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.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Doesn't name calling require calling people names? Something which I've clearly not done?

I think it was the "wangster" comment, now maybe wangdawgg or wangDDawg or something like that may have more tongue in cheek or whatnot.

Do Americans not have the convention of adding a syllable to the end of someone's first or last name as an informal and spontaneous nickname? Jones-y, The Smithster, Philster, Dave-o etc?

 Azreal13 wrote:
Do Americans not have the convention of adding a syllable to the end of someone's first or last name as an informal and spontaneous nickname? Jones-y, The Smithster, Philster, Dave-o etc?

It happens, but usually as a form of condescension. It usually isn't meant in a fun loving friendly way

Meanwhile, paying more attention to Rule 2 - and Rule 1 - in here...

 Digclaw wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Do Americans not have the convention of adding a syllable to the end of someone's first or last name as an informal and spontaneous nickname? Jones-y, The Smithster, Philster, Dave-o etc?

It happens, but usually as a form of condescension. It usually isn't meant in a fun loving friendly way

Ah well, this side of the pond, calling somebody by a nickname is almost entirely and exclusively an informal and friendly thing to do, unless it's obviously offensive, which is something we only reserve for our close friends and family as a term of endearment.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Yes, the Wangster there, right above my post. I mean, that's the only way I can see "pass muster" making any sense outside of him being a hobby snob and taking issue with someone else's creative decisions because he disagrees with them.

I doubt (though I can't speak for John) that he took huge offense with you coming up with a strange nickname, however potentially offensive the connotations might be. I mean, there's not a whole lot of things outside of an insensitive ethnic stereotype or a piece of genitalia that would make any sense for how you came up with that name. Maybe think for a few seconds before you type something next time?

The other issue with the above quoted post (because for some reason you can't see that either) is that the OP asked what constitutes a good conversion. No matter where you are in relation to the Atlantic Ocean, John answered that question by saying that he does not believe that the fake Necrons are a good counts as for a rubric marine. That's where he draws his line. And for you to say "I can't even begin to imagine where this guy gets off having that opinion".....is in fact.....wait for it.....your OPINION.

My opinion is that your opinion is actually exceedingly stuck up because you're literally saying that what you think is more important than what John thinks, and on this side of the pond, we learned in third grade that that's selfish and bad.

For me personally, I draw the line at using poker chips to represent nurglings. I'd say that's a pretty bad proxy.

Edited in the hope that topic can be located somewhere on the map.

 luke1705 wrote:
For me personally, I draw the line at using poker chips to represent nurglings. I'd say that's a pretty bad proxy.

I can beat that. In the 2002 40K Grand Tournament, one player fielded a WHFB Empire army as Dark Eldar, claiming that he "liked the army, but hated the models."

Pseudomonas wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
@Pseudomas - those aren't Rubric Marines or Daemon engines. Those are not-Necrons.

Originally yes, but as I said they would fit in well when painted up in red, black and brass and the necronesque markings greenstuffed out. Proxies are entirely about fitting the theme of the overall army and the general concept of the particular unit almost irrespective of their original 'purpose'.

Necrons would look like gak although they may well have seen some use as bits for cultists.

They might work better as Rubric Terminators due to size and having a melee weapon.

There often seems to be a subtext to proxies and their acceptibility based on expense. For example, a Dixie cup as a drop pod will rub many players the wrong way, but if you use a faberge egg dusted with Swarovski crystals as a drop pod, that's just classy.

Oh, yeah, the "I spent a ton of money on my army, you should too!" subset. They look down on anything that even LOOKS like you saved money on the conversion, whether that was the intent or not. Heaven forbid you convert generic space marines when there are Forge World minis to be had for a ton more.

My limit is simple. Can I mistake this unit for ANYTHING ELSE in your army? It doesn't have to be standard - indeed, after a while seeing space marines of various colors all the time gets boring, since that's the majority of 40K armies. Good conversions and proxies keep the game alive for a lot of people.

[MOD EDIT - RULE #1 + RULE #2 - Alpharius]

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
then they're not going to pass muster as Rubric Marines, given that I know the fluff states Rubric Marines are just animated suits of SM armor.

They aren't supposed to; Rubic marines are simply the codex entry that most closely mirrors what I would expect from a bunch of deamonic robot infantry which is what they would be representing.

40k has always been about creativity, even if nuGW seems to be working very hard to curb individuality, so I have absolutely no issue with proxies that clearly aren't there purely for cheesy reasons and that involve at least some creativity on the part of the user, be that a unit type representing something that doesn't exist or a model substitution.

Pseudomonas wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
then they're not going to pass muster as Rubric Marines, given that I know the fluff states Rubric Marines are just animated suits of SM armor.

They aren't supposed to; Rubic marines are simply the codex entry that most closely mirrors what I would expect from a bunch of deamonic robot infantry which is what they would be representing.

40k has always been about creativity, even if nuGW seems to be working very hard to curb individuality, so I have absolutely no issue with proxies that clearly aren't there purely for cheesy reasons and that involve at least some creativity on the part of the user, be that a unit type representing something that doesn't exist or a model substitution.

I think this really gets at something important:

One approach is to take the entry codex entry and you then represent it with models.

Another approach is to take the models and then represent them with rules.

Just after 8th came out we were doing initial games at the club and a guy had his betrayal at calth stuff that he painted up as chaos. We were all like "they're cataphracti terminators with whatever weapons they have on them. Let's get going." But no, he had to represent the Chaos Terminator entry in the index despite having built them for 30k in the first place. We were all "just represent what the models have!" but he just couldn't let himself take a grenade harness despite it being right on the model. He hemmed and hawed for almost 20 minutes during army creation because his Cataphractii weren't "passing muster" as the Chaos Terminators while the rest of us were just wanting him to look at each model and write down the needed stats so we can get going.

"I've got this codex entry and I need to find models that will work for it."

"I've got these models and I need to find an entry that will work for it."

Two totally different approaches.

@Pseudomas - OK, fair enough. You want to play your proxies "count as" Rubric Marines, and I understand that.

I still don't think that you've made a particularly good choice for the base model, but I've played against worse. Like stacks of red Solo cups proxied for Drop Pods. Or armless Ork bodies for Boyz. I wasn't particularly happy with those proxies, either.

They're still proxies, and if you brought them to one of our big, casual games, I'd accept them.

However, if this were an old school GT, I'd zero out your modeling scores, and I'd probably dock your sports a point or two for poor model choice.

You might play against a guy who thinks the sportsmanship score is a tool to judge model choice.

Giant advertisement for not going to tournaments

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
@
However, if this were an old school GT, I'd zero out your modeling scores, and I'd probably dock your sports a point or two for poor model choice.

Just as well that I go nowhere near tournaments then and that I have absolutely no interest in your approval.

 Chamberlain wrote:
You might play against a guy who thinks the sportsmanship score is a tool to judge model choice.

Giant advertisement for not going to tournaments

Pretty much. Silliness like this is why I am dreading my first 8th Tournament this Saturday.

I have already had one dude say I am modelling for advantage since all of my old metal Blood Angels are on 25mm bases. I stripped everything and have been rebuilding it all with new bits to update them, but had been out of the 40k loop for so long I had no idea the new base size even exist.

Even if every tournament has a couple guys who thinks using the bases that came with the models is modelling for advantage or that they should use the sportsmanship score to judge your model choices, odds are you won't play them. Most people are reasonable and just want to have a good fun day of gaming.

Unless the guy who says you're modelling for advantage is the TO.

This is when I think hobbyists are more strick on this than tournament dudes.

Looking at Battle for Salvation and daBoyz requirements I see nothing about wysiwyg or even GW models for that matter.

If they arent GW overlorded what is the requirement? I say fun. The more creative and hobby centric the better We creative hobbyists arent lemmings . Dont try to tell me how to paint my toy men.

Pseudomonas wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
@
However, if this were an old school GT, I'd zero out your modeling scores, and I'd probably dock your sports a point or two for poor model choice.

Just as well that I go nowhere near tournaments then and that I have absolutely no interest in your approval.

It isn't the models, it's the unit choice being super bad on your end.

I made the suggestion of using them as Rubric Terminators instead as they have a melee weapon (the Scythe arm thing compared to the power swords) and that those models look pretty decent of size.

Pseudomonas wrote:


I was going to use these are Rubic Marines in a Khornate Chaos marine army. You would be hard pushed to find something that looks less like a Rubic marine.

However they were to represent lesser deamon engines (Rubic Marines have the closest rules to robotic infantry thingies) in a Dark Mechanicus army otherwise filled with cultists and deamon engines so perfectly fitting thematically.

Oh look, yet another company making money selling gw-clone miniatures.

If GW's ideas were original then they could get their lawyers involved and stop things like that. Most of GW's stuff is just not that original though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unless you're being ironic. Like as a reference to how necrons originally were Terminator 2 ripoffs. Even had "I'll be back" rules, right?

morgoth wrote:

Pseudomonas wrote:
[img]

Spoiler:

https://puppetswar.eu/img/p/282-1057-thickbox.jpg

[/img]

I was going to use these are Rubic Marines in a Khornate Chaos marine army. You would be hard pushed to find something that looks less like a Rubic marine.

However they were to represent lesser deamon engines (Rubic Marines have the closest rules to robotic infantry thingies) in a Dark Mechanicus army otherwise filled with cultists and deamon engines so perfectly fitting thematically.

Oh look, yet another company making money selling gw-clone miniatures.

The Lost and the Damned are other Hobbyists!*

I would rather play an all proxy army than an army of grey, armless space marines (again!) any day of the week.


*= A paraphrase of the famous "Hell is Other People" quip.

There's a fine line though.

PuppetsWar stuff tends to be a bit more involved than 'Not-Crons'.

Yes, the look is clearly Necron-inspired, but the final product doesn't really resemble anything GW makes at the moment.

Other manufacturers aren't so subtle, and get horribly sued (right or wrongly)

Pseudomonas wrote:


I was going to use these are Rubic Marines in a Khornate Chaos marine army. You would be hard pushed to find something that looks less like a Rubic marine.

However they were to represent lesser deamon engines (Rubic Marines have the closest rules to robotic infantry thingies) in a Dark Mechanicus army otherwise filled with cultists and deamon engines so perfectly fitting thematically.

Just paint them well and swap out the weapons for proper rubric weapons to be WYSIWYG. Perhaps with magnets to be able to swap out arms.

These would be interesting combat servitors as well.

He doesn't want rubric marines. That's approaching it backwards.

He has these models that with some modification and an appropriate paint job would be cool dark mechanicus daemon robots. Then we went and looked for appropriate rules so he could use them on the table top.

The goal was never to make rubric marines.

Technically, anything other than the original, sanctioned, model is a proxy. So, from my perspective, it's more useful to consider when conversions/proxies cross the line into unacceptability. I use three standards: 1) Silhouette, 2) Footprint, and 3) Threat Profile. The first two are easy enough to understand. The third is a bit more tricky: It's one thing to say a gelatinous blob is a mutated Killa Kan (for example), it's another (and unacceptable) thing to say that the blob's pseudopods 'count as' Rokkits and Saws. On the other hand, playing a gelatinous blob as a Chaos Spawn with the Mark of Nurgle...sure, as long as it adheres to standards 1 and 2.

morgoth wrote:

Pseudomonas wrote:


I was going to use these are Rubic Marines in a Khornate Chaos marine army. You would be hard pushed to find something that looks less like a Rubic marine.

However they were to represent lesser deamon engines (Rubic Marines have the closest rules to robotic infantry thingies) in a Dark Mechanicus army otherwise filled with cultists and deamon engines so perfectly fitting thematically.

Oh look, yet another company making money selling gw-clone miniatures.

Oh look, Morgoth tilting at that particular windmill again...

To me, a conversion has to be mostly built from GW parts. I think Custom Guard armies are the ones that most toe the line between the two. I think these guys are conversions, though others may consider them proxies.







For me, a conversion or proxy has to fit with the rest of the army, be a similar size to the original model and consistent across the entire army. The person using the conversion or proxy has to show some effort toward making the model fit the 40k universe. If someone took a plastic cup and built fins, thrusters and door hinges to make it look more like a real drop pod, I'm happy to play against it.

A unit like this fits and works in a beastmen IG army, but not in a standard cadian force




These Leman Russ scratchbuilds look great and fit the aesthetic of the guard, but would look weird and out of place in a pure space marine army