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.

 Mad4Minis wrote:

 malfred wrote:
The bigger issue is one of model recognition.

I would call that the biggest issue...does it look enough like what your calling it to be recognized?


As far as tournament play...well anyone who brings anything other than the official stuff to a tourney is asking for trouble. I mean come on, think about it, your going to a place full of people who take their toy soldiers serious enough to have a tournament. Id expect nothing but snobbery and whining in the extreme.

It's not snobbery & whining when you've got all of 7 minutes to complete your turn, each model has very specific special rules that can mean the difference between an effective move and one that cost you the game, and that even slight differences in load-out came make one model look like another on a similar chassis.

Your tone is also excessively dismissive. I don't play in tournaments personally, but I certainly wouldn't look down at anyone because that's how they enjoy their hobby.

From what I've heard, a lot of whether or not a conversion will fly at a tournament is up to the TO, or tournament organizer. I feel that a conversion useable in a tournament has to be instantly recognizable for what it's supposed to be.

To me *personally*, a Drago conversion using the classic Berserker chassis would not qualify for that, because the two sculpts are so very different. (Note that I am not a TO, this is literally personal opinion.)

What would be acceptable are the "Extremoth" conversions that I've seen done, where Khador players take the Extreme Juggernaut model and combine it with Behemoth parts to make a bigger, badder, better-looking Behemoth. It's hard to mistake a huge warjack with double cannons on it's shoulders and rocket fists as anything other than Behemoth.

If you fancy up a normal Berserker enough I could see I being used as a Drago sure. More chains and skulls and an eye patch being paramount. I'd question Why you'd want to do that however as the Drago fig is indeed already larger and cooler than a normal berserker. If it was plastic I could understand.

Also, I've never been to a single event in the five states I've gamed in that actually enforced the conversion rules as they are written. I've even put my "illegal" figs down across the table from PP staffers and played games with them. Make sure its a reasonable stand in for what you're using it as and make sure your opponent knows what it's supposed to be and you'll likely have few issues.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr. Grey wrote:
What would be acceptable are the "Extremoth" conversions that I've seen done, where Khador players take the Extreme Juggernaut model and combine it with Behemoth parts to make a bigger, badder, better-looking Behemoth. It's hard to mistake a huge warjack with double cannons on it's shoulders and rocket fists as anything other than Behemoth.

This is of course illegal by the PP conversion rules regardless.

 AduroT wrote:
If you fancy up a normal Berserker enough I could see I being used as a Drago sure. More chains and skulls and an eye patch being paramount. I'd question Why you'd want to do that however as the Drago fig is indeed already larger and cooler than a normal berserker. If it was plastic I could understand.

I am also planning on making Drago from a normal berserker. My main beef with Drago is:

1 - IMHO, as they are functionally the same chasis, there's no reason for Drago to be 2x the size of a standard Berserker. Beast 09 also has this issue (not so bad compared to the plastic Juggernaut, but noticable when compared to the classic Juggernaut), but he's a refitted Juggernaut (heavy boiler) as opposed to a Berserker with more crazy.
2. Drago's arms are incredibly fragile and have a tendency to break due to the chains and axes getting caught on stuff when packing/unpacking. The upper arms need to be replaced with brass rod.

As far as I can tell, the functional differences between a Berserker and Drago are:

1. (and most importantly!) Swap Drago's axes for Destroyer axes.
2. Swap head (or resucplt Berserker head to be more in line with Drago's)
3. Chains / Skull Necklace
4. Biggersize the spikes (optional - I'm going to skip this)

Painting him a different colour than your standard berserkers helps in recognition if fielded with his non-character brothers. Putting him on a scenic base with some "narrative" that implies Drago helps with recognition.

 AduroT wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr. Grey wrote:
What would be acceptable are the "Extremoth" conversions that I've seen done, where Khador players take the Extreme Juggernaut model and combine it with Behemoth parts to make a bigger, badder, better-looking Behemoth. It's hard to mistake a huge warjack with double cannons on it's shoulders and rocket fists as anything other than Behemoth.

This is of course illegal by the PP conversion rules regardless.

Huh, that's actually a really good point. Has anyone ever successfully had an Extremoth approved for use in a major tournament? I'm curious about this now... I know the Extremoth uses about $25 worth of Behemoth bits, but it's not the 50% or "majority" that the official PP conversion rules require.

Hold up the model to the TO and ask him what it is.

There comes a point when a model would be more confusing to play as it's original self than the model it was converted into. The typical extremoth is such a case. It certainly could never be played as a Juggernaut. The behemoth has a benefit of the striking and easily identifiable shoulder bombards to help it be noticed at a glance, so conversions tend to be allowed more frequently. Take the silhouette of almost any jack with two big fists and add shoulder bombards and it will probably look like a behemoth.

I'm a new player, but I have played a lot of 40k. I asked someone a similar question the other day...using a regular warlock as the the epic version. The answer I got was practically "NOOOOO!!! HOW DARE YOU EVER THINK SUCH A THOUGHT!!!" When a simple no would have been sufficient. It seems to me that in general Warmachine players are a bit more uptight about conversions then 40k players. Some of it I think is just the nature of the game, and how the units are defined.

It also seems to me that the answer to all conversion/proxy questions is..."Most players are fine with reasonable conversions; but if you take it to a tourney you are subject to the whim of the TO."

 Geemoney wrote:
I'm a new player, but I have played a lot of 40k. I asked someone a similar question the other day...using a regular warlock as the the epic version. The answer I got was practically "NOOOOO!!! HOW DARE YOU EVER THINK SUCH A THOUGHT!!!" When a simple no would have been sufficient. It seems to me that in general Warmachine players are a bit more uptight about conversions then 40k players. Some of it I think is just the nature of the game, and how the units are defined.

Out of curiosity, what warcaster were you planning on using the prime as the epic? I ask because there is one caster I make an exception for using a prime as an epic (I use pSeverius as eSeverius outside of serious games because the eSevy model is a pain to transport or play with, though I have him with me just in case) The reason you probably got the reaction is, as people have said before, because of model recognition. When I play, I can look at the model to see what it is and associate the appearance with the rules the model has. This is especially important with stuff like eiryss (hate both of them equally, disrupted harby=sad harby, horray devouts)

Some casters can be used as either. Sorsha's only visual difference between her prime and epic versions is really her pose. The same for Caine and Vlad's first 2 versions.

But other casters are AFAIK radically different to their other incarnations to where you would easily lead to confusion.

You could not use pKreoss to proxy eKreoss. They have completely different rules and equipment. And you certaintly couldn't use him for iKreoss. He doesn't even have the same base size and hes on a horse with a big freakin lance.

 AduroT wrote:

Also, I've never been to a single event in the five states I've gamed in that actually enforced the conversion rules as they are written. I've even put my "illegal" figs down across the table from PP staffers and played games with them. Make sure its a reasonable stand in for what you're using it as and make sure your opponent knows what it's supposed to be and you'll likely have few issues.

As far as I can tell, the conversion rules are provided to give the concrete grounds for rejecting a problematic model (or player).
If someone complains about the model, or the TO thinks it's a bad idea, there's a concrete standard to apply.
Gamer: "What do you mean I can't field this lump of twigs and pipe cleaners in your tournament?!"
TO: "It's right here. Your pile of twigs and pipe cleaners is not an acceptable conversion. Here are the points where it doesn't meet the criteria: ..."

The exception provided for the TO's mercy and discretion deals with the rest.

 Geemoney wrote:
I'm a new player, but I have played a lot of 40k. I asked someone a similar question the other day...using a regular warlock as the the epic version. The answer I got was practically "NOOOOO!!! HOW DARE YOU EVER THINK SUCH A THOUGHT!!!" When a simple no would have been sufficient. It seems to me that in general Warmachine players are a bit more uptight about conversions then 40k players. Some of it I think is just the nature of the game, and how the units are defined.

It also seems to me that the answer to all conversion/proxy questions is..."Most players are fine with reasonable conversions; but if you take it to a tourney you are subject to the whim of the TO."

In a friendly pickup game?!? Wow that guy was a jerk and probably not the best person to play against ever.

Personally if you want to use a counts as model against me to try a new list or decide if you want to buy a model. I'm all for it. I'll probably ask you to put an index card or something next to the model to easily remind me of what its supposed to be.

In a tournament no way, but any given day at the FLGS why on earth not?

 darefsky wrote:

 Geemoney wrote:
I'm a new player, but I have played a lot of 40k. I asked someone a similar question the other day...using a regular warlock as the the epic version. The answer I got was practically "NOOOOO!!! HOW DARE YOU EVER THINK SUCH A THOUGHT!!!" When a simple no would have been sufficient. It seems to me that in general Warmachine players are a bit more uptight about conversions then 40k players. Some of it I think is just the nature of the game, and how the units are defined.

It also seems to me that the answer to all conversion/proxy questions is..."Most players are fine with reasonable conversions; but if you take it to a tourney you are subject to the whim of the TO."

In a friendly pickup game?!? Wow that guy was a jerk and probably not the best person to play against ever.

Personally if you want to use a counts as model against me to try a new list or decide if you want to buy a model. I'm all for it. I'll probably ask you to put an index card or something next to the model to easily remind me of what its supposed to be.

In a tournament no way, but any given day at the FLGS why on earth not?

Well certainly the way he phrased his reaction is jerk-ish, but I can't fault him for his central complaint. I think you're well within your rights to say "I really don't want to play with proxies" even in a casual game, especially since model recognition is such a big thing. That said he certainly should have phrased it that way rather than jumping down someone's throat.

I personally play against proxies all the time and wouldn't have an issue with it. Let's be honest that's what using "non-epic as epic" is, it hardly counts as conversion if you're just using another model as a stand in. All the same I probably wouldn't be mad if someone wouldn't play against a game where I was say trying to use a Crusader as the FoS. I'd just expect them to be respectful about declining is all.

Thing about Warmachine that you have to remember when starting.

The game is built to be more competetive then 40k.. the rules actually work, and there is some balance to it.

Also, many play deathclock/ timed turns. (Its not just to rush rush.. but we use it so someone doesnt stand there 20min to find out how to assasinate the enemny caster)

With those in mind, when you look at your opponets army, you need to be able to tell exactly what everything is. You dont want to look at the caster and be like this is the PVersion.. its feat does this.. then move and next turn get screwed by a different feat that you weren't expecting.

This is why conversions are a bit tighter and Warcasters are used for the specific one they are.

Now with that, i would allow it in friendly games if i knew you, i dont mind that much. Vs someone i dont know, please have the correct models and lets have a fun game.

In a Tourney, or league game.. Have the correct models even if i know the person.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Sorsha's only visual difference between her prime and epic versions is really her pose.

Sorcha 2 is wearing a coat similar to Butcher's with the segmented sections, Sorcha 1 isn't(hers is a mini cape and skirt with fur trimmings).

There's actually a number of visible differences between the two, they're just pretty much all on the back half of the model. It's way more than a different pose.

 solkan wrote:

 AduroT wrote:

Also, I've never been to a single event in the five states I've gamed in that actually enforced the conversion rules as they are written. I've even put my "illegal" figs down across the table from PP staffers and played games with them. Make sure its a reasonable stand in for what you're using it as and make sure your opponent knows what it's supposed to be and you'll likely have few issues.

As far as I can tell, the conversion rules are provided to give the concrete grounds for rejecting a problematic model (or player).
If someone complains about the model, or the TO thinks it's a bad idea, there's a concrete standard to apply.
Gamer: "What do you mean I can't field this lump of twigs and pipe cleaners in your tournament?!"
TO: "It's right here. Your pile of twigs and pipe cleaners is not an acceptable conversion. Here are the points where it doesn't meet the criteria: ..."

The exception provided for the TO's mercy and discretion deals with the rest.

That's generally my opinion as well. They're written stricter than they're intended to be enforced.

Also, Vlad1 and Vlad2 have very different weapons. Casual game it should never be a problem, as that's when you're trying out new things and stuff you might not own yet before you buy it. Tournament games, just throwing in an unmodified Warmachine model to represent a different Warmachine model, ie proxying, is wrong. Using a model to convert into a another model is different so long as it's easy to tell what you've done and that it's not meant to be the original model anymore. My Pistol Wraiths are pCaine and Jarl with their heads replaced by skulls. Very simple conversions that don't change much, but anyone who honestly gets confused and thinks I have pCaine or Jarl in my Cryx army... Well there's no helping that.

Chongara wrote:

 darefsky wrote:

 Geemoney wrote:
I'm a new player, but I have played a lot of 40k. I asked someone a similar question the other day...using a regular warlock as the the epic version. The answer I got was practically "NOOOOO!!! HOW DARE YOU EVER THINK SUCH A THOUGHT!!!" When a simple no would have been sufficient. It seems to me that in general Warmachine players are a bit more uptight about conversions then 40k players. Some of it I think is just the nature of the game, and how the units are defined.

It also seems to me that the answer to all conversion/proxy questions is..."Most players are fine with reasonable conversions; but if you take it to a tourney you are subject to the whim of the TO."

In a friendly pickup game?!? Wow that guy was a jerk and probably not the best person to play against ever.

Personally if you want to use a counts as model against me to try a new list or decide if you want to buy a model. I'm all for it. I'll probably ask you to put an index card or something next to the model to easily remind me of what its supposed to be.

In a tournament no way, but any given day at the FLGS why on earth not?

Well certainly the way he phrased his reaction is jerk-ish, but I can't fault him for his central complaint. I think you're well within your rights to say "I really don't want to play with proxies" even in a casual game, especially since model recognition is such a big thing. That said he certainly should have phrased it that way rather than jumping down someone's throat.

I personally play against proxies all the time and wouldn't have an issue with it. Let's be honest that's what using "non-epic as epic" is, it hardly counts as conversion if you're just using another model as a stand in. All the same I probably wouldn't be mad if someone wouldn't play against a game where I was say trying to use a Crusader as the FoS. I'd just expect them to be respectful about declining is all.

To be fair I am exaggerating his reaction a bit and I didn't specify the type of game. I just wanted to know if it was considered acceptable in general. That said his reaction was strong enough that it surprised me. I do appreciate the more reasonable answers that I see here.

In 40k, conversions, counts as, and proxies all fall under a rule of cool: if it looks good, no matter how thinly stretched, you can run stuff. The hobby is paramount, and as long as the differences in units is clear, it's not a huge deal. A huge chunk of upgrades/options in 40k aren't modelled at all (Grenades, skills, marks, etc.) Basically, the expectation is that an opponent or TO would need to disqualify a coutns as model, with the basic assumptoin being that it is ok, with a few excpetions.

Warmachine depends on the models representing one, and only one, set of stats and rules. You can't take an Ironclad and upgrade him. You either take an Ironclad or Rowdy. As others have pointed out, there are timed turns in many events. It helps to know what you're playing against by looking. In short, a player needs to show that his conversion unambigously represpents what it should. A TO or opponent needs to approve a conversion. The basic assumption is that a converted model is not ok, with a few exceptions.

 Geemoney wrote:
I'm a new player, but I have played a lot of 40k. I asked someone a similar question the other day...using a regular warlock as the the epic version. The answer I got was practically "NOOOOO!!! HOW DARE YOU EVER THINK SUCH A THOUGHT!!!" When a simple no would have been sufficient. It seems to me that in general Warmachine players are a bit more uptight about conversions then 40k players. Some of it I think is just the nature of the game, and how the units are defined.

It also seems to me that the answer to all conversion/proxy questions is..."Most players are fine with reasonable conversions; but if you take it to a tourney you are subject to the whim of the TO."

First and foremost, there is a BIG difference to me between proxying (using a model to count as something completely different) and converting. And I have yet to hear of a tournament that the conversions are not completely at the whim of the TO. If you have heard of a tourny (for any minis game) that lets the players decide if their conversions are acceptable let me know!

That said, proxying in any game is a pain, but moreso in WM/H because there are so many character models and variations of models. However, if I was playing someone new who wanted to try out different models before they bought them then sure. I usually have no issue with that. It does become a pain sometimes, but whatevs. If I am not in the mood to deal with playing against it then I just won't play.

I''ve proxied in friendly games before - I even used to have a few blisters of blank bases so I could proxy new units before buying them. I think that as long as your opponent is ok with it, and everything is clearly stated, then there's no problem with proxying. It's not a cheap game, and trying out a model or unit a few times before buying is a good way to go.

I wouldn't dream of proxying anything in a tournament, though. Even in a "friendly" tournament, model recognition is key in a game like Warmachine. Yes, the Butcher of Khardov is dressed exactly the same, and bears the same weapon, as his epic form, Kommander Orsus Zoktavir, but the models have very different poses. Using pButcher in place of eButcher is asking for confusion, because your opponent will (most likely) be familiar with what both models look like, and using one in place of another may cause mistakes.

Conversion in Warmachine, from what I've noticed, fall mainly under the reposing category. Same model, same equipment, etc, but the player has posed it differently from the norm. A few players go all out; someone on the PP boards has a Khador army converted to look like Cygnarans, and someone a few years ago did a Trollbloods army with sculpted Farrow heads to make them look like pigs instead of trolls. But for the most part I think it's reposes and minor additions; things like tacking on barrels and equipment boxes to mercenary jacks and so on.

Blank bases are ok, if you don't use too many of them and you have marked front and back on them.

One unit proxied with bases is ok, your entire army, not so much.

People keep bringing up the Khador/Cygnar conversion and personally, I think that it is very nice but there's no way that I'd want to play against it. It is very confusing, again to me, as to who is whom. If I were playing it I would see a Stryker model and not an Irusk model. I do play with people who do proxy pieces but that army would just make me say "no" to play against it.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
People keep bringing up the Khador/Cygnar conversion and personally, I think that it is very nice but there's no way that I'd want to play against it. It is very confusing, again to me, as to who is whom. If I were playing it I would see a Stryker model and not an Irusk model. I do play with people who do proxy pieces but that army would just make me say "no" to play against it.

Interestingly, this would be one of those occasions where PP says you're in the wrong. That army is actually 100% inside the conversion rules. The biggest changes are headswaps and the addition of lightning coils, and fall entirely within the guidelines.

The piece that I especially recall is the Stryker as Irusk piece. While it may be within the rules for having all PP pieces I would challenge whether it meets the rule that starts the second paragraph under conversions,

"A converted model must contain a majority of parts from the WARMACHINE or HORDES model for which the rules were written."

It would seem to me that the model is mostly Stryker and little, if any, Irusk. Therefore it would be illegal to use as Irusk.

edit: I just looked at the force again and see that it is intended to be a Khador force. Obviously I find it confusing but you are correct it would be within the RAW.

 Spyder68 wrote:
Thing about Warmachine that you have to remember when starting.

The game is built to be more competetive then 40k.. the rules actually work, and there is some balance to it.

Also, many play deathclock/ timed turns. (Its not just to rush rush.. but we use it so someone doesnt stand there 20min to find out how to assasinate the enemny caster)

With those in mind, when you look at your opponets army, you need to be able to tell exactly what everything is. You dont want to look at the caster and be like this is the PVersion.. its feat does this.. then move and next turn get screwed by a different feat that you weren't expecting.

This is why conversions are a bit tighter and Warcasters are used for the specific one they are.

Now with that, i would allow it in friendly games if i knew you, i dont mind that much. Vs someone i dont know, please have the correct models and lets have a fun game.

In a Tourney, or league game.. Have the correct models even if i know the person.

Right on--I completely agree.


To the OP--colossals are somewhat unique, in that when I line up against a Khador army I 'know' that's a Conquest if it's a colossal chassis. Drago v. a Jugger...well during the frantics of my deathclock movement I could easily forget that.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:


It would seem to me that the model is mostly Stryker and little, if any, Irusk. Therefore it would be illegal to use as Irusk.

Your memory of the piece is very off. It was just Irusk with Stryker's head and some coils. The model was 95% Irusk and thus still legally Irusk by the conversion rules.



Even the Epic version is still about 80% Irusk2 with Stryker's head and sword and some coils.



Both are still very recognizably Irusk from the other side of the table and both are very much legally playable as Irusk by the SR2013 rules.

Heck, even my Bane Knights are still 50% PP and legal!

What I love about model recognition in Warmachine is that
it's about recognizing a silhouette. I can't tell custom SM bro
1 from custom SM bro 2, but if I look across the table and see
a dude pushing a flag forward vs. standing at attention, I can
tell the difference between kommandant irusk and supreme
kommandant irusk.

I think that's a ton of fun.