If it was, then we would be playing with nameless tokens.

When you boil it down, showing up with appropriate models is like having a 'dress code'. People who have basic social skills and good ettiquite know what is expected of them and show up with their best effort and make a solid attempt to be within the code.

What we have here is someone trying to convince us why flip flops and shorts should be allowed at a buisness casual event. Yes, we can accept your jeans without holes, you probably should have a collared shirt, but your really nice shorts however how nice are simply not appropriate.

@rexscarlet: you really need to get over this obession with GW only. No one is even talking about that. 3rd party models are allowed pretty much EVERYWHERE except GW events and GW stores. The issue is when people try to use models (regardless of being GW or not) which do not even remotley match the rules they are trying to be. Often when someone attempts to make an army which can be multiple codexes all at once so they don't have to buy multiple models or armies. The issue is while some counts as are well done and easy to play against, many are not. They harm the game, are confusing and while are acceptable in casual play when opponents agree, often they are not acceptable at tourneys.

I agree again completely - I think it's all about being fair and reasonably in your assumptions with what you are using, and again reasonable in terms of your opponent and what they can expect. I've played with a Pre-Heresy World Eaters army for years, played literally dozens of games (including a lot of pick-ups against people I have not met before) - I have only ever had 1 person refuse to play me. The reason being that all of my 'counts as' are logical, and I make great pains to explain to my opponent and be as courteous as possible. Having a fully painted and converted army actually helps in that regard, I've found people actually want to play against the army (more often than not simply because it makes a change from unpainted grey knights).

One thing I think people need to keep in mind is that much of the anti-"counts as/proxy" attitudes you see in threads like this is simply internet contrarianism and that in general people tend to be far more accepting in person. Allow me to give an example:

Some five or six years ago I played in a WFB tournament at a local store. I had recently rebased a 28mm Hussite Wars era (ie early 15th century) German army from being set up for "Warrior" (a historical "ancients" game I no longer played) to being based for Warhammer Ancient Battles. I used the correct GW bases and my "counts as" substitutions were all easilly grasped. Infantry with polarms and spears were just that. My knights were Imperial Knights of some flavor. A bombard was a great cannon and a organ gun a Hallblaster Volley Gun. I used peasants with a variety of pichforks, scythes, etc as free company troops and a unit of dismounted knights in plate armour were my great swordsmen. A mounted noble lady was my wizard and the only actual GW model in the army was my general. (the rest were a mix of Old Glory, Essex, and Irregular Miniatures) Anyone who was halfway awake had no troubles picking out what was what and I received no compliants from any of my opponents or the store staff. No, I did not do very well in the event, (lost two out of three games) but I still got pretty high marks for my painting.

In the real world no one expressed any misgivings about my army, but I can garentee that had I asked about such a "counts as/proxy" army on an online forum (this one or another) I would have recieved any number of posts condeming it. The disconect of the 'net makes alot of people into much bigger jerks than they would dare to be in person and in general people are more accepting of the non-standard stuff in person. Sure, you will come into contact with the occasional TFG. But for the most part people tend to be accepting of reasonable or well executed "counts as/proxies".

TR

When you boil it down, showing up with appropriate models is like having a 'dress code'. People who have basic social skills and good ettiquite know what is expected of them and show up with their best effort and make a solid attempt to be within the code.

What we have here is someone trying to convince us why flip flops and shorts should be allowed at a buisness casual event. Yes, we can accept your jeans without holes, you probably should have a collared shirt, but your really nice shorts however how nice are simply not appropriate.

this is called a Freudian Slip, see, your elite-ism is showing, lol... (I am kind of kidding here, kind of)

Firstly, I am not asking for every and all the combinations of figures, toys, post-it notes, pennies, and etc. out there that someone IS using, and could use for "counts as" in 40k rules to be put on an approved in Tourney X list.

Just the "short list" of acceptable "counts as" ones published on an Interwebs Tourney rules; (believe it or not, players and Indy stores rely on, and follow others that are more experienced)

Group/store X follows Adepticon Tourney for standard play. Adepticon covers rules for armies (counts as), points played, and Adepticon in turn follows the INATFaQ for gameplay?

Example;

Mantic;
Corporation;
Basic troopers; armed with rifle-weapon-thing allowed as IG armed with Lasgun, (even if I do not have to model my basic IG trooper with anything in his hands).
etc.

Make the Master List, then let the unpainted hordes work it out?

 Pacific wrote:

Peregrine wrote:
I don't think it's hyperbole at all. For example, there's a dedicated Apocalypse group around here, and they're horrible about using toys as proxies. Their armies are full of random toys from walmart with a token 40k weapon glued on the side, minimally "painted" models, old GW models that look nothing like the modern ones, etc. And they've openly posted things like "hey look at this new toy I found, it's so much cheaper than the expensive FW model I'm going to count it as".

So, I have no doubt that there are people with that kind of attitude in normal 40k who would love to be able to replace their unpainted netlist-of-the-month armies with the cheapest bag of army men they can find.

I've seen the same thing actually. Only for 40k though for some reason, although I have no idea why. That game generally seems to have the most unpainted, the most armless and headless grey torsos engaging in combat with the enemy. WFB/WM seems to have people care much more about that 'social compact' element of the game, in so far as making an effort with your army. The historicals/FoW guys right at the other end, with fully painted armies (which extends to unit markings/tank names) on themed terrain playing campaign games.

With regards to that Apocalypse group, I really can understand it. I recently had the opportunity to play in an Apoc game with someone who actually had the Reaver Titan model. Honestly? It looked like a $50-100 toy with precolored plastic. The Forgeworld titans just aren't worth the money for the most part... they just look like 3-ups (well, more like 10-ups, but you get the idea) of basic 28mm models. I completely understand not wanting to drop $500-$1000 on something that basic. I know that I personally intend to scratch build something instead of purchasing the actual models because the actual models are just not that good.

As far as 40k being the worst for playing the Boxed Helenas, I think that's probably a mix of the popularity and repetitiveness of the game. I can't really explain exactly why I think popularity impacts it, but I 'feel' it. (So, you know, take that with a grain of salt.) The repetitiveness of it though does make sense to me. With Warmachine, Infinity, Malifaux, and a lot of the other games I've looked at you're only fielding 5-10 models and they're all different. It's enjoyable to paint. Even a compact 40k army is going to have you painting 30-40 of damn near the same exact model. It just gets boring, and generally more expensive. The boring part is the one that I personally feel the strongest... I just can't summon much enthusiasm to paint my 200th Space Marine with Spread Legs and Bolter Hugged to Chest, but this time he's red!

Idunno, it really does seem like as long as it's easy to understand and looks good, proxying or counts-asing isn't a big deal. It's really the appearance that matters, not the models... although using the right models can help. You can still field a 100% WYSIWYG, all GW-model army that looks like crap and is impossible to keep track of (sloppy paint and excessive glue will get you a wonderfully terrible army) while a fully proxied or counts-as army could be beautiful, easy to understand, and a joy to play against.

That's a nice idea in principle, but what happens if someone turns up say with an IG army of some of the old Ral-partha guys with laser guns? Of course this would be one of the more reasonable 'counts as' (in the same way as Mantic Corporation grunts, it would be immediately obvious to anyone what they were meant to be) but they would probably not be on the list.

More generally, there are literally dozens of ranges from other manufacturers that might be suitable, but that the TO would not be aware of. It might also reduce the scope for imagination of people making their own armies and conversions etc.

 Pacific wrote:
That's a nice idea in principle, but what happens if someone turns up say with an IG army of some of the old Ral-partha guys with laser guns? Of course this would be one of the more reasonable 'counts as' (in the same way as Mantic Corporation grunts, it would be immediately obvious to anyone what they were meant to be) but they would probably not be on the list.

More generally, there are literally dozens of ranges from other manufacturers that might be suitable, but that the TO would not be aware of. It might also reduce the scope for imagination of people making their own armies and conversions etc.

And the current system of "rule and cool" combined with "common sense" seems to be working just fine.

There does not need to be a community FAQ to clarify 3rd party humans with guns make good Iguard and heavy armored space suit models make good space marines. We also don't need someone to tell us a large barrel fire cannon makes a good Melta and a crushy-looking robot fist makes a good PK.

The whole point is if you have to write it down to tell someone what something is supposed to be, you probably already failed Rule of Cool. The correct solution is use the appropriate rules with your custom models opposed to try to make a complicated unneeded FAQ which you can attempt to lobby the internet to allow your confusing total conversion army to become 'official' in the community FAQ and then you can use it to browbeat your way into Tourneys.

And besides, even if some document existed, every TO who uses INAT seems to use a modified version WHICH IS GOOD as they can run their event their way. Even if you army was on some sort of FAQ as official counts as models, there is no guarantee a TO will accept it.

 Pacific wrote:
That's a nice idea in principle, but what happens if someone turns up say with an IG army of some of the old Ral-partha guys with laser guns? Of course this would be one of the more reasonable 'counts as' (in the same way as Mantic Corporation grunts, it would be immediately obvious to anyone what they were meant to be) but they would probably not be on the list.

More generally, there are literally dozens of ranges from other manufacturers that might be suitable, but that the TO would not be aware of. It might also reduce the scope for imagination of people making their own armies and conversions etc.

And that is all before you start figuring for conversions/kitbashes/scratchbuilds, at which point it becomes completely unmanageable to use a limitative master list.
Of course such a list would be good as an indication of what is expected/allowed but since this is still going to boil down to common sense interpretations in the end, I don't think it'd make much of a difference. Making sure folks with Mantic Games corporation armies counting as IG wouldn't be harassed by TFG opponents would be good but that issue is minimal anyway.

The mantic Corporation Army looks fine as an IG counts as. Their guns look like autoguns, and their heavy weapons are very similar to IG heavy weapons. I wouldn't have a problem playing against them.

As for can you bring them to a tournament? Really, ask your local TOs and such.

@nkelsch and others

Again, just the short list, at first...

This hobby is not growing. 40K is 50% of GW revenue; specialist, Fantasy, Hobbit-iz, license, and FW are the other half.

Not all "players" like the GW figure line.

The game is an investment, not only financial, but in time spent preparing.



Having a basic list from an Indy official Tourney (which Indy stores and player groups follow), would aid in a players deciding to purchase, model, and paint an other than GW army, as well as a Indy store stocking said items...

If figure company X wants on the "list" the Company would have to contact the TO.

If a player wanted to bring figures not on the list, he/she would have to contact the TO, just as it is now.

Palindrome wrote:
I do find the concept of 'abusive modelling' to be faintly ridiculous. Your posts seem to suggest that the only reason why people use 'counts as' is as a way to attempt to cheat or in some way be dishonest.

Actually, I think what he's saying is that those that engage in abusive modelling are a subset of those who fit in other categories, including "counts as", conversions, etc., and that the rule of cool/ask your TO approach targets them rather than the larger group of "counts as." So in otherwords, I think he's saying the opposite of what you think he is. He's saying that the only ones who will find "counts as" to fail when it contacts the "ask your TO" test are those who are doing it for some sort of advantage. The ones who do "counts as" because they like a particular line of miniatures are going to be fine.

Trench-Raider wrote:One thing I think people need to keep in mind is that much of the anti-"counts as/proxy" attitudes you see in threads like this is simply internet contrarianism and that in general people tend to be far more accepting in person. Allow me to give an example:
...
In the real world no one expressed any misgivings about my army, but I can garentee that had I asked about such a "counts as/proxy" army on an online forum (this one or another) I would have recieved any number of posts condeming it. The disconect of the 'net makes alot of people into much bigger jerks than they would dare to be in person and in general people are more accepting of the non-standard stuff in person. Sure, you will come into contact with the occasional TFG. But for the most part people tend to be accepting of reasonable or well executed "counts as/proxies".

Well stated.

People also need to stop being less contrite for using counts as models that are well executed. If you use some other company's miniatures (like historicals in a WFB army), you are actually giving your opponent a better experience than if you went with stock models. You're giving them variety while maintaining clarity and adherence to the rules. Just like as if you showed up with a heavily converted army.

@frozenwastes

well said,

But what do you think about a master list, instead of a case by case basis?
(note; a case by case basis will still exist, but in much smaller numbers, because of a standard set by a master list)

Abuse modelling seems to be a result of 'true line of sight' rules that encourage people to have figures that are crouched and don't have their extremities poking out far. It's just silly to take such a literal account of the shape of scenery and the pose of the figure when judging things like line of sight and cover. But that seems to be the consequence of the way they have written the game and it opens avenues to people looking to exploit the rules. The alternative is the older way where line of sight and cover are more common sense based and require a bit of fairness and agreement on both sides, but that just leads to squabbling and arguments from people who are immature. And that the real problem with TFG, they're always immature. You can't play in an adult manner with people who are childish and petty, regardless of their actual age.

rexscarlet wrote:
@frozenwastes

well said,

But what do you think about a master list, instead of a case by case basis?
(note; a case by case basis will still exist, but in much smaller numbers, because of a standard set by a master list)

I think it's a waste of time. If I'm running a tournament, i don't want to try to figure out which make and model a given mini I've never seen before is and then try to find it on some list. I'll just evaluate it right then on there based on what it looks like and what it's supposed to represent.

List = monumental amount of work to maintain both in terms of cataloging every 28mm miniature out there and managing expectations of contributors as some people think some clean high tech 28mm sci-fi are more plausible as tau than IG. Also lots of work for TOs as they need to identify and check the list for obscure miniatures.

Just not worth it.

 frozenwastes wrote:
People also need to stop being less contrite for using counts as models that are well executed. If you use some other company's miniatures (like historicals in a WFB army), you are actually giving your opponent a better experience than if you went with stock models. You're giving them variety while maintaining clarity and adherence to the rules. Just like as if you showed up with a heavily converted army.

I think you've found an important difference here:

In a fantasy game counts-as is probably less of a problem, since you have giant blocks of infantry with identical weapons, and all of the weapons have obvious historical equivalents. You just have "hand weapons" or "polearms" and don't have to worry about the difference between a sword or an axe, or a spear vs. a halberd, and you certainly don't have to worry about identifying the 2-3 models in the unit with special weapons. Most of them are just fancy wound counters and the individual models don't really matter. And of course since it's all based on real weapons it's easy to get WYSIWYG models that GW can't copyright.

In something like 40k it's a much bigger problem since the variety of weapons is so much higher and since there's no real-world equivalent each "alternate" manufacturer has to use a different design that avoids GW's IP. So say I have a squad of "28mm armored space infantry" with futuristic looking guns. Which weird looking scifi rifle is the bolter and which one is the plasma gun? And which one is the melta gun? And what's the difference between a chainsword and a power sword when neither of your "alternate" melee weapons matches the GW model? And of course all of these differences are significant since it really matters (especially in 6th) which model in the unit has the single upgrade weapon. End result: it's not going to be WYSIWYG, and there's a lot more ambiguity to keep track of.

My Vampire Counts army is comprised almost entirely of Mantic miniatures; all except for the big stuff or things Mantic doesn't make like the Corpse Cart. I'm not a big tournament player but nobody at the FLGS I visit has a problem with my army...in fact people love the zombies when compared next to the pile of gack GW passes off as zombies...

 Peregrine wrote:
So say I have a squad of "28mm armored space infantry" with futuristic looking guns. Which weird looking scifi rifle is the bolter and which one is the plasma gun? And which one is the melta gun? And what's the difference between a chainsword and a power sword when neither of your "alternate" melee weapons matches the GW model?

That's really only an issue for those who want to make it an issue. If you have a squad of 9 guys with one type of gun and one type of another, then you know the 10th guy has something special. And it's not too hard to make a sci-fi weapon give the impression it's supposed to give. Flame throwers are going to have some sort of canister or an ignition point. Plasma guns might have an obvious energy rail type thing or some other impression of a high yield of energy. Melta weapons are heat rays, a sci-fi idea over a century old. If you're still having trouble with opponents not knowing, the paint the barrel of the melta gun one red or orange, the plasma one blue or green and the flamer metal with black glazing on the tip for soot.

Melee weapons are easy as well. Paint something bright and glowy if its a power blade. Or model on a power cable or something. It's not hard to make it work.

If someone intentionally wants to find fault or make things difficult out of some pro-GW snobbery, they're welcome to do so, but let's be honest about just how confusing it really is provided the person has put at least some thought and work into making things a good representation.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just wanted to add that if someone doesn't put any effort into having their counts as models communicate what they are in game terms, then the problem is not with counts as models, but with the hobbyist being inconsiderate of his/her opponents.

If I grab some mantic enforcers to use as space marines of some sort and don't put any effort into differentiating their weapons, that's me being lazy.

And this is another reason a list is a bad idea. Just because things can count as other things, it doesn't mean they can count as them without any hobby work put into them.

A TO calling things on a case by case basis is the way to go because each individual case can be dealt with rather than looking on a checklist. The TO can evaluate whether or not the models are sufficient not o confuse the opponent.

 frozenwastes wrote:
If someone intentionally wants to find fault or make things difficult out of some pro-GW snobbery, they're welcome to do so, but let's be honest about just how confusing it really is provided the person has put at least some thought and work into making things a good representation.

The point is that it's still annoying to have to deal with a different set of what model is what weapon every time you play a different opponent, and it's annoying to have to remember which non-standard models your opponent is using. That's why the current situation works just fine: an awesome counts-as army will be allowed, and the annoyance of keeping track of everything is offset by the enjoyment of playing against an awesome and unique army. However, the guy who wants to use counts-as models just because they're cheaper doesn't get to do it and add extra annoyances to the game while contributing nothing in return. Moving from "ask the TO" to a standardized counts-as list does nothing to help the first group while encouraging the second group to be TFG.